|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 22:24:28 GMT -5
story at Deadline, but I;ve seen the same report at several sites It's another Malmberg project, so I will believe it is actually happening when I see a trailer and release date announced. This is what, the 4th or 5th time they've signed a deal for something Conan to happen (or been close to a deal, announcement imminent and never appearing) so I've lost faith in their ability to see any kind of project through to fruition without getting stuck in development hell, alienating their media partner, or somehow causing the deal to fall through. And on top of it all, the few things they have gotten released have not been good or very true to Howard, so overall, I am very skeptical about this. I really hope I am wrong, but the current ownership of Conan Properties (and the Howard estate) just do not have a very good track record since they took over. -M
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 30, 2020 23:48:35 GMT -5
One thing I'd like to see in any new Conan movie or tv show is a litle more emphasis on the sorcery aprt of the "sword and sorcery" formula: not in terms of fancy special effects or improbably CGI monsters, but in terms of atmosphere.
But the casting is probably what would make it or break it in the end: hard to find a convincingly larger than life physical specimen with the appropriate kind of screen presence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 2, 2020 13:51:25 GMT -5
I would love such a TV series to adapt several of Howard's stories, presenting Conan at different times in his life (with the make-up department really showing that Conan in one story arc is not the same age as in a previous one). Perhaps each season could focus on, say, two tales, and add a few episodes' worth of material, just so viewers can get attached to the transient supporting cast.
I think it would also be cool if the stories were not told in sequence. That's not how these things are usually done, but that's how the original stories were told, and I think it is part of their charm.
One of my favourite movie Conan scenes of them all is Vincent D'Onofrio (as Robert Howard) telling Renée Zellweger (as Novalyne Pryce) about the character. The scene really captured the sense of timelessness that was a big draw for me when it came to Howard's prose.
Whatever happens, my hope is that if Netflix really does something with the character, it will not be just because it is a marketable property; that it will recognize and make use of its uniqueness.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 2, 2020 15:41:04 GMT -5
Speaking of REH's personal vision of the character he created, one thing I'd like to see someone address, whether it's the writer/director of a Conan movie or the writer of a Conan comic, is Howard's idea of the barbarian/civilised dichotomy, with Howard always valuing the barbarian as stong, healthy, and generally superior in a moral as well as a physical sense to the more or less degenerate civilised people Conan encounters.
This kind of simplistic good vs bad binary opposition has always struck me as a weak point of Howard's work in general but after reading a short bio of him, in I think one of the early Busiek/Nord issues, it was actually more interesting than I had thought: for it seems that at least one of the things that inspired this idea was his experience of predatory capitalists (largely in the oil industry, IIRC) coming to small-town Texas and exploiting the working or lower-middle-class people in a way that left a deep impression on Howard.
For me, this makes the whole idea more interesting - and though I still think a straightforward barbarian=good vs civilised=bad contrast is a bad way to frame the problem, it might be rendered more nuanced if somone somehow brought out this underlying subtext - though once again, if done in too obvious or heavy-handed a manner it could end up failing miserably.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Oct 2, 2020 20:41:46 GMT -5
I know a lot of Conan purists don’t care for the Arnold interpretations, but I still really enjoy them for what they are. Yes, even ‘The Destroyer’.
And maybe it’s too late (should’ve happened 10-15 years ago) but I’d still love to see Arnold as an aged King Conan with his heir being the main focus of the film/series (not sure who it would be, Mamoa had the look but he was stuck in a craptastic movie).
Maybe give Arnold one last epic, final battle at the end against Thoth-Amon to close it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 2, 2020 21:34:05 GMT -5
Speaking of REH's personal vision of the character he created, one thing I'd like to see someone address, whether it's the writer/director of a Conan movie or the writer of a Conan comic, is Howard's idea of the barbarian/civilised dichotomy, with Howard always valuing the barbarian as stong, healthy, and generally superior in a moral as well as a physical sense to the more or less degenerate civilised people Conan encounters. This kind of simplistic good vs bad binary opposition has always struck me as a weak point of Howard's work in general but after reading a short bio of him, in I think one of the early Busiek/Nord issues, it was actually more interesting than I had thought: for it seems that at least one of the things that inspired this idea was his experience of predatory capitalists (largely in the oil industry, IIRC) coming to small-town Texas and exploiting the working or lower-middle-class people in a way that left a deep impression on Howard. For me, this makes the whole idea more interesting - and though I still think a straightforward barbarian=good vs civilised=bad contrast is a bad way to frame the problem, it might be rendered more nuanced if somone somehow brought out this underlying subtext - though once again, if done in too obvious or heavy-handed a manner it could end up failing miserably. Which is part of why I prefer Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories, as the characters are more realistic and sophisticated, and just plain fun. I have been aching for someone to adapt them for years, even more than Elric. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 7, 2020 12:31:59 GMT -5
Speaking of REH's personal vision of the character he created, one thing I'd like to see someone address, whether it's the writer/director of a Conan movie or the writer of a Conan comic, is Howard's idea of the barbarian/civilised dichotomy, with Howard always valuing the barbarian as stong, healthy, and generally superior in a moral as well as a physical sense to the more or less degenerate civilised people Conan encounters. This kind of simplistic good vs bad binary opposition has always struck me as a weak point of Howard's work in general but after reading a short bio of him, in I think one of the early Busiek/Nord issues, it was actually more interesting than I had thought: for it seems that at least one of the things that inspired this idea was his experience of predatory capitalists (largely in the oil industry, IIRC) coming to small-town Texas and exploiting the working or lower-middle-class people in a way that left a deep impression on Howard. For me, this makes the whole idea more interesting - and though I still think a straightforward barbarian=good vs civilised=bad contrast is a bad way to frame the problem, it might be rendered more nuanced if somone somehow brought out this underlying subtext - though once again, if done in too obvious or heavy-handed a manner it could end up failing miserably. Which is part of why I prefer Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories, as the characters are more realistic and sophisticated, and just plain fun. I have been aching for someone to adapt them for years, even more than Elric. I would strongly argue against Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser being more realistic than Conan!!! Strongly!!! (And I say that as a big fan of Leiber's two heroes).  Conan is a very down to Earth character. He's not a hired hand to wizards with too many or not enough eyes, and is not targeted by Death itself. He's not a wizard's apprentice and he's not living in a strange and unnatural world with a name that's an anagram of Nowhen. Conan is a country bumpkin from our regular Earth, the son of an ordinary blacksmith. The only thing that saves him from being completely forgotten by history is that his granddad, who did some traveling in his youth, filled his grandson's head with tales of faraway lands; thats what gave Conan his wanderlust and caused him to try his hand at different careers. Sure, he eventually became a king, but that was not because he was the lost heir to some troubled dynasty or that he was any kind of "chosen one"; it was the result of circumstances and personal ambition. In a sense, Conan is an idealized version of his creator, but not in the way that amateur psychologists like De Camp like to think. It's not the muscle and the babes that Howard would have envied Conan: it was his ability to measure up to the powers that be (the oil barons mentioned by berkley), to those who tried to tell him how he had to live his life. Conan was all about the freedom to follow one's dreams, a quintessential American aspiration. What prevents the "barbarism good, civilization bad" from being a simplistic trope is that Howard did not really believe that civilization was evil (as he expounded in his exchanges with Lovecraft, who shuddered with horror at the idea that barbarism was anything to see with sympathy). He did, however, see how civilisation could taint the simple and honest nature of a character and replace it with calculating hypocrisy. However, as Conan himself demonstrates, it is quite possible to take what is good about civilization (languages, statecraft, a fair and just rule of law) without letting oneself be corrupted by it. I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating: in my opinion, the best Conan scene in comicdom is one written by Kurt Busiek; one in which a young Conan, at the end of an adventure, makes fun of philosophers who discuss abstract things... but wishes to remain just a little longer to listen to them. That illustrates perfectly the dichotomy in his character, when it comes to civilization: he claims to view it as something to be somewhat despised, but is also fascinated by it. Because he might be a bumpkin, but he's also a smart fellow... and something of a romantic. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 7, 2020 14:10:32 GMT -5
Which is part of why I prefer Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories, as the characters are more realistic and sophisticated, and just plain fun. I have been aching for someone to adapt them for years, even more than Elric.
Conan is a very down to Earth character. He's not a hired hand to wizards with too many or not enough eyes, and is not targeted by Death itself. He's not a wizard's apprentice and he's not living in a strange and unnatural world with a name that's an anagram of Nowhen. Conan is a country bumpkin from our regular Earth, the son of an ordinary blacksmith. The only thing that saves him from being completely forgotten by history is that his granddad, who did some traveling in his youth, filled his grandson's head with tales of faraway lands; thats what gave Conan his wanderlust and caused him to try his hand at different careers. Sure, he eventually became a king, but that was not because he was the lost heir to some troubled dynasty or that he was any kind of "chosen one"; it was the result of circumstances and personal ambition. In a sense, Conan is an idealized version of his creator, but not in the way that amateur psychologists like De Camp like to think. It's not the muscle and the babes that Howard would have envied Conan: it was his ability to measure up to the powers that be (the oil barons mentioned by berkley ), to those who tried to tell him how he had to live his life. Conan was all about the freedom to follow one's dreams, a quintessential American aspiration. What prevents the "barbarism good, civilization bad" from being a simplistic trope is that Howard did not really believe that civilization was evil (as he expounded in his exchanges with Lovecraft, who shuddered with horror at the idea that barbarism was anything to see with sympathy). He did, however, see how civilisation could taint the simple and honest nature of a character and replace it with calculating hypocrisy. However, as Conan himself demonstrates, it is quite possible to take what is good about civilization (languages, statecraft, a fair and just rule of law) without letting oneself be corrupted by it. I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating: in my opinion, the best Conan scene in comicdom is one written by Kurt Busiek; one in which a young Conan, at the end of an adventure, makes fun of philosophers who discuss abstract things... but wishes to remain just a little longer to listen to them. That illustrates perfectly the dichotomy in his character, when it comes to civilization: he claims to view it as something to be somewhat despised, but is also fascinated by it. Because he might be a bumpkin, but he's also a smart fellow... and something of a romantic. Nope. F & GM have real personalities, real motivations, feet of clay, they make mistakes, they have a sense of fun and adventure, they are serious when warranted, they don't always win. They are more relatable and more nuanced. I have always found Conan very one dimensional. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 7, 2020 14:52:05 GMT -5
I would strongly argue against Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser being more realistic than Conan!!! Strongly!!! (And I say that as a big fan of Leiber's two heroes).
Conan is a very down to Earth character. He's not a hired hand to wizards with too many or not enough eyes, and is not targeted by Death itself. He's not a wizard's apprentice and he's not living in a strange and unnatural world with a name that's an anagram of Nowhen. Conan is a country bumpkin from our regular Earth, the son of an ordinary blacksmith. The only thing that saves him from being completely forgotten by history is that his granddad, who did some traveling in his youth, filled his grandson's head with tales of faraway lands; thats what gave Conan his wanderlust and caused him to try his hand at different careers. Sure, he eventually became a king, but that was not because he was the lost heir to some troubled dynasty or that he was any kind of "chosen one"; it was the result of circumstances and personal ambition. In a sense, Conan is an idealized version of his creator, but not in the way that amateur psychologists like De Camp like to think. It's not the muscle and the babes that Howard would have envied Conan: it was his ability to measure up to the powers that be (the oil barons mentioned by berkley ), to those who tried to tell him how he had to live his life. Conan was all about the freedom to follow one's dreams, a quintessential American aspiration. What prevents the "barbarism good, civilization bad" from being a simplistic trope is that Howard did not really believe that civilization was evil (as he expounded in his exchanges with Lovecraft, who shuddered with horror at the idea that barbarism was anything to see with sympathy). He did, however, see how civilisation could taint the simple and honest nature of a character and replace it with calculating hypocrisy. However, as Conan himself demonstrates, it is quite possible to take what is good about civilization (languages, statecraft, a fair and just rule of law) without letting oneself be corrupted by it. I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating: in my opinion, the best Conan scene in comicdom is one written by Kurt Busiek; one in which a young Conan, at the end of an adventure, makes fun of philosophers who discuss abstract things... but wishes to remain just a little longer to listen to them. That illustrates perfectly the dichotomy in his character, when it comes to civilization: he claims to view it as something to be somewhat despised, but is also fascinated by it. Because he might be a bumpkin, but he's also a smart fellow... and something of a romantic. Nope. F & GM have real personalities, real motivations, feet of clay, they make mistakes, they have a sense of fun and adventure, they are serious when warranted, they don't always win. They are more relatable and more nuanced. I have always found Conan very one dimensional. Your mileage may vary. Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are certainly colourful and multi-faceted, but they are also very much fantasy characters compared to the earthy Cimmerian. |
|
