|
|
Post by Jason Aiken on Aug 8, 2019 21:37:54 GMT -5
Let the Russians or Turks make a Conan movie. The few Russian historical flicks I've seen lead me to believe they would do a good job. The Scythian was great. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2019 23:45:37 GMT -5
Let the Russians or Turks make a Conan movie. The few Russian historical flicks I've seen lead me to believe they would do a good job. The Scythian was great. Yeah, they've already released a movie about the last Scythian. I do not see any reason why the Russians could not produce an historical fantasy movie based on the adventures of a black haired blue eyed Cimmerian  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2019 0:46:03 GMT -5
Exacly the reason why I dont want to see Disney even 1000 miles near Conan. They ruined it in animated show, and that was still masculine atempt on character. Imagine nowaday... Conan the Cry Baby... In touch with his inner femine side... Gives me creep 😳 Conan should go away from Hollyweird, as much as I hate to admit it. SJW sect ruined everything. What we need is creative studio with balls! And that's a fact.
Nah. There is no money for real films outside Hollywood. All the best to Kit Mallet, but his Iron Shadows is not how a Conan movie should look like in terms of production. The same goes for Russian flicks like Volkodav. What Conan needs is another John Milius, someone who can make this film in Hollywood, but who is willing to impose his vision on the studio, and who is even willing to cheat a bit in order to see his or her vision come to fruition.
I agree with most of the observations in your post. Yeah, I agree with you about the production values of Iron Shadows, but for now it's all we've got. It can't do anymore harm than the CtB 2011 movie? Can it? I think Russian movie makers have improved considerably over the last decade or so. The recent Scythian and Viking movies have been relatively successful. It does not always have to be about Hollywood. But, then again from what I have seen of these movies there is admittedly an element that appears to be missing. Unfortunately, yet, I don't know what that element is. Right now, I think there probably is a director/filmmaker in Hollywood with the creative vision to bring a decent movie based on REH's Conan to the screen. But, one that is canny and tough enough to adhere to his/her vision of the movie - I dunno. That's a big ask. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2019 7:37:26 GMT -5
Disney and a few of the top networks recently rejected a pitch from Sylvester Stallone featuring a team up with him and Dolph Lundgren for being too masculine and not female-centric enough. Disney apparently didn't even read the pitch. Might be time to start approaching studios outside of Hollywood and the big networks? Exacly the reason why I dont want to see Disney even 1000 miles near Conan. They ruined it in animated show, and that was still masculine atempt on character. Imagine nowaday... Conan the Cry Baby... In touch with his inner femine side... Gives me creep 😳 Conan should go away from Hollyweird, as much as I hate to admit it. SJW sect ruined everything. What we need is creative studio with balls! And that's a fact. If you are referring to the animated show from the 90s, it was a kids show for public tv, it could never have been violent like the stories. It was an action show just happened to use the Conan name. It was good for what it was, and in my case it was what introduced me to the character so it got the job done.
I agree that Disney would ruin Conan completely but they would also never bother with the property. Conan is a male power fantasy character and that just doesn't get done anymore. Imagine anyone trying to make action hero movies like we had in the 80s in this day and age where the story is just an excuse for the hero to blow things up, kill the bad guys and get the girl at the end. Those of us like myself who enjoy that type of thing since it is a great escape from reality are out of luck.
At the end of the day the question is, would you rather have a Conan which has been changed to fit in with the modern PC culture or would you rather have no Conan at all? I choose no Conan, since without its grittiness we might as well just make up a new character.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aryeh on Aug 10, 2019 11:26:54 GMT -5
Exacly the reason why I dont want to see Disney even 1000 miles near Conan. They ruined it in animated show, and that was still masculine atempt on character. Imagine nowaday... Conan the Cry Baby... In touch with his inner femine side... Gives me creep 😳 Conan should go away from Hollyweird, as much as I hate to admit it. SJW sect ruined everything. What we need is creative studio with balls! And that's a fact. If you are referring to the animated show from the 90s, it was a kids show for public tv, it could never have been violent like the stories. It was an action show just happened to use the Conan name. It was good for what it was, and in my case it was what introduced me to the character so it got the job done.
I agree that Disney would ruin Conan completely but they would also never bother with the property. Conan is a male power fantasy character and that just doesn't get done anymore. Imagine anyone trying to make action hero movies like we had in the 80s in this day and age where the story is just an excuse for the hero to blow things up, kill the bad guys and get the girl at the end. Those of us like myself who enjoy that type of thing since it is a great escape from reality are out of luck.
At the end of the day the question is, would you rather have a Conan which has been changed to fit in with the modern PC culture or would you rather have no Conan at all? I choose no Conan, since without its grittiness we might as well just make up a new character.
I seriously disagree with you and I believe anyone who respects Howard can show you facts that prove you dead wrong. Because. Conan simply cannot be reduced to "a male power fantasy" whose equivalent would be the action B-movies from 1980ies. There is so much more in Conan and his world that one can hardly know where to begin. There is the epic fantasy aspect, a continent that represent a result of a time-quake, where one can meet both mythical beings, gods and monsters, and also modern bureaucracy. There is the horror aspect Howard masterfully crafts: curses, chaos resulting from different sides, some of them unnatural, pursuing their own courses at the same time and colliding. There are sharp, intelligent insights into politics (just think of how Howard portrays events around and after Conan's demise as a king: there are students asking for revolution, barons, politicians, puppet kings, real kings in "Scarlet Citadel" and "Hour of the Dragon"; the relationship between the center and the periphery in "Beyond the Black River", etc.). There is pure poetry is numerous scenes (Belit's viking burial, dreamy cities, cursed jungles and ruins...). If you are missing all this then your opinion simply lacks basic facts. And I find it scandalous that you, who are obviously missing all these aspects of Conan, want to now limit representations of Conan, based on your very limited observation.
|
|
|
|
Post by robp on Aug 10, 2019 12:34:23 GMT -5
I seriously disagree with you and I believe anyone who respects Howard can show you facts that prove you dead wrong. Because. Conan simply cannot be reduced to "a male power fantasy" whose equivalent would be the action B-movies from 1980ies. There is so much more in Conan and his world that one can hardly know where to begin. There is the epic fantasy aspect, a continent that represent a result of a time-quake, where one can meet both mythical beings, gods and monsters, and also modern bureaucracy. There is the horror aspect Howard masterfully crafts: curses, chaos resulting from different sides, some of them unnatural, pursuing their own courses at the same time and colliding. There are sharp, intelligent insights into politics (just think of how Howard portrays events around and after Conan's demise as a king: there are students asking for revolution, barons, politicians, puppet kings, real kings in "Scarlet Citadel" and "Hour of the Dragon"; the relationship between the center and the periphery in "Beyond the Black River", etc.). There is pure poetry is numerous scenes (Belit's viking burial, dreamy cities, cursed jungles and ruins...). If you are missing all this then your opinion simply lacks basic facts. And I find it scandalous that you, who are obviously missing all these aspects of Conan, want to now limit representations of Conan, based on your very limited observation.
Well said. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2019 15:56:18 GMT -5
If you are referring to the animated show from the 90s, it was a kids show for public tv, it could never have been violent like the stories. It was an action show just happened to use the Conan name. It was good for what it was, and in my case it was what introduced me to the character so it got the job done.
I agree that Disney would ruin Conan completely but they would also never bother with the property. Conan is a male power fantasy character and that just doesn't get done anymore. Imagine anyone trying to make action hero movies like we had in the 80s in this day and age where the story is just an excuse for the hero to blow things up, kill the bad guys and get the girl at the end. Those of us like myself who enjoy that type of thing since it is a great escape from reality are out of luck.
At the end of the day the question is, would you rather have a Conan which has been changed to fit in with the modern PC culture or would you rather have no Conan at all? I choose no Conan, since without its grittiness we might as well just make up a new character.
I seriously disagree with you and I believe anyone who respects Howard can show you facts that prove you dead wrong. Because. Conan simply cannot be reduced to "a male power fantasy" whose equivalent would be the action B-movies from 1980ies. There is so much more in Conan and his world that one can hardly know where to begin. There is the epic fantasy aspect, a continent that represent a result of a time-quake, where one can meet both mythical beings, gods and monsters, and also modern bureaucracy. There is the horror aspect Howard masterfully crafts: curses, chaos resulting from different sides, some of them unnatural, pursuing their own courses at the same time and colliding. There are sharp, intelligent insights into politics (just think of how Howard portrays events around and after Conan's demise as a king: there are students asking for revolution, barons, politicians, puppet kings, real kings in "Scarlet Citadel" and "Hour of the Dragon"; the relationship between the center and the periphery in "Beyond the Black River", etc.). There is pure poetry is numerous scenes (Belit's viking burial, dreamy cities, cursed jungles and ruins...). If you are missing all this then your opinion simply lacks basic facts. And I find it scandalous that you, who are obviously missing all these aspects of Conan, want to now limit representations of Conan, based on your very limited observation.
---------------------
Those elements are found in the Conan stories and Howard was a brilliant writer who knew how to tell a story, but at the end of the day Conan is still a male power fantasy. Just look at when the stories were written and what the character accomplishes through force. He often gets what he wants by simply overpowering his enemies, or outsmarting them. In a witch shall be born for example, he quite literally takes command of the troops through overpowering his opponent and no other reason. My point was not to make it seem like the character is simple though, I was trying to show that the world of Conan is one where things are not equal and politically correct. It is a world when the strong get their way, women are often little more than a reward for defeating the enemy and the main character is often well above his enemies and even allies in strength.
In my opinion all these things make it a male power fantasy and I'm okay with that, it's why I enjoy the character and the world, it's a fantasy and and escape, but in today's climate where companies are trying to please everyone it makes it impossible to properly convey the essence of Conan and his world on film. How can any company, especially Disney do justice to Conan when they are trying to maintain the lowest common denominator in all their products to appeal to as many people as possible while Conan requires a dedicated focus to be properly conveyed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Aryeh on Aug 10, 2019 18:51:50 GMT -5
Thanks! I am sure there are others here who would have said something along the same line--simply because it is true R.E. Howard's Conan is anything but reducible to a "male power fantasy". Which is by the way exactly how the enemies of Conan and REH are describing Conan when they want to dismiss this character and art related to this character.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aryeh on Aug 10, 2019 19:38:35 GMT -5
Those elements are found in the Conan stories and Howard was a brilliant writer who knew how to tell a story, but at the end of the day Conan is still a male power fantasy. Just look at when the stories were written and what the character accomplishes through force. He often gets what he wants by simply overpowering his enemies, or outsmarting them. In a witch shall be born for example, he quite literally takes command of the troops through overpowering his opponent and no other reason. My point was not to make it seem like the character is simple though, I was trying to show that the world of Conan is one where things are not equal and politically correct. It is a world when the strong get their way, women are often little more than a reward for defeating the enemy and the main character is often well above his enemies and even allies in strength. In my opinion all these things make it a male power fantasy and I'm okay with that, it's why I enjoy the character and the world, it's a fantasy and and escape, but in today's climate where companies are trying to please everyone it makes it impossible to properly convey the essence of Conan and his world on film. How can any company, especially Disney do justice to Conan when they are trying to maintain the lowest common denominator in all their products to appeal to as many people as possible while Conan requires a dedicated focus to be properly conveyed?
On the contrary, Conan hardly ever gets what he wants. The Conan stories are not wishful thinking about some idealized character who is getting his wishes fulfilled. That is to say, with good reasons numerous commentators characterized Conan and Conan stories as "existentialist fiction". Because, even when Conan plans something and something indeed starts developing according to his plans and wishes, something unexpected, something real appears, which then complicates things so much that without someone else's help, Conan wouldn't even manage to keep his head on his shoulders. And when there are moments of triumph, this triumph always comes either with a price, or because of someone else's help, or combined. Sometimes, Conan has to choose between bigger and lesser evils. Other times, Conan loses much more then he gained (and his loses are tragic). And sometimes, Conan simply escapes from some otherworldly terror.
Without all this I named here, there would be no serious drama, no serious tension which is needed for effective stories. The stakes have to be real, otherwise it becomes prosaic, unbelievable. Which is what the 1980ies action flicks are, but Conan is not.
P.S.
When you say it like this, that Conan is a character who "gets what he wants by force", it sounds like a schoolyard bully and not like Conan. In a story you mentioned, "A Witch shall be born", Conan is the one who stands for truth even if it costs him his life: he is crucified because he did not agree to live in a lie, i.e. to serve a fake queen. When he takes over the gang from Olgerd Vladislav it is in the light of the story justified by the fact that Conan will use the desert raiders to restore the true queen. He is not after personal gain, he is not after fulfilling his wishes.
Similarly, in "The Pool of the Black One" Conan kills the ship-captain, but we are told that the captain was distanced from his sailors, that he cared only about himself. In the end of that story, Conan saves the remains of his new crew. Therefor, Howard never portrays Conan as someone who is there to "get what he wants" unless what he wants doesn't coincide with some common, larger good.
Now, I have a feeling that you, like many people today, are for some reason mistaking Conan being a "good loser"--someone who stoically takes his loses--with another type of character, namely, someone who, as you said, "gets what he wants by force". In my opinion, it is much more manly to be a good loser then to take what one wants by force (the latter being also a dominant trait of a psychopath). It is exactly you who are expressing today's mentality when you say this stuff about "getting what he wants", which is all about instant gratification. The instant gratification is a very modern thing, very 1980ies, 1990ies, very today. It is advertised everywhere today. "Get instant this, instant that..." Because of that, I have to say I am feeling free to totally disregard what you wrote about politics. Conan knows how to lose, and because of that he is more in line with a frontier mentality, or a pioneer mentality, which is something that belongs to other times. The mentality of a pioneer or a frontier man was all about taking risks, about being prepared to lose, about moving on and similar. Frontier or pioneer mentality expressed through a character such as Conan is never about getting what one wants but instead it is dealing with something no one could ever want. Again, REH stories are my references here...
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Aug 15, 2019 13:59:16 GMT -5
I believe that the "toxic masculinity" reputation of the titular character may have been the main reason because of which Amazon cancelled the Ryan Condal's proposed Conan TV-series now. But the reason why generally Conan doesn't really fit the TV profile is something else. Just read how Netflix is advertising their The Witcher TV-series: "THE WITCHER is an epic tale of fate and family. Be among the first to get the exclusive scoop on the highly anticipated new Netflix original series centering around famed monster hunter, Geralt of Rivia. Be introduced to the world of The Continent, where humans, elves, witchers, gnomes, and monsters battle to survive and thrive, and where good and evil is not easily identified." Can anyone imagine Conan being advertised in the same fashion? "Conan the Barbarian, an epic tale of fate and family..." Family being the key ingredient here. As the old media wisdom goes, when we go to cinema, we are guests there and we need to behave, but when we watch TV, TV is a guest in our home and as a true guest it needs to show respect towards each member of an avarage family. In short, TV is a family media. "Game of Thrones" is filled with sex, violence, perversions, what not; yet it remains a family show--a family show for today's times, times of new-age permissive society. On the other hand, cinema is about an event. You don't go to cinema to see a reflection, a representation of yourself and your family, instead, you go there to be a witness to a spectacular event (a large event that only big screen is fit to portray). Conan and his adventures fit there, and not in the family section...
Whatever Conan's shortcomings may be from the perspective of the dominant ideology, all that becomes irrelevant in view of the event that a film made to be shown in cinemas is. Just notice how Tarantino gets away with many things that are contrary to the present ideological climate. Because, his films are true films, true events. ...Someone needs to make another spectacular, ambitious Conan film, the way Milius' Conan film was spectacular and ambitious. They should forget the light approach (the 2011 Conan movie approach) and also attempts to go to TV with this.
There may be something to this. I mean if Gormenghast gets a series... variety.com/2019/tv/news/gormenghast-series-showtime-neil-gaiman-akiva-goldsman-1203303263/ |
|
|
|
Post by Aryeh on Aug 19, 2019 13:49:31 GMT -5
John Milius appeared together with Arnold Schwarzenegger (and with the Atlantean sword!) at this year's Silicon Valley Comic Con, just few days ago. Great to see Milius in public again! And, one can only hope...
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackHeart on Aug 20, 2019 3:40:59 GMT -5
John Milius appeared together with Arnold Schwarzenegger (and with the Atlantean sword!) at this year's Silicon Valley Comic Con, just few days ago. Great to see Milius in public again! And, one can only hope... Well, movies and then comic introduced me to a character, and Im propably only REH fan here that doesnt hate CtB 1982 (original or not, its still a greatest s&s movie), but one can hope to what exacly? Millius is old, not of good health, and I doubt he would be interested in final run with his Conan the Ubermench. If, by any miracle, Arnold get his last chance with the character, big bad John would be his best hope to do it right (again, its Arnie's version of Conan, not REHs, so that would be epic reunion), but, would it actualy happend? I would bet on NO. Personly, I love John's style, his views of world and the way he writes, but, he had problems with Crown of Iron script that producers tried to butcher and make it more family/friendly in an era that wasnt so screewed by SJW standards we must suffer nowadays. Now... This days... His style would be welcomed with spears and blades of spineless media owners without a doubt. I wish I'm wrong, but we all know of modern criteria when it comes to movies 😔 |
|
|
|
Post by KiramidHead on Aug 21, 2019 4:39:42 GMT -5
I feel like the time for Milius specifically to do another Conan has come and gone. He had a rush of inspiration in the early 2000s, but even if he was in better, I think he'd have moved on to something else.
And as much as Chris Morgan is still talking up Legend of Conan, I doubt Arnold is specifically talking about that version when he says he wants to do Conan 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by robp on Aug 21, 2019 4:43:57 GMT -5
Why family-friendly though? Valhalla Rising wasn't family friendly, for example. Surely GoT, even LOTR to some extent, has shown that fantasy movies don't have to be pitched at 13 year olds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 14:06:29 GMT -5
|
|
