|
Post by Aryeh on Jan 23, 2020 20:26:24 GMT -5
I have a little go at Malmberg in my posts now and then, but I gotta acknowledge that REH fans owe a huge thanks to Fredrik Malmberg and also the REH fans and scholars that made the original unaltered works of REH available after so many decades. That is the most important thing really, movies & TV , Comics and video games mean nothing without the original yarns by REH to inspire them.
I highly value R.E. Howard's Conan stories, plus several non-Conan stories. Still, he is neither Shakespeare nor Marcel Proust. I read both the recently published originals and, on the other hand, the versions that were printed in magazines. I don't think the printed versions lost much. I think the difference is not of that important unless one is a pulp-story genre historian. The essence is present already in the material which was printed before.
Now, precisely because REH's Conan stories are so filled with what S. King called "glow", I want to see a film version of those stories or at least elements of those stories, and with this main character. I think film is the last really alive art, and on the other hand, that REH Conan stories are just asking to be filmed. The same way for example Nine Inch Nails music asked to be used in films long before it was (and then when it finally was used in a film, it won an Oscar). Also, let's not overlook the fact that one of the films based on REH was a master-piece (I mean the Milius' one of course). If it worked once, it can work again. Just like Nosferatu showed Dracula deserves to be explored on film, and then we got the Bela Lugosi version, the Jack Palance version, the Christopher Lee serial, the F.F. Coppola's master-piece... I believe Conan can do something like that. But this is what Malmberg is preventing.
And he literally is. John Milius wrote an excellent script for the sequel, and nothing happened. Instead of using that script, Malmberg took a novel that has nothing to do with Conan, hired writers who are simply pen for hire and are not inspired to write Conan, so of course they could not get this right. Why did he do that? Because he doesn't want a big name taking over. Just like Marvel today that doesn't want any artist to be in charge so they fire anyone with too original ideas. Corporations and businessmen want to have the last word and want full control. But they are not artists and don't know what to do. So they make a compromise and hire lesser artists just so they can keep control.
Malmberg ignored not just Milius, but also Coppola who offered to give a hand if Milius is brought back as a director. And then Malmberg also ignored Paul Verhoeven who offered to direct Conan sequel. That is just arrogant, and is in fact a sabotage. Malmberg himself openly sabotaged chances for a creation of another great Conan film.
Before Malmberg there was Marvel's Conan done by Roy Thomas and John Buscema among other artists, and it was great; there was a film which is a master-piece, and then another film which was great in its own way.
Now, there is one good thing done while Malmberg had REH rights. Glénat's Conan -- it is inspired, everything around this project is well organized, it represents a new approach, a fresh approach. But, the catch is, as all of you know, Malmberg had absolutely nothing to do with this since Glénat is based in France and in Europe REH is now a common good.
|
|
|
Post by attilaman66 on Jan 24, 2020 11:12:34 GMT -5
I think you and I need to agree to disagree. I do know that Arnold has had a BIG impact on movies and in the entertainment biz. And yes, he will and already has cemented his name and persona in movies. However, Brando was known for his acting chops. Arnold, not at all. I'm not saying it was easy for Arnold to break into Hollywood, but lets face it, people didn't go see his movies because he was a great actor. Great entertainer, yes.
The Arnold Conan movie was great for what it was. Good plot, good characters, good wardrobe and musical score. But, was it a good representation of REH's Conan or stories? I think not. So IMO, Arnold and Milius did bring Conan into the mainstream, but at what cost? It was good back then, but I believe we cant get REH's Conan on TV or Movies now because of it. I think the fact that Arnold is old now also proves my point. He was known for his size and action, not acting. He is cemented in the minds of everyone as Conan and none of the mainstream Conan fans want any other actor to play the part.
How have any of his movie done since his return? Not good, but look at other actors his age or older (Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, Harrison Ford, Samuel Jackson, Angela Bassett, Morgan Freeman). These actors still pack a punch, because they are not "one dimensional". And lets face it, Arnold had chances to make more Conan movies after CTD, but for whatever reasons he didn't. One of the chances he turned down was a script that was based off of HOTD because he didn't like the script.
For whatever reason Malmberg did try to get another Arnold movie off the ground, and yes it was based off of a non-REH book, but at that point what did it matter? They never did a movie based off REH with Arnold so why start now? Even when they got busted for that script, they did get a new writer and continued on with the project. But, after all the "flops" Arnold was pumping out, it was over.
They made a decision (Milius) back then to portray Conan as a freed slave that sets out for revenge. That's great, it works. I like a good "revenge" movie just as much as the next guy. But IMO a good plot, good acting, drama and suspense should be the driving factor in a movie and good action should be the byproduct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 12:26:03 GMT -5
We seem to be going round n' round in circles again. For now, it seems unlikely Cabinet/Pathfinder entertainment can convince any studio to take a chance with Conan. There's no point in fantasizing about the return of Arnold Schwarzenegger as King Conan or Ryan Condal's version of Conan. I'm done until something is officially confirmed. By Crom and Tengri if they released a trailer a couple of weeks before the release of a movie or TV series I'd still not trust em
|
|
|
Post by Von K on Jan 24, 2020 13:25:25 GMT -5
Stephen King mentions Robert Bloch's reaction in the quote I included in one of my previous posts. In 1934 Bloch wrote that Conan is a boring stereotype who "has every month slain a new wizard, tackled a new monster, come to a violent sudden end that was averted (incredibly enough!) in just the nick of time, and won a new girlfriend, each of whose penchant for nudism won her a place of honor, either on the cover or on the inner illustration."
Hi Aryeh, just thought I'd add some context for the Bloch letter. In short, Bloch was a teenager when he wrote that. To a degree he’s basically accusing REH of having good commercial sense for writing and marketing a pulp serial for that period, and inadvertently betraying his own lack of same. Even HP Lovecraft missed the commercial side of the Conan yarns too in his defense of REH to Bloch, though he conceded that he thought the Conan yarns had too much Blood and Thunder for Weird Tales for his taste. Thankfully REH knew better than both of them about that side of his craft otherwise we wouldn’t be here discussing this now. There’s a fantastic article filling out the context and going into detail on Bloch and Lovecraft's correspondence on the issue by our own Bobby Derrie here if you’ve time to read it: Bloch vs. Conan by Bobby Derieonanunderwood5.blogspot.com/2018/01/fan-mail-bloch-vs-conan-by-bobby-derie.html
|
|
|
Post by Aryeh on Jan 24, 2020 21:06:25 GMT -5
In short, Bloch was a teenager when he wrote that. Yeah, I know, plus I read the article you linked before. I mentioned and partially quoted Bloch's letter regarding Conan in order to show that Conan became a laughing stock very early. I don't think pointing out in the direction of Bloch's age when he wrote this or, for that matter, saying he "misunderstood" something really covers anything. If it wasn't Bloch, it would have been someone else, simply because this stuff he writes about is there, it is immanent to the subject he was writing about. Great fantasy writers such as Moorcock and K.E. Wagner did all they could to go in another direction, as far as they could in order to escape the "noble savage /half-wit brute" stigma which comes from REH's Conan reputation.
We who know or at least who are willing to bet Conan is not reducible to those stereotypes need to work a bit harder in order to show that. So far I don't think anyone did it successfully. Lorenzo DiTommaso, Jeffrey Shanks, Patrice Louinet and Jared van Duinen wrote some really valuable stuff about REH's Conan, though. On the other hand, John Milius, who knows his Freud and Frazer, did his own successful reading through writing his own Conan in his own film...
But, was it a good representation of REH's Conan or stories? I think not. So IMO, Arnold and Milius did bring Conan into the mainstream, but at what cost? It was good back then, but I believe we cant get REH's Conan on TV or Movies now because of it. I don't have the time nor do I think this forum is the right place for me to develop this at length, but the way I see it, Milius did for Conan the same thing Coppola did for Dracula. True, some of it is not in the original writings by original authors; yet those original authors based their creations on known myths, cultural "archetypes", etc. Characters such as Dracula or Conan are in some part in direct relation with their antecedents, they are reflections of their antecedents; and in some part they are in non-relation with their antecedents (they are repressions /negations /negative reflections of...). Coppola and Milius recognized both those reflections and those repressions and included them in their portrayals of these characters. I guess one would have to go back to Freud and Frazer to show how right Milius was to for example represent Conan as slave, etc.
But even if we leave this I wrote above just now aside, I believe anyone who knows REH's stories can see that Conan the Barbarian (1982) is a huge monument to REH. And really, this film is like REH meets Ingmar Bergman in many ways. People who are dismissing it lightly either don't know this film well (so they need to re-read REH and then watch the film again), or they don't know cinema, myths, etc. If the latter, then I don't think one should worry about them cause they'd be against anything associated with REH etc. for some other reason.
By Crom and Tengri if they released a trailer a couple of weeks before the release of a movie or TV series I'd still not trust em
Yup. Same here.
|
|
|
Post by Von K on Jan 25, 2020 9:10:41 GMT -5
In short, Bloch was a teenager when he wrote that. Yeah, I know, plus I read the article you linked before. I mentioned and partially quoted Bloch's letter regarding Conan in order to show that Conan became a laughing stock very early. I don't think pointing out in the direction of Bloch's age when he wrote this or, for that matter, saying he "misunderstood" something really covers anything. If it wasn't Bloch, it would have been someone else, simply because this stuff he writes about is there, it is immanent to the subject he was writing about. That was just to stress that Bloch was young and unpublished at the time trying to make a name for himself by taking a swipe at one of the magazines best writers. Early 20th century flame bait, which Wright played up. There might possibly be some envy at work there as well. I like REH’s nonchalance about the whole thing. And Bloch’s ultimate conclusion: You said: I agree. John Milius’ is a great filmmaker and CtB 82 had a thematic depth and cohesion which both Destroyer and the 2011 movie lacked. He did play fast and loose with REH’s material in CtB 82 though. There’s not much of REH’s Conan in there. He kind of mixed and matched various elements from REH. Combining Belit with Valeria and drawing on the Kull yarns for some parts, like Thulsa Doom. Conan’s capture in the movie probably was adapted from Kull’s stint as a galley slave. As far as I know John Milius’ CtB 82 is still the most financially and artistically successful S+S movie ever made. That’s a hell of an achievement.
|
|
|
Post by attilaman66 on Jan 25, 2020 12:15:41 GMT -5
Hun is right, I don't want to beat a dead horse. I'll just say that I do respect your position on this Aryeh, but I disagree. And I will leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by Aryeh on Jan 25, 2020 16:02:00 GMT -5
On the other hand, John Milius, who knows his Freud and Frazer, did his own successful reading through writing his own Conan in his own film... He did play fast and loose with REH’s material in CtB 82 though. There’s not much of REH’s Conan in there. He kind of mixed and matched various elements from REH. Combining Belit with Valeria and drawing on the Kull yarns for some parts, like Thulsa Doom. Conan’s capture in the movie probably was adapted from Kull’s stint as a galley slave. As far as I know John Milius’ CtB 82 is still the most financially and artistically successful S+S movie ever made. That’s a hell of an achievement.
I mentioned Sigmund Freud and James Frazer because they worked hard on interpreting not just separately isolated myths, but also on comparative mythology and religion. Namely, I don't think one can really read proto-myths by isolating one of them -- and Conan stories are in essence reflections /repressions of numerous myths and religious tales that existed before REH (for example, we encounter a guy running after his own head in a tale of Saint Denis). What I mean is, for example, if one really wants to read The Lord of the Rings, one cannot do it unless one recognizes in it the reflection /repression relations it has to Wagner's Ring cycle -- if one doesnt take Wagner into account, one will miss a lot in TLotR. Same with Conan in REH, but then on the other hand, same with Milius' Conan movie. So, for me, it is never simply just a relation to REH that counts, but also it is equally about REH's relation to his antecedents. I am willing to argue Milius recognized those relations and filled in the blanks in Conan's portrayal strictly through relying on myths REH himself was at least implicitly relying on. But this is a very long story, so I am just mentioning this...
|
|
|
Post by Von K on Jan 27, 2020 14:34:03 GMT -5
He did play fast and loose with REH’s material in CtB 82 though. There’s not much of REH’s Conan in there. He kind of mixed and matched various elements from REH. Combining Belit with Valeria and drawing on the Kull yarns for some parts, like Thulsa Doom. Conan’s capture in the movie probably was adapted from Kull’s stint as a galley slave. As far as I know John Milius’ CtB 82 is still the most financially and artistically successful S+S movie ever made. That’s a hell of an achievement.
I mentioned Sigmund Freud and James Frazer because they worked hard on interpreting not just separately isolated myths, but also on comparative mythology and religion. Namely, I don't think one can really read proto-myths by isolating one of them -- and Conan stories are in essence reflections /repressions of numerous myths and religious tales that existed before REH (for example, we encounter a guy running after his own head in a tale of Saint Denis). What I mean is, for example, if one really wants to read The Lord of the Rings, one cannot do it unless one recognizes in it the reflection /repression relations it has to Wagner's Ring cycle -- if one doesnt take Wagner into account, one will miss a lot in TLotR. Same with Conan in REH, but then on the other hand, same with Milius' Conan movie. So, for me, it is never simply just a relation to REH that counts, but also it is equally about REH's relation to his antecedents. I am willing to argue Milius recognized those relations and filled in the blanks in Conan's portrayal strictly through relying on myths REH himself was at least implicitly relying on. But this is a very long story, so I am just mentioning this...
From what I’ve read Milius loves all that mythic stuff, so I’d warrant there’s a lot of truth in what you say. Like REH, I think he channels that more instinctively from memory and the Collective Unconscious than any over intellectual way. He’s more of a fan of the mystical side of writing than the often technical approach taken by a lot of modern writers. Milius is a great writer and director (I referred to that combo as filmmaker above). He’s very much his own man with his own voice and worldview and his best stuff flows from that. He’s not so good at adaptation because that requires expressing someone else’s world view or voice, that’s partly where CtB 82 didn’t work as an adaptation of REH’s Conan to many fans. It was more a meditation on and interpretation of salient elements from REH’s opus as filtered through his own screenwriting voice. CtB 82 was a fantastic piece of cinema though.
|
|