|
|
Post by KiramidHead on Sept 13, 2016 18:04:36 GMT -5
Yeah, no. I'd rather not have a Conan movie produced by Disney.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Sept 13, 2016 20:28:38 GMT -5
It wouldn't be Disney, it'd be Marvel. There is a difference. Not that it's going to happen, but I'd happily put this in the hands of Kevin Feige.
I'm still in the "I'll believe it when I see it" category.
|
|
|
|
Post by Monster on Sept 15, 2016 19:34:07 GMT -5
While I am not outright defending him, Arnold's performance was widely considered to be quite good in 2015's Maggie. I like a decent chunk of Arnold's films, but as much as I loved Conan the Barbarian (and even Destroyer), it is _not_ Conan. I just happened to see the movies and read the Marvel comic and magazines before I read Howard.
Disney has been known to keep out of Marvel's affairs for the most part -- stating (not verbatim) that they (Marvel) know what they are doing and do not want to mess with a good thing. However, it is moot as it is still a Dark Horse property and would be a major conflict of interests.
And we essentially have already had "Disney" Conan -- Conan the Adventurer! (haha)
|
|
|
|
Post by moonlightshadow on Sept 16, 2016 8:42:17 GMT -5
Please not Marvel. They will make another 180 million dollar movie with 800 CGI shots and it will have nothing to do with Robert E. Howard. The movie will flop because there is no market for such an expensive sword and sorcery movie and the franchise will be dead AGAIN..
I want a hard r-rated medium budget movie or (even better) a TV series in the vein of "Vikings" and "Game Of Thrones" that is closely following the source material.
|
|
ironhand
Thief
The Mad Playwright
Posts: 133 
|
Post by ironhand on Sept 17, 2016 2:11:03 GMT -5
I pretty much trust Marvel - to make a movie that will be true to the Conan the Barbarian comic book, if not to REH's Conan. But even that will be a major improvement over previous movies. If they pick the right actor. But they have a good record there, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by valeriaspirit on Sept 19, 2016 14:47:43 GMT -5
I pretty much trust Marvel - to make a movie that will be true to the Conan the Barbarian comic book, if not to REH's Conan. But even that will be a major improvement over previous movies. If they pick the right actor. But they have a good record there, too. Hi, Ironhand and everyone - Well, you already know how I'm pre-disposed. But let me make just a few possibly prejudiced points - Arnie's Conan wasn't REH's Conan. To some extent that is because Arnold's mesomorphic, Germanic build wasn't the proto-Celtic ideal envisaged by REH, but I think most of what people are objecting to is a lot of the other elements in the 1982 film, which were developed by John Milius, who wrote the final screenplay. While it's possible that some of what he embedded into the film (the Nietszchean motto with which the film opens, the device of having him surviving and triumphing his slavery and years as a pit fighter) may have been inspired by considering what Arnie might be bringing to the table, as the studio had already decided the film would be a vehicle for Arnold at the time that Milius was brought on, but regardless of that possibility, the basic fact is that Arnold was an actor and not the author of the screenplay. So I don't think he can be held responsible for the fact that his Conan is not REH's Conan. I think it would be more correct to call it Milius's conception of the Barbarian, and he made it very clear that he wasn't an REH fan, unlike Oliver Stone, who had written the first version of the screenplay. (However, despite the fact that Stone was an REH Conan fan, his version set Conan in a post-apocalyptic world, so I don't think how that could have been said to be REH's Conan either. My basic point is that this diversion from the author's intent is quite typical of modern American films. I might mention in particular two with which I'm most familiar - look what Universal has done to Dracula and Frankenstein over the decades, and look at what Peter Jackson has done with his versions of the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. While I love all of them, they are not perfect (never are - film and books are such different mediums; it is impossible to fully embody all the detail of an author's vision in a book when making a film that might run 2-3 hours at the most. Fran Walsh, PJ's co-creator and spouse, famously noted that a filmmaker cannot really make "Tolkien's Lord of the Rings," he can only give the audience an "impression" of the books. In the case of REH's Conan the problem is a bit different than Dracula or the Lord of the Rings, because most of the Conan stories are just that - short stories. So instead of deciding what material to cut, the decision has to be made of what material to add to create a whole film. In the case of the 1982 film, there were a number of episodes used from REH's stories - the Tower of the Elephant, a Witch Shall be Born, etc. etc., but it is understandable in my view that they created a context for the bits which were adapted from Howard. BTW, we should give Milius credit, I think, for some of the contextual material being taken directly from Howard - especially the prologue recited by the wizard, the "world" inhabited by Conan, and the "post-logue" which depicts Conan on the throne. I think they deserve credit for keeping that material - and since the talk is to present King Conan in the proposed film, it is possible in my view that they could use Arnold (and his son, I hope) and honor the version in the 1982 film, but still make it much more faithful to REH's version, because they could base the film on the only novel-length appearance by Conan and thus stay more faithful to REH's vision than they did in the earlier versions. Valeria Spirit |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Aiken on Sept 21, 2016 1:41:56 GMT -5
Well, hopefully this will at least move things forward. I wasn't liking the sound of Arnold's kid being cast, etc. Made me think Arnold had a lot of story input and creative control. I was all for a true sequel to Milius' Conan: The Barbarian, as we won't ever see Howard's Conan on the silver screen, seeing a sequel to Milius' would be the next best thing.
Now, however, I agree. Find a new actor or get Momoa a superior script to that shitfest from 2012.
But really, a Rated R Sword and Sorcery movie just might not be in the cards, guys.
I wouldn't mind seeing Guillermo Del Toro direct it, though with a ton of practical effects. Doing it fast and dirty without cutting edge technology, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordyam on Sept 22, 2016 20:00:24 GMT -5
If it is made and does well enough it may be a shot in the arm the franchise needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by valeriaspirit on Oct 1, 2016 7:08:50 GMT -5
Well, hopefully this will at least move things forward. I wasn't liking the sound of Arnold's kid being cast, etc. Made me think Arnold had a lot of story input and creative control. I was all for a true sequel to Milius' Conan: The Barbarian, as we won't ever see Howard's Conan on the silver screen, seeing a sequel to Milius' would be the next best thing. Now, however, I agree. Find a new actor or get Momoa a superior script to that shitfest from 2012. But really, a Rated R Sword and Sorcery movie just might not be in the cards, guys. I wouldn't mind seeing Guillermo Del Toro direct it, though with a ton of practical effects. Doing it fast and dirty without cutting edge technology, etc. Hi, Jason - Regarding Arnold having input regarding story and production in general - I was writing about the 1982 Conan the Barbarian, in which I believe any input of Arnold's would have been strictly informal. He had only appeared in two movies at that point - Hercules in New York, starring Arnold Stang, was never released to theaters because the production company went bust. His second film was Stay Hungry, in which - surprise! - he played a bodybuilder. He did win a Golden Globe for Best Newcomer for that film. Still he had virtually no power to dictate the production of the proposed Conan the Barbarian when he was approached by Ed Pressman. He was locked in with a multi-picture contract, and then Pressman went about getting all the other bits and pieces, which is why it took about five years between the time Arnold was hired and the time the film was made. Oliver Stone wrote the first version of the screenplay, as I mentioned previously, and it was set in a post-apocalyptic world. Then at some point, Ed Pressman sold the picture rights and all to Dino De Laurentis, and John Milius was brought in to write the second draft of the script and direct the film. Milius and Schwarzenegger did become friends, so Arnold probably had some input into bits and pieces of the film, but basically he was a newcomer who was there to learn, and I'm pretty sure that the Nietszchean aspects of the film were Milius's concept, not Arnold's. One thing is true - Arnold was able to get friends and associates of his hired for mostly small roles in the film. An example of this is his longtime roommate and training partner, Franco Columbu, who played the part of the painted Pict in the very beginning of the film - a cameo which has a striking impact. Still the main reason was that since Arnold was a professional bodybuilder, he had contacts in the bodybuilding community. Milius also hired Gerry Lopez, who came from the surfing community and had appeared in his previous surfing film, Big Wednesday. And he relied on Bob Fosse's recommendation for the actress to play Valeria. Fosse recommended statuesque dancer Sandahl Bergman. On the other hand, with the success of Conan the Barbarian and subsequent films, Arnold did gain substantial perks that might be expected of a superstar, including the right to approve changes to the script, the director, and the other actors. But how extensive his control/input was would have depended on what was included in his contract for each film. Does he have the clout now that he had 20 years ago? Maybe not, as he is still rebuilding his acting career after his terms as governor of California, and he is at an age where forging a successful acting career even for himself alone is probably an uphill battle, given that he is almost 70. Given the ageism which is rampant in the movie industry and our culture, it is amazing to me that he is as active as he is. The ultimate control would have to be of the guys putting up the money for the film and then negotiations with Arnold - a balancing act - how much of a draw is Arnold at the boxoffice? Does his appearance in a film guarantee financial success? That determines how much negotiating power Arnold has. That said, bottom line, if they are going to bring back Arnold as Conan - and I still think it is possible - why not bring in his son, if the son has some spark of talent as well as the undeniable "look" to portray a chip off the old barbarian? And from the YouTube short clip of himself as the Terminator from Terminator 2, I would say he does have some of his dad's charisma. And there's a Conan story in which Conan as a middle-aged man has a young son. Although both Arnold and Joseph B. are older than depicted in REH's story, I think it's not too far off. And Arnold has assured us that he is still able to keep up with production, including doing his stunts and so on, as he always has done. So, whether Arnold still has the power to mandate the use of his son in the movie in a significant role (as opposed to, say, a bit part or cameo, which he could probably arrange without too much trouble), if the powers that be who are controlling the purse strings have the vision to see opportunities in thinking outside the box, perhaps it will proceed. Also, I personally would like to see a movie in which Arnold hands over the reins to a worthy successor, and if Joseph is worthy, well, why not? There aren't a whole lot of actors around who could carry the part. In addition to Jason Momoa, there is that Irish actor (Paul Telfer?), who from the little I saw, looked like he would make a fantastic Conan. But any producer of a new Conan movie has to be willing to spend a bundle for promotion and publicity, because, yeah, sword and sorcery flicks, or even costumed epics, seem to have kind of run their course, espectially the recent versions, like the new Ben-Hur. Because of the poor track record, it will be tough to get the coffers opened to spend sufficiently on the production as well as post-production. I hope it isn't tough to get an R-rated film greenlighted, because the consensus of the critics seems to be that the initial Conan the Barbarian (R-rated) was far superior to Conan the Destroyer (PG-rated). Val |
|
|
|
Post by thedarkman on Oct 2, 2016 22:34:34 GMT -5
Quote; "Although both Arnold and Joseph B. are older than depicted in REH's story,"
I don't think Howard ever wrote about Conan's "son", but deCamp and Carter certainly did.
Casting a father/son acting team seem more like a publicity stunt to me, in this particular case.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordyam on Oct 3, 2016 2:19:47 GMT -5
To be fair Conan DID have a few bastards running around in all probability
|
|
|
|
Post by thedarkman on Oct 3, 2016 6:58:13 GMT -5
To be fair Conan DID have a few bastards running around in all probability Now that would be an awesome source of endless pastiche adventures without wearing out Conan... |
|
|
|
Post by deuce on Oct 18, 2016 10:19:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by KiramidHead on Oct 18, 2016 13:22:36 GMT -5
That's actually an old interview, at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by deuce on Oct 18, 2016 22:04:19 GMT -5
That's actually an old interview, at this point. I apologise. I saw that "on the run" and didn't check it close enough. |
|
