|
Post by Aryeh on Feb 10, 2018 8:03:47 GMT -5
OTOH there are plenty of action/adventure series on TV that are not catering to the leftist mainstream, stuff like "Vikings" and "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" so let's not give up hope yet. Right, nothing leftist about slaves rebelling against their masters. And not just any slaves, but precisely the Spartacus rebellion that Karl Marx and Rosa Luxemburg were taking as exemplary, as role-model. Also, how could you not notice how all-inclusive "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" is: there are homosexuals, different races, backgrounds, cultures, and they all fight together against the common oppressors? Regarding "Vikings", wasn't the main character, Ragnar a friend with a Christian, and therefore symbolizing friendship which is above religion? Wasn't Ragnar also not against the small-minded (that is how they are portrayed in the series: as small-minded) war-chiefs, who want nothing better then to slaughter each other in order to prove who is stronger? Isn't Floki attempting to create a proto-hippy commune? There are enough protagonists in that show with enough obviously leftist agenda. It looks to me like your political criteria is: "if they got swords and axes, it is not leftist". I am sure Conan will have an axe and a sword if this series ever becomes reality, so I guess that should be enough for you, considering how you said these two examples (especially Spartacus) represent something "not-leftist".
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Feb 10, 2018 8:50:48 GMT -5
I know we’ve been disappointed before, but it’s not quite time to abandon hope just yet. There’s been one announcement that sounds generally positive and we realize there will have to be some changes for a presentation to a modern audience. Without anything more to go on, I’d just wait to see how things proceed.
|
|
|
Post by moonlightshadow on Feb 10, 2018 9:15:30 GMT -5
OTOH there are plenty of action/adventure series on TV that are not catering to the leftist mainstream, stuff like "Vikings" and "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" so let's not give up hope yet. Right, nothing leftist about slaves rebelling against their masters. And not just any slaves, but precisely the Spartacus rebellion that Karl Marx and Rosa Luxemburg were taking as exemplary, as role-model. Also, how could you not notice how all-inclusive "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" is: there are homosexuals, different races, backgrounds, cultures, and they all fight together against the common oppressors? Regarding "Vikings", wasn't the main character, Ragnar a friend with a Christian, and therefore symbolizing friendship which is above religion? Wasn't Ragnar also not against the small-minded (that is how they are portrayed in the series: as small-minded) war-chiefs, who want nothing better then to slaughter each other in order to prove who is stronger? Isn't Floki attempting to create a proto-hippy commune? There are enough protagonists in that show with enough obviously leftist agenda. It looks to me like your political criteria is: "if they got swords and axes, it is not leftist". I am sure Conan will have an axe and a sword if this series ever becomes reality, so I guess that should be enough for you, considering how you said these two examples (especially Spartacus) represent something "not-leftist". Showing gays, interracial friendships and slaves rebelling in ancient Rome is not "leftist" but a somewhat realistic portrait of life in the roman empire. I'm not sure what is leftist about putting friendship above religion. If that's leftist I'm a leftist and Conan would have been a leftist too.
|
|
|
Post by Aryeh on Feb 10, 2018 9:26:50 GMT -5
To all those who think they belong to some supposed “Robert E. Howard super-exclusive fan club”, and who think that the main thing about Howard is his racism, sexism and antisemitism.
Robert E. Howard was caught in prejudices of his time, and there is nothing special about that. What is, on the other hand, truly special about Howard is the fact that he created Sword & Sorcery genre. By emphasizing his racism, etc., you are doing a great disservice both to Howard’s legacy and to true admirers of Howard. You are dragging Howard down in the racist mud, while he should be high above, on the pedestal of the fantasy genre.
But, there are real admirers of Howard’s creation: just remember that Barack Obama said in several interviews that his favorite comic book was Conan the Barbarian. Independently of what each of us thinks about his presidency, I see that as an important fact, that Conan the barbarian had to offer something to a young black intellectual Obama was, before he became president. That Howard’s creation can be of importance to someone like that is an achievement, but those who are now advocating reintroduction of racism want to pretend this never happened.
Also, it is safe to say there would be no Conan films or TV series after the Milius film, if that film was not successful. Because it was R-rated, and teenagers were not allowed to see it, it owes its success to several groups; namely, to bikers, bodybuilders and homosexuals, because those were the groups that went to see that film, and made it a success it is. Conan fans owe something to those diverse groups.
In the end, I have to say that I think Conan is in the right hands when we talk about political echoes that follow Conan. I am not worried that these authors, that are now working on the TV series will in any way listen to any advice from that group which considers racism to be THE most important thing in Howard. Namely, Ryan Condal is an author of TV series “Colony” which is, by his own admission, manifestly anty-Nazi, anti-racist, etc. The other artist behind the forthcoming Conan TV series is Miguel Sapochnik; that he is of Jewish origins makes it safe to presume he will not land his ear to demands of those who think racism should be reintroduced.
|
|
|
Post by anaximander on Feb 10, 2018 10:24:52 GMT -5
Vikings season 1 was pretty good and didn't have much left wing garbage. There was no token black character thrown in completely out of place just because #OscarsSoWhite. However, in a later season they threw in a Chinese character despite all logic, they started making characters gay, now Floki is a pacifist forming a commune as mentioned above, etc. Spartacus had some good qualities early on but was also heavily pushing the homosexual agenda, as is Game of Thrones (despite the source material). Game of Thrones is at least good about keeping the races reasonable (as were the Lord of the Rings movies). There are black characters, but for the most part they only live across the Narrow Sea, where they are supposed to be. For a Conan series, Kushites shouldn't be roaming around Vanaheim and Khitai like some kind of McDonald's commercial in the hopes that radical special interest groups won't be allowed to publicly shame and boycott the show out of existence. Neither should Conan's travels disproportionately occur along the Black Coast. To be fair, I also wouldn't want to see a conservative narrative about sword rights, free markets, and traditional morality shoehorned in, although this would somehow never even be considered. Some cosmetic deviations will certainly take place as they do in every adaptation, but those changes should be based on actual merit and screenwriting necessity rather than a hidden (or openly stated) affirmative action agenda to revise "problematic" passages. Otherwise, the show should adhere as closely to Howard's yarns as possible.
|
|
|
Post by moonlightshadow on Feb 10, 2018 11:12:40 GMT -5
I don't think anybody here thinks that "racism" is the most important thing about Howard or that racism should be shown as a good attitude in the TV series. Certainly I don't want that. What I and I presume many other Howard fans do want is a somewhat accurate desciption of Conan. Howard's Conan was certainly not a social justice warrior, feminist, bi-sexual or anything else liberal screenwriters and producers like to force on us. Personally I think "Vikings" is a good example of how to show various beliefs, races, sexual preferences and social attitudes without forcing an agenda down our throats. None of the characters is presented as doing always the right thing or doing always the wrong thing. It shows that in the end most people do whatever they think is best for them. If anything the series seems to have a libertarian view of the world.
BTW Howard was certainly anti-nazi too. It says a lot about today's society when some people think that Robert E. Howard could have sympathized with nazism in any way. It certainly says a lot more about those people than about Robert E. Howard.
|
|
|
Post by Aryeh on Feb 10, 2018 13:16:18 GMT -5
BTW Howard was certainly anti-nazi too. It says a lot about today's society when some people think that Robert E. Howard could have sympathized with nazism in any way. It certainly says a lot more about those people than about Robert E. Howard. No, it says a lot about Howard, so you are wrong again, just as you were wrong about "Spartacus" not being left wing orientated. And here's why in this case. For example, it wasn't till 1964 that racial segregation was abolished in the U.S.A. (meaning: it was socially and politically not just acceptable, but was also institutionally applied). Then, sexism is something the world never dealt with properly (look what is happening today in Hollywood, the #me too movement and what caused it). Meaning: a lot of what was socially acceptable then only later became acknowledged as an ideological and practical part of what constituted fascism. In short: the world did a lot of cover up regarding what were elements of fascism, because those elements were widely spread in other countries. Now the world changed, and from today's perspective, we can see more clearly who was where ideologically and politically in the past, despite what they said about themselves. So, Howard could have stated he was anti-Nazi (and since he committed suicide in 1936, he couldn't have known what the Nazis truly are, anyways), but that does not absolve him from being someone who used racial stereotypes in order to portray different races in a very insulting fashion -- the same thing that the Nazis did in their propaganda. Again, I repeat, this is only a part of what can be found in Howard, and this part deserves to be obliterated completely in favor of something else, for which Howard deserves admiration.
|
|
|
Post by ollonois on Feb 10, 2018 15:56:42 GMT -5
Black haired girls please... only blondes in North American films and tv
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Feb 10, 2018 17:07:27 GMT -5
Black haired girls please... only blondes in North American films and tv Hey we’ll take ‘em all, we don’t discriminate! 😉
|
|
|
Post by moonlightshadow on Feb 10, 2018 17:47:07 GMT -5
BTW Howard was certainly anti-nazi too. It says a lot about today's society when some people think that Robert E. Howard could have sympathized with nazism in any way. It certainly says a lot more about those people than about Robert E. Howard. No, it says a lot about Howard, so you are wrong again, just as you were wrong about "Spartacus" not being left wing orientated. And here's why in this case. For example, it wasn't till 1964 that racial segregation was abolished in the U.S.A. (meaning: it was socially and politically not just acceptable, but was also institutionally applied). Then, sexism is something the world never dealt with properly (look what is happening today in Hollywood, the #me too movement and what caused it). Meaning: a lot of what was socially acceptable then only later became acknowledged as an ideological and practical part of what constituted fascism. In short: the world did a lot of cover up regarding what were elements of fascism, because those elements were widely spread in other countries. Now the world changed, and from today's perspective, we can see more clearly who was where ideologically and politically in the past, despite what they said about themselves. So, Howard could have stated he was anti-Nazi (and since he committed suicide in 1936, he couldn't have known what the Nazis truly are, anyways), but that does not absolve him from being someone who used racial stereotypes in order to portray different races in a very insulting fashion -- the same thing that the Nazis did in their propaganda. Again, I repeat, this is only a part of what can be found in Howard, and this part deserves to be obliterated completely in favor of something else, for which Howard deserves admiration. You make the typical mistake of applying current moral standards to historical figures. 90 years from now the moral high ground you take will appear just as ridiculous as Howard's views appear to you now. But that's not the real issue here. My point is that I want to see Robert E. Howard's Conan on the screen, not some random muscle-guy in shorts who is an ex-slave and crying because an evil guy killed his "mutha and futha". I want him to kill the evil wizard because he wants to steal his treasure, not to support the democracy in Aquilonia. I don't want Conan trying to make the world better, I want him to ENJOY it. I want Conan to bang a new chick every week, not dream of a princess that was captured by the villain for a whole season. I want them to keep the fantasy in check. Some subdued sorcery, a few giant apes and an occasional swamp demon are fine, dragons and orcs are not. If there are stygians I want them to be evil and devious and not some of them having a good core under the bad surface just because these days it isn't allowed to show a people who appears to be closely related to modern-day arabs to be "evil". I want the series to be at least in parts directly adapted from Howard's stories and not just use his main character or somebody who just has the same name. I realize there has to be SOME streamlining to please modern audiences . I cited "Vikings" as a good example. The writers don't want to force their liberal agenda on us in every episode. Sure, there are strong female characters but they are just as machiavellian than the guys. In "Vikings" everybody cares about himself first and the characters often do whatever they feel like at the moment and if that means killing a friend or relative or raping a woman that p***ed you off than so be it. There's a realism to most of the characters even though obviously there a many themes and issues that modern viewers can identify with. Of course Howard's Conan and "Vikings" are very different from each other, I just wanted to say that there ARE TV series that don't feel like 50 minute adverbs for a liberal-feminist worldview.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 18:43:33 GMT -5
If the creators for the new series end up being half as confused and indecisive as REH fandom appears to be, especially over the last couple of pages of this thread, it'll come as no surprise if the new series turns out to be a load of complete rubbish (trash).
Can we have some positive posts concerning the vast possibilities in adapting the Conan yarns to a TV series? for a change? All this unnecessary discussion concerning the so-called racist/sexist material within the original yarns will result in several pages of ranting with no real results.
Let us talk about the potential of a series that may, for a change, respect REH's vision of Conan.
By Tengri, Erlik and Crom we've waited for 82 years for this moment! Don't waste the opportunity!
|
|
|
Post by Aryeh on Feb 10, 2018 21:28:41 GMT -5
You make the typical mistake of applying current moral standards to historical figures. 90 years from now the moral high ground you take will appear just as ridiculous as Howard's views appear to you now. No, I am not, but you seem to want to relativize history. Undeniable fact is that both Howard's stories and the Nazi propaganda saw the light of day at the same time: during the 1930ies. When one compares how, for instance, the Shemites are described in, say, "A Witch Shall Be Born" to a Nazi stereotype, it becomes painfully clear how close these two are. If two parties produced same kind of things, one calls both by same name, which is in this case hateful and insulting use of stereotypes. Again, my point is, Howard is not the first nor the last artist with reactionary, hateful views. The thing is, instead of pretending those elements are not there in Howard's writings, by which one can only make things worse -- since then one falls into a trap of historical relativism, negationism, denial, etc. -- one should rather face those elements as they are, in order to clearly see them and then to remove them. There is a precedent regarding cases such as this: the case of Richard Wagner. His operas only gained something from being cleared of antisemitic overtones. There is a music festival in his home town every year for past I don't know exactly how many decades, and it is the greatest opera festival on Earth. Despite the fact Wagner himself was, beside being a theatrical genius, also a viscous anti-Semite. now, in order for Wagner admirers to get there, to get to preserve Wagner's legacy, they didn't attempt to negate what Wagner was (which would be futile anyhow, just like in Howard's case), but instead, they isolated what is wrong in Wagner's views, and then bypassed it by keeping that which really matters, that which is really specific for Wagner. Formally same thing needs to be done with Howard when one is adapting his work. And, no doubt, one way or another, it will be done in the course of this TV series' making, because some things just cannot stay the same as they are in Howard's stories. But these are not small things. For example, this: "This was true. The dawnlight glinted on peaked helmets pouring in a steady stream through the broad arch, on the bright housings of the chargers. This would be a battle of horsemen, such as is possible only in the lands of the East. The riders flowed through the gates like a river of steel – sombre figures in black and silver mail, with their curled beards and hooked noses, and their inexorable eyes in which glimmered the fatality of their race – the utter lack of doubt or of mercy." Instead of Shemites, there should be a mercenary army, with no specific racial characterization. Because, this kind of characterization which is in the original story, plus the role which is given to the Shemites in the story, just isn't acceptable after the history of the XX century. And, if I remember correctly, in Dirk Blackman's adaptation of this story into a screenplay, he did just that -- he simply left out racial characterization of both Constantius and his army, and he had every right to do that.
|
|
|
Post by lordyam on Feb 10, 2018 22:26:21 GMT -5
Exactly. The DH and Marvel versions both tried to add nuance to their stories (having Conan's friend by a Hyrkanian, making Kalanthes a black dude, having Diana and Abit have a interracial relationship).
Look, Howard had skills. But there are parts of his "vision" that need to be kicked to the curb.
|
|
|
Post by darthgall on Feb 11, 2018 1:04:10 GMT -5
Let us talk about the potential of a series that may, for a change, respect REH's vision of Conan. By Tengri, Erlik and Crom we've waited for 82 years for this moment! Don't waste the opportunity! Amen! All this talk about if Spartacus is leftist or not... irrelevant and not particularly interesting to me. This is a fandom, so let's take this opportunity to demonstrate the good parts of fandom, not the annoying divisive pedantic arguments about the politics. I'm not going to say Conan is apolitical, b/c all art is political in some fashion. But, the previous conan.com forum was admirably apolitical and areligious. We're here to celebrate REH and Conan; let's keep it that way. So Aryeh and Moonlight Shadow, here's your chance to call a truce and "agree to disagree". Instead, let's discuss dream casting for... let's start with Conan, Taurus and Nestor. And which monster/creature/supernatural menace are you most excited about seeing on the screen? And which movie or TV show did something similar, and got it right? MIck. PS - does this post annoy you? Sorry, but I want to find common ground instead of divisive topics. Also, it's my birthday and I'm multiple beers in...
|
|
|
Post by zarono on Feb 11, 2018 9:20:32 GMT -5
Let us talk about the potential of a series that may, for a change, respect REH's vision of Conan. By Tengri, Erlik and Crom we've waited for 82 years for this moment! Don't waste the opportunity! Amen! All this talk about if Spartacus is leftist or not... irrelevant and not particularly interesting to me. This is a fandom, so let's take this opportunity to demonstrate the good parts of fandom, not the annoying divisive pedantic arguments about the politics. I'm not going to say Conan is apolitical, b/c all art is political in some fashion. But, the previous conan.com forum was admirably apolitical and areligious. We're here to celebrate REH and Conan; let's keep it that way. So Aryeh and Moonlight Shadow, here's your chance to call a truce and "agree to disagree". Instead, let's discuss dream casting for... let's start with Conan, Taurus and Nestor. And which monster/creature/supernatural menace are you most excited about seeing on the screen? And which movie or TV show did something similar, and got it right? MIck. PS - does this post annoy you? Sorry, but I want to find common ground instead of divisive topics. Also, it's my birthday and I'm multiple beers in... I would still like to see Momoa cast as Conan, I think he's an excellent actor and has not just the physique but the formidable presence vital to the character. I think you'll likely see some casting similar to Game of Thrones if they are serious about the story with good character actors playing the important roles. Sean Bean for Nestor would be my choice. Vincent Donofrio for Taurus. Supernatural menaces? All of them! I would most enjoy seeing Thog in all his slithering, shadowy, tentacled, mind numbing horror.
|
|