|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 16, 2017 15:23:22 GMT -5
Okay, I'm just a grumbling fan and have no idea what the real problem is, but...
Back in the '70s, there were rumours in the pages of Savage sword of a Conan novel (or novelette) that Roy had written, and that simply would not get approved. It was apparently, if memory serves, "too comic-booky". All right, even dismissing any temptation to criticize the prose works that were approved back then (the dreadful "spider god" comes to mind, as do the very formulaic "Conan and the sword of Skelos" or "Conan the mercenary"), it's true that there few Conan books published in those days and that the PTB might have wanted to keep a tight rein on the production.
But then TOR got the license, and reams and reams of paper were often wasted for the publication of boring Conan wannabe stories, in which there were far more coals of lump than diamonds. I thought Roy, responsible for a lot of Conan's popularity in the '70s, had gotten a raw deal.
Now this. Dark Horse may have problems with the current Thomas/Grindberg project, and that's fine, but I don't think it's inappropriate to point out that not all of the Dark Horse Conan was Busiek, Truman or Van Lente... There were a lot of pretty bland (or even bad) books in there as well, especially in the limited series.
Is Roy getting a raw deal again? The guy knows Conan inside and out. Even his "Road of kings" series, which was poorly received by the buying public, was actually quite good; I believe the art hurt it the most, and not even because it was bad; it's just that it may not have been suited to the title.
I really hope this gets green-lighted. Roy has written a lot of excellent Conan, plenty of good Conan, and very little bad Conan. As for Grindberg, he's a great choice as an artist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 15:38:54 GMT -5
Now this. Dark Horse may have problems with the current Thomas/Grindberg project, and thats fine, but I don't think it's inappropriate to point out that not all of the Dark Horse Conan was Busiek, Truman or Van Lente... There were a lot of pretty bland (or even bad) books in there as well, especially in the limited series. From Tom's statement though, it is Conan Properties, not Dark Horse that had the problem and pulled the plug, I don't think Dark Horse had any say in it once that happened. Since Cnan properties is part of whatever the hell Paradox is now, their issue could be it's not like Arnie's Conan for all we know. That seems to be all they want to do with the property. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 16, 2017 15:45:00 GMT -5
Now this. Dark Horse may have problems with the current Thomas/Grindberg project, and thats fine, but I don't think it's inappropriate to point out that not all of the Dark Horse Conan was Busiek, Truman or Van Lente... There were a lot of pretty bland (or even bad) books in there as well, especially in the limited series. From Tom's statement though, it is Conan Properties, not Dark Horse that had the problem and pulled the plug, I don't think Dark Horse had any say in it once that happened. Since Conan properties is part of whatever the hell Paradox is now, their issue could be it's not like Arnie's Conan for all we know. That seems to be all they want to do with the property. -M Makes sense... Paradox has, overall, always struck me as being a little confused as to what their plans for Conan are (apart from making money). They liked the publication of the original Howard tales, which should put them in the purist category, but they also like the Arnie stuff, which does not. I'm almost ashamed to say this, but I wish Disney would buy the whole thing; Conan, Sonja, Kane, the entire Howard intellectual property. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 16, 2017 21:31:35 GMT -5
Disney is doing alright with Marvel and Star Wars so far... so yeah, I almost agree. Roy Thomas is 2nd only to REH himself in making Conan what he is today... telling him he can't tell a story he wants to tell seems insane to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 22:50:48 GMT -5
Disney is doing alright with Marvel and Star Wars so far... so yeah, I almost agree. Roy Thomas is 2nd only to REH himself in making Conan what he is today... telling him he can't tell a story he wants to tell seems insane to me. Loathe as I am to admit it, I would say both L. Sprague de Camp and Lin Carter are far and away more important than Roy Thomas in making Conan what he is today and if it weren't for them, Conan as a property would be just another forgotten pulp character and Roy would never have encountered him. You may not like what they did in terms of edits or writing, but they put Conan on the map of pop culture consciousness and were instrumental to the growth of sword & sorcery as a genre that grew and thrived making Conan a phenomenon long before Roy ever touched the character. And I would argue that Roy's best Conan stories in the comics have always been adaptations of other Howard non-Conan tales turned into Conan tales (a practice started by none other than de Camp & Carter) rather than original Conan tales he developed himself have you read Horn of Azoth/seen Conan the Destroyer?). Roy was certainly a key figure in the development of Conan's popularity, but not second to REH himsself and it's not a contribution that hasn't had a fair share of missteps too, so I am not going to jump to conclusions as to why the story got scrapped. Paradox is a collection of idiots, but that doesn't mean Roy should have a blank slate on their property. -M |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 16, 2017 23:10:34 GMT -5
I would argue that Conan wouldn't be known outside hard core pulp fans without his becoming a success at Marvel (which lead to the Arnold movie), and that there is no success at Marvel without Roy Thomas. Sure de Camp and Carter did stuff, but was Conan really very popular in the 50s and 60s? I mean, yeah, everyone and their brother was trying to write fantasy and sci-fi at the time, so of course old properties would get brought back, but would Conan been any more successful than any other pulp hero in comics without Thomas?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 23:26:02 GMT -5
I would argue that Conan wouldn't be known outside hard core pulp fans without his becoming a success at Marvel (which lead to the Arnold movie), and that there is no success at Marvel without Roy Thomas. Sure de Camp and Carter did stuff, but was Conan really very popular in the 50s and 60s? I mean, yeah, everyone and their brother was trying to write fantasy and sci-fi at the time, so of course old properties would get brought back, but would Conan been any more successful than any other pulp hero in comics without Thomas? The Ace/Lancer books sold more and were available more widely and more influential in building the Conan fanbase than the Conan comic ever was/did and there are legions of Conan fans who never read a Marvel comic but who devoured the prose versions brought back to the public eye by de Camp and Carter's revival of the character. In terms of appearance, the Frazetta covers to those books inform a lot more people's image of Conan than Smith or Buscema because the books reached a wider audience than the comics ever did. More Conan fans can tell you who de Camp, Carter and Frazetta are than could tell you who Roy Thomas or any of the Marvel artists who worked on the comics. And the Frazetta paintings were more instrumental to the movie getting made than the comics, successful or not. Di Laurentis was familiar with/a fan of Frazetta's work and that turned him onto the property of Conan and his influence got the movie going in Hollywood, not the comics. Successful comics meant squat all to Hollywood in the 70s and early 80s when they were trying to get the movie made. -M |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 16, 2017 23:31:49 GMT -5
Really? That seems incredible to me, but if that's the way it happened, you're right of course... I guess I'm placing current sensibilities where they don't belong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 23:56:04 GMT -5
Frazetta was well known in Hollywood for his movie poster work long before the Conan movie (or comic book)...    so a familiarity with his work was a selling point in trying t get backing for the Conan film. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 17, 2017 6:15:48 GMT -5
I would argue that Conan wouldn't be known outside hard core pulp fans without his becoming a success at Marvel (which lead to the Arnold movie), and that there is no success at Marvel without Roy Thomas. Sure de Camp and Carter did stuff, but was Conan really very popular in the 50s and 60s? I mean, yeah, everyone and their brother was trying to write fantasy and sci-fi at the time, so of course old properties would get brought back, but would Conan been any more successful than any other pulp hero in comics without Thomas? The Ace/Lancer books sold more and were available more widely and more influential in building the Conan fanbase than the Conan comic ever was/did and there are legions of Conan fans who never read a Marvel comic but who devoured the prose versions brought back to the public eye by de Camp and Carter's revival of the character. In terms of appearance, the Frazetta covers to those books inform a lot more people's image of Conan than Smith or Buscema because the books reached a wider audience than the comics ever did. More Conan fans can tell you who de Camp, Carter and Frazetta are than could tell you who Roy Thomas or any of the Marvel artists who worked on the comics. And the Frazetta paintings were more instrumental to the movie getting made than the comics, successful or not. Di Laurentis was familiar with/a fan of Frazetta's work and that turned him onto the property of Conan and his influence got the movie going in Hollywood, not the comics. Successful comics meant squat all to Hollywood in the 70s and early 80s when they were trying to get the movie made. -M Agreed on the effect of the paperbacks... but I am convinced that it is Frazetta, not deCamp, who was the deciding factor. The Gnome press hardcovers hardly set the world on fire, after all. Regarding the Thomas stories, I agree that there were duds among them... Roy is capable of writing a bad Conan story, as many issues of Conan the adventurer demonstrate. However, his best efforts were not necessarily adaptations; the entire siege of Makkalet story arc (and the song of Red Sonja in particular) was among the very best Conan stories ever. Roy's telling of the origin of Bêlit blows Poul Anderson's similar effort out of the water, and being compared favourably to Poul Anderson is a pretty good thing. Mostly, Roy has a good idea of who Conan is and what makes him click. |
|
bran
Full Member
Posts: 227 
|
Post by bran on Mar 28, 2017 5:14:24 GMT -5
Popularization and the movie getting made is not necessarily a good thing, if you have to change the characters, or drastically alter their already established history. Most impotently, REH's yarns are full of subtext and hidden meanings, which are nowhere to be seen in the movies.
One and the only goal of a plot device where a little boy's family/the entire village is slaughtered and boy enslaved, is so that the audience goes "aaaah poor boy", so everyone roots for the boy from the get go. It's cheesy as hell, but also - how can you add the prequel. Conan encountered many adventures before the age of 21 (and never was enslaved), which is as opposite to spinning the wheel as you can get.
Roy Thomas gets REH's characters (and the history/Hyborian World if you will), I hope they clear up bureaucracy and finish the gig.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 28, 2017 8:26:16 GMT -5
Conan encountered many adventures before the age of 21 (and never was enslaved), which is as opposite to spinning the wheel as you can get. I still can't bring myself to like the Conan movie, even based on its own merits, because it so badly mischaracterized its main character. The Friedrich Nietzsche quote from the film's intro should have reminded the filmmakers that Conan is very much about the "master morality" and not at all about the "slave morality". (Perhaps a quote by Sartre would have been more appropriate, as Conan's character is pretty much about radical freedom). From a very young age, Howard's Conan is the kind of man who does what he wants, one who refuses to see his freedom curtailed by either the will of others or the rules of society. He plays along when it suits him, and breaks the law when it suits him... it's all one to him. Conan would never have allowed himself to be chained to a wheel; he would have died fighting before letting it happen, or would have died trying to escape later on. In any situation he's the one to take charge, to show initiative, to try and turn the tables on his opponents. He's not only strong and skilled in battle; he's also very clever and supremely self-reliant. The movie Conan is a sad, kind of pathetic man-child. Used as a beast of burden for years and years, then as a circus animal, he developed physically but not mentally or emotionally. He never acts on his own, but only reacts to events... and that only after he is forced to stop doing nothing but what he's told, when his master kicks him loose. His life is never his own: first he's just property, and then does what Valeria wants, then lets himself be ruled by an old grudge. (A quest for revenge is a good theme for an adventure movie, but honestly... does someone wait a dozen years before doing anything about getting revenge, if it is that important to them? In the film, it looks as if Conan decides to avenge his family just because he's got nothing better to do after losing his cushy job as a stud and arena star). The Howard Conan would never have been a pawn like that. He'd have been pro-active from day one. |
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Mar 28, 2017 8:47:50 GMT -5
I still really love the Arnold Conan the Barbarian (the Destroyer is a different story entirely).
Sure, it has little in common with the classic interpretations of Conan, and Arnold essentially portrays the character as little more than a lumbering brute, but I still find it immensely entertaining.
Especially the raid on Thulsa Doom's palace.
The beginning monologue by Conan's father is fantastic. The entire opening is, for that matter.
|
|
bran
Full Member
Posts: 227
|
Post by bran on Mar 29, 2017 2:45:24 GMT -5
Yeah movie Conan is quite a nice guy, with the ton of muscles. As always Hollywood over-compensates the lack of mental strength with physical abilities.
Conan from the books (or many comic-book adaptations) is a very agile brute: A thief, a pirate, a notorious womanizer, a mercenary, a king - almost anything but the righteous avenger. His self-interest comes first, if it coincides with some righteous cause all that better.
Not Arnie's fault thought, it's just overall direction/dialogs/characters. Movie-template they used does not go along to well Friedrich Nietzsche's quote from the start IMO.
Personally I hope to see more Conan movies, and I think it's fantastic material if they stay faithful to the original books. Not necessarily technically (the adventure can be different, or names of places) - but the characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 13:07:39 GMT -5
Yeah movie Conan is quite a nice guy, with the ton of muscles. As always Hollywood over-compensates the lack of mental strength with physical abilities. Conan from the books (or many comic-book adaptations) is a very agile brute: A thief, a pirate, a notorious womanizer, a mercenary, a king - almost anything but the righteous avenger. His self-interest comes first, if it coincides with some righteous cause all that better. Not Arnie's fault thought, it's just overall direction/dialogs/characters. Movie-template they used does not go along to well Friedrich Nietzsche's quote from the start IMO. Personally I hope to see more Conan movies, and I think it's fantastic material if they stay faithful to the original books. Not necessarily technically (the adventure can be different, or names of places) - but the characters. You will not see a Conan movie faithful to the Howard material while Paradox controls the Howard properties. They all want to exploit the Arnie movie as THE Conan and could care less about any other aspect of the passel of properties they own as long as revenue comes in from it. All their efforts now are trying to get another Arnie Conan flcik financed. -M |
|
