Robert E. Howard Readers discussion
Films, TV & Games
>
The new "Conan" movie
What I'd like to see is a "Robert E. Howard Theatre" type TV show. This would be hour long adaptations of his short stories - maybe some double parters for the longer ones. There would be loads of variety: S&S one week, a western the next, a Crusades story after that, and so on. I think that would be really interesting, but I guess there could be a perceived problem with such revolving settings confusing an audience.What stories do you think would look good on the small screen?
Thanks for posting the link to the "Conan" trailer. I am now convinced, more than ever, that I won't be seeing this movie.
Michael wrote: "What I'd like to see is a "Robert E. Howard Theatre" type TV show. This would be hour long adaptations of his short stories - maybe some double parters for the longer ones. There would be loads of ..."That sounds pretty awesome. They would have made it in horror tv anthology days.
I think some of the serious western stories would like very good on tv and Cormac first story too.
Well, the SyFy channel might be able to run some of REH's fantasy / horror stories in a series, but to Michael's point, finding a host channel for the western, boxing, Costigan, AND fantasy / horror stuff might be too much to ask. Mohammed nailed the Hollywood treatment of literary characters, though I disagree that Momoa's body type truly represents Conan. The barbarian is much bigger than Momoa in the stories, but it's too late for the movie now.
Ó Ruairc wrote: "Thanks for posting the link to the "Conan" trailer. I am now convinced, more than ever, that I won't be seeing this movie."Maybe after downing a few brews ...?
John wrote: "Ó Ruairc wrote: "Thanks for posting the link to the "Conan" trailer. I am now convinced, more than ever, that I won't be seeing this movie."Maybe after downing a few brews ...?"
Yes, John, a few brews, a few drams of scotch, two or three shots of whiskey, then, maybe.... ha, ha, ha, ha.
Not that I give a curse about them, but I read they are planning to make a "Bran Mak Morn" movie, as well as a film based on Howard's western tale, "Vultures of Whapeton." Does anyone know anything about this?
Yes O Ruairc, I've heard about both movies. They have been mentioned by Paradox Entertainment people at REH Days. One thing they mentioned though is that a lot is riding on the new Conan movie. If it does well then you can expect more.
Michael wrote: "Yes O Ruairc, I've heard about both movies. They have been mentioned by Paradox Entertainment people at REH Days. One thing they mentioned though is that a lot is riding on the new Conan movie. If ..."Thanks for the confirmation, Michael. I knew I read somewhere that the making of those two movies was in the works. Even though I don't have much interest in seeing them, I do find it interesting that many of REH's stories are finding their way to the big screen.
People, I have to say I'm as much as purist as the next guy and I will confirm that there is no "avenge my father" in any Conan story written by Howard. I've been a REH fan since I was 12 yrs old (I am now 57). I am also a collector and have a huge collection of Howard books an memorabilia. I even have a Conan lunch box :). I actually really liked the Solomon Kane movie. I gave a copy to a friend who then went out and bought a copy of "Savage Tales of Solomon Kane". Is that not great or what? He then told me that the book was not really that much like the movie! Cool! He saw it right away. However if there would be a sequel, I think we would see the real Solomon Kane. I am really pumped about the new Conan movie (BTW I won't even read Conan pastiches. Not since the Lancer books in the sixties. I am so glad the real stuff is being published now). I am a Howard fan first before I am a Conan fan but I am so looking forward to the movie. I think Jason Momoa will be a great Conan. He is really into it. He looks the part. As strong and muscular as Arnold was do you really think that a warrior would look that way? Conan was athletic not just a muscle bound brute! Hollywood is going to screw it up. I get that! And I am still looking forward to the movie! Hollywood Studios want something that they've seen work before. Hopefully at least the the movie won't have the humorous sidekick.
The original CtB movie lacked a lot but it tried. John Milius, according to Paul Sammons, does not even like sorcery and the supernatural. He loves history and was really into Genghis Khan when he wrote the screenplay. You can see it in much of the movie. The line that Conan states about killing his enemies, driving them before him, and hearing the lamentations of their women was lifted from Genghis Khan.
Conan the Destroyer was totally bust. It was too comic booky.
I for one want to give this new movie a chance and I am really looking forward to it. And I am truly a Howard Purist.
BTW, Jason Momoa is a "side of beef". He is big! and the jutting brow....Have you looked at some of the Frazetta book covers? See "Conan the Adventurer". That was one of the things that I noted in Frazetta's stuff was the jutting brow. Frazetta was the ultimate portrayer of Conan. Bill Cavalier and I were reminiscing with my sons last year about the Lancer books. Can you imagine? Just young lads who were cultivated by Doc Savage and Tarzan and all of a sudden you see these Frazetta covers....and the notes on the books say "A Hero mightier than Tarzan!"
Someone mightier than Tarzan?
When I read my first story "Red Nails" in Conan the Warrior I couldn't believe it! by the time I finished "Beyond the Black River" I realized that Conan and Robert E Howard was the most satisfying hero and author I had ever read! I still feel that way to this day.
I'll agree that Frazetta was the best artist for Conan. His covers were one of the main reasons I started reading so young. What young boy could look at
or
& not want/need/have to read the story behind them? ;-)
I didn't care much for some of his Kane paintings, though.
10-4The original CtB movie had much wrong with it:
1) I hated the fact that they had an origin story avenging his father and his village and that he got ripped on the Wheel of Pain!
2) Didn't like the Gladiator stuff.
3) Didn't like having Thulsa Doom in a Conan story
4) Would have liked to see the skeleton in the cave (with the Atlantean sword) come to life. That was the plan but budget restraints kept it from happening. BTW this came from a L Sprague DeCamp story in the Lancer publication "Conan" called "The Thing in the Crypt".
5) Didn't like the fact the Conan had to get saved "Belit" style from a mere human in the final battle.
6) Didn't like the 70's style Cult scene.
These are just a few of things that bugged me.
The things I did like: Great action sequences (sword fighting). I loved the camouflage paint on the characters. I loved James Earl Jones as the villain but thought he could have been fleshed out more with more sorcery.
Overall I didn't think it wasn't that bad a movie but it wasn't the real Conan. I get that but I'm still glad they made it. So many people came to REH through that movie! BTW before my wife were married it was the first movie we went to see. And we are still married!
Once again I am hoping for the best with the new CtB movie. If it's a good movie then regardless how much the character is changed it will bring even more people to Howard.
Michael wrote: "BTW, Jason Momoa is a "side of beef". He is big! and the jutting brow....Have you looked at some of the Frazetta book covers? See "Conan the Adventurer". That was one of the things that I noted in ..."Disagree. Momoa is in shape, but could not come close to REH's standard of breaking a bull's neck.
Frazetta's depictions of Conan show strong facial bone structure all around, not a cavemanish jutting brow, imo.
The Arnold version of Conan was too refined for such a big guy to be Conan. He didn't appear pantherish enough.
Just to quibble a bit.
John wrote: "Well, the SyFy channel might be able to run some of REH's fantasy / horror stories in a series, but to Michael's point, finding a host channel for the western, boxing, Costigan, AND fantasy / horro..."I didnt say Momoa looks like Conan in the stories body wise but he looked like Conan in that he looks dangerous,hardcore in the trailer.
I believe the people at Paradox Entertainment really want to be as true as possible to the Howard characters and the stories but it is not always possible when translating it to a movie. I love Tarzan but have yet to see a Tarzan film that is anything like the books but my favorite Tarzan is still Johnny Weismuller which are the movies I grew up watching on TV. Not much like the real Tarzan though. Many of the icons have gone way past what the creators had planned for them and have taken on a life of their own....Superman, Batman, Tarzan, Dracula, etc. and Conan is no exception. I don't choose to fight it. I will always love the original stories better and many many more people have come to REH through the movie and the Marvel comics than through the Lancer books or the Gnome Press books. Even fewer from Weird Tales. I don't care how they come just keep 'em coming. We all have our ideas of what Conan or Tarzan or whatever our favorite characters should look like and we probably won't all agree.
I view the movie adaptations of my favourite writers as being their own thing. So, as much as I would like to see a Conan movie that's true to the original, as long as its good in film terms I will be satisfied.
10-4 on that! That's my feeling exactly. The original CtB wasn't a bad movie for all of it's faults. As a matter of fact, Paul Sammons, who worked on both Conan movies was a huge REH fan before the movie. He said he took a copy of one of the Gnome press books with him that he had had for years and had everyone who worked on the set sign it including Arnold. The second movie, Conan the Destroyer on the other hand was dreadful. Kull the Conqueror is painful to watch. Especially since the script came from "Hour of the Dragon" a Conan story. Solomon Kane on the other hand is a good movie IMO although not exactly the real Solomon Kane. It's the whole Origin story thing. At least in Solomon Kane it's dark, no "cheeky" sidekicks as James Purefoy proudly remarks in an interview about the movie. There were some really fine actors in the movie and ghouls! James Purefoy sure looked the part and played it extremely well. The swashbuckling scenes were realistic. No jumping 20 feet in the air and walking on tree branches LOL. In one scene Kane chops one of the villian's head off with not one chop, not two, but three times! Way cool!
Of course the Balrog thing at the end belongs in LOTR not Solomon Kane and the whole thing with his evil brother was out of whack but I can overlook it if it's done well. In the beginning of SK the narrator (Kane)states that there is evil in the world and no one to fight it. At the end of the movie the narrator (Kane) states that there is evil in the world but now there is someone to fight it. That tells me the sequel would be much closer to the real SK.
.
BTW has anyone seen "The Eagle"? Did you like the way the Picts were represented? Kind of Howardian in a way.
John wrote: "Michael wrote: "BTW, Jason Momoa is a "side of beef". He is big! and the jutting brow....Have you looked at some of the Frazetta book covers? See "Conan the Adventurer". That was one of the things ..."John, I may feel stupid for asking this as I have read the Conan stores scores of times but which story did Conan break a bull's neck? I don't recall that one off hand.
Thanks
There was a Roundtable discussion at REH Days. Frederick Malmberg of Paradox added other REH adaptations and projects in the pipeline: Vultures, Pigeons from Hell, Dark Agnes, and Steve Costigan. When asked about Bran Mak Morn, he replied that the option still lies with Universal, and unfortunately they haven’t heard from them since. Hollywood sometimes buys properties expressly to sit on them, just to prevent them being developed by another studio. If CtB is a success, they will all look to capitalize by putting a film of Bran Mak Morn out of development and fast tracking it to the silver screen. I heard on the REH forum at Conan.com that Paul Berrow, the producer of "Solomon Kane," was the actual guy developing "Bran" at Universal. Basically as I mentioned earlier in another post, Frederick said a lot is riding on the success of "Conan the Barbarian". If so it would most likely renew the studio's interest Bran Mak Morn. Not to mention all of the other projects in the works. There was a game based on Tower of the Elephant being worked on. Not sure if it's available yet. I am not a gamer myself. For Howard Purists (like myself)...let it go. The characters will be taken away and changed a bit by all of this and become icons. I don't mind because I hope that it brings many more Howard fans to the real thing!
I dont really care about the movie versions, they cant be worse than Arnold Conan anyway.For me its simple the films is NOT by REH, its Hollywood looking for quick buck. I see them only just another genre films and not fool enough to be excited for them, see them in the cinema.
Only reason i saw Solomon Kane as soon as it came out is James Purefoy and not Robert E Howard who is my literary idol whose birth date i use as the sign in code for my laptop ;)
Michael wrote: "John, I may feel stupid for asking this as I have read the Conan stores scores of times but which story did Conan break a bull's neck? I don't recall that one off hand.Thanks "
Michael,
It's not a scene, but dialog from Conan himself, in the novelette The Man-Eaters of Zamboula
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0600...
Conan's low laugh was merciless as the ring of steel.
"You fool!" he all but whispered. "I think you never saw a man from
the West before. Did you deem yourself strong, because you were able
to twist the heads off civilized folk, poor weaklings with muscles
like rotten string? Hell! Break the neck of a wild Cimmerian bull
before you call yourself strong. I did that, before I was a full-grown
man--like this!"
So Conan did it while a teenager, no less. As an adult he was even stronger.
Mohammed wrote: "For me its simple the films is NOT by REH, its Hollywood looking for quick buck. I see them only just another genre films and not fool enough to be excited for them, see them in the cinema."Agreed. But every now and then H-wood sticks close to the original story and it can come out well. Lord of the Rings was one, despite a few variations. Dracula as directed by Coppola was another. Old Man and The Sea, Cuckoo's Nest ...
John wrote: "Michael wrote: "John, I may feel stupid for asking this as I have read the Conan stores scores of times but which story did Conan break a bull's neck? I don't recall that one off hand.Thanks "
Mi..."
Cool. Thanks I remember that now. I remember very well the scene where he Baal-pteor were choking one another and that is the story I was thinking of but forgot about that line.
John wrote: "Mohammed wrote: "For me its simple the films is NOT by REH, its Hollywood looking for quick buck. I see them only just another genre films and not fool enough to be excited for them, see them in th..."I wasnt dismissing those great,loving adapatations made by people who respect Tolkien,Stoker. But the Hollywood directors,producers who make REH films are not fans or people who respect old lit greats. They only care for the fact Conan and co sell in different mediums.
Solomon Kane director was some d-list director who thought he knew better than REH how to write Kane while Tolkien got Peter Jackson epic film series. Huge difference there.
This new Conan's creators are not better. Also some d-list horror director,writers. Thats just the fact.
Ó Ruairc wrote: "Didn't Conan's battle with Baal-pteor take place "Shadows in Zamboula?"Shadows in Zamboula"
Yes, and also in Maneaters of Zamboula. Wiki says they are the same thing, just different titles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadows_...
Shadows in Zamboula
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Shadows in Zamboula"
Weird Tales 1935-11 - Shadows in Zamboula.jpg
Author Robert E. Howard
Original title "The Man-Eaters of Zamboula"
Country USA
Language English
Series Conan the Cimmerian
Genre(s) Fantasy
Published in USA
Publication type Pulp magazine
Publisher Weird Tales
Publication date 1935
"Shadows in Zamboula" is one of the original stories by Robert E. Howard about Conan the Cimmerian, first published in Weird Tales in 1935. Its original title was "The Man-Eaters of Zamboula".
btw, the cover image of Conan on Shadows in Zamboula is more along the right body type for Conan bulk-wise, imo, though looks a lot like Arnold's bicep and shoulder.
The facial features are spot-on, though. No jutting brow. That's how I see Conan in my mind's eye.
Mohammed wrote: "But the Hollywood directors,producers who make REH films are not fans or people who respect old lit greats. They only care for the fact Conan and co sell in different mediums. "Unfortunately you're probably correct.
Aaaah, thanks for the clarification, John. I've read Conan's battle with Baal-pteor a hundred times over, so I should have known "Shadows" and "Man-Eaters" were one in the same. But I love that scene! I think it's Howard at his best. Anyway, I'm digressing from the topic of this post, forgive me all.
I am with Michael on Solomon Kane. I thought it was a good S&S movie whose main problem was that the hero was NOT Solomon Kane, at least as I think of him. That was a pity because James Purefoy could have played the Kane of the stories very easily. I enjoyed the movie in spite of this. I think the real problem with REH adaptions is that there is a Hollywood formula-- everything has to be personal-- it's all about family and having your father killed these days. The idea is obviously to make the stories accessible to those who may be coming to the characters with no previous knowledge. I would have loved to see a Conan or a Solomon Kane film done by Sergio Leone! He had the whole amoral, loner hero thing down cold. Alas it cant be done in Hollywood these days.
William wrote: "I am with Michael on Solomon Kane. I thought it was a good S&S movie whose main problem was that the hero was NOT Solomon Kane, at least as I think of him. That was a pity because James Purefoy cou..."Thats what i thought i liked most of the film and specially Purefoy would have been amazing Kane if the character was actually written to be Solomon Kane.
The personal thing ruins REH films clearly. Kane cant be mysterious anymore according to hollywood. He has to be cliche tormented because of his past,origin story. Same with this Conan film.¨
Hollywood fantasy today are just not hardcore enough to fit style of REH bleak heroes,stories.
Ó Ruairc wrote: "Aaaah, thanks for the clarification, John. I've read Conan's battle with Baal-pteor a hundred times over, so I should have known "Shadows" and "Man-Eaters" were one in the same. But I love that scene! I think it's Howard at his best. Anyway, I'm digressing from the topic of this post, forgive me all. "I didn't know there were two titles for the same story, Ó Ruairc, until I started googling.
That scene is indeed a great one from Howard. I think because the action is way up-close and personal, instead of being described at in more general terms.
Mohammed wrote: Hollywood fantasy today are just not hardcore enough to fit style of REH bleak heroes,stories. I think that about sums it up! I've been a big fan of Purefoy since his rip-roaring performance in HBO's Rome.
New trailer. On twitter I didn't have to log in to Youtube to watch it. Actually liked it ... Conan as a kid. Ah, different link below. Just enter birthdate:
http://www.whenbloodisspilled.com/
He's a tough little bugger. Awesome. I think he impressed his dad.;-)
Thanks for posting that, John.
That little actor is famous for being a young fighter who is trained. He will most likely become martial art star adult if things dont go wrong for him. Fitting his last name is Howard.That trailer was pretty cool, reminds me of Dark Horse version of Born in battlefield story where you saw a young Conan like that.
John wrote: "New trailer. On twitter I didn't have to log in to Youtube to watch it. Actually liked it ... Conan as a kid. Ah, different link below. Just enter birthdate:
http://www.whenbloodisspilled.com/"
That looked really good - Picts!
Jim wrote: "He's a tough little bugger. Awesome. I think he impressed his dad.;-)
Thanks for posting that, John."
Glad to, Jim.
If the producers of this movie had kept it in the realm of a young adult Conan vs. fully grown Conan, I could deal with it better.
After years of disappointments with Hollywood's renditions of favorite books & characters, I've managed to work out a fair amount of separation between the two in my mind. I like both the Sookie Stackhouse books & True Blood, for instance. While I liked The Lord of the Rings & the Harry Potter movies, I've never liked them as much as I probably should. Both held very well to the books, but they still never sparked for me.
Some still really get to me, though. I really liked I Am Legend & thought Vincent Price did a pretty good job in "The Last Man On Earth" in 1963. While Charleton Heston's version, "The Omega Man" was fun, it was so completely different that I never really associated it with the book. It was just a fun, campy 70's SF/horror flick. But the latest "I Am Legend" with Will Smith was just a horrible travesty. I absolutely hated it. Ditto with "I, Robot". Both just abused the books they were supposedly based on in so many ways, it was a crime, especially when the novelization has the same name as the original book, which "I, Robot" did.
With all the other Conan stuff that's out there, I've been disappointed with some of the flicks, but never felt they were actually a crime. Like "The Omega Man" or "True Blood", they were so far from the original that it's easy for me to keep them in a separate compartment from my beloved memories of the books. It might help that those books were the Lancer editions, so not particularly accurate in & of themselves.
I see your points, Jim. Divorcing oneself from the movies that rarely measure up to the printed stories is the way to go. I finally read I Am Legend last year or so (yeah, I'm late to a lot of popular stories). Never saw the Vincent Price version but was fairly taken aback that the Will Smith version was unrecognizable from Matheson's short story. I still enjoyed Smith's version, but fashioned after the author's story it was not.
Mohammed wrote: "Michael wrote: "What I'd like to see is a "Robert E. Howard Theatre" type TV show. This would be hour long adaptations of his short stories - maybe some double parters for the longer ones. There wo..."I brought that topic up on another forum to someone from Paradox Entertainment and the idea was shot down. I've been looking for the post so I could attach it here but it was a couple of years ago and I don't really recall the reason. I thought a HBO Conan show with adaptions of the Conan stories each episode would have been cool.
I went to see the new Conan movie last night, and after reading some of the reviews I was prepared to be very disappointed. I will say this....I was not as disappointed as I thought I would be.1) Jason Momoa is a better actor and a better Conan than Arnold although he didn't get a chance to use his acting chops much.
2) The action scenes are plentiful and I went to a 2D version rather than the 3D. I don't like 3D and one review mentioned the movie should win an award for excessive use of 3D. Lots of fake blood shooting at you. The scenes were too blurred and edgy in some cases. Others were not bad. It seems to be something I've noticed more and more in movies is the blurred, jerky motion of the camera so that what you're seeing is more implied. Seems like a cheat to me.
3) The plot and dialog did not get in the way of the action I assure you.
4) I liked the way Hyboria was presented but some instances it looked like shots from LOTR.
5) I thought Rachel Nichols was very wooden
6) Rose McGowan was close
7) Stephen Lang was a bit subdued. I cardboard villain. He could have gone more over the top. I didn't like him much in Avatar either. I didn't think Avatar was all that great anyway.
8) Ron Perlman was wonderful as always
9) Leo Howard as the young Conan was great even though this didn't come from a Howard story the opening scenes were superb!
10) The ending cgi was overdone and too long. My wife said the movie was boring.
11) The plot of course was too Hollywood and predictable
12) Marcus Nispel was okay but I think Robert Rodgriguez would have been better as a director.
13) I hope it does well...especially with the young male crowd and that they come to the real Howard through this movie as with the first CtB.
14) I hope they do a sequel and get it right.
overall I give it 2 stars.
The Movie didn't do too well. This is from MSNBC website:"Lionsgate's "Conan the Barbarian" -- a retake on the 1982 pectoral showcase that launched Arnold Schwarzenegger's career -- grossed just $10 million, according to rival-studio data. The R-rated film, which was produced by Avi Lerner's Millennium/Nu Image for $70 million, had been forecast to bring in around $15 million."
That doesn't sound good for a franchise, nor for the perception of REH among the general public. I'll still go and see it, though!
No, but Jason Momoa was a great Conan IMO. I would like to see them do a sequel. They would like to do a movie every 2 years. Jason said he wanted to write the screenplay for the next one. Not sure that's good idea. This plot for this one was pretty lame and predictable though.There was a part where Conan stabs a fat thief in "The City of Thieves". It was inspired by "The Tower of the Elephant" I'm sure. As a matter of fact it is mentioned. Unfortunately, Conan stabbed him for an insult but it didn't seem like the insult was worth stabbing they guy at that point. One thing I liked...REH stated that no one could stand before Conan in battle and no one did in this move unless sorcery was involved. Some of the dialog is very lame but I would still like to see the franchise continued.
Today was my last day on vacation and I spent part of it with this latest effort at a Conan movie. Many of Michael's points are valid, though at no time did I see Jason Momoa as Robert E. Howard's Conan. Momoa did some good work acting for the role, and he's good as an action guy, but he's just not the intimidating presence that is Conan. What we really need is someone between the range of Momoa and Schwarzenegger, imo.
It wasn't true to REH's storylines, but I liked Ron Perlman as the blacksmith Conan Father, and liked the kid Conan a lot.
For me, the scenery was fairly compelling, whereas the first Conan movie totally lacked scenery.
As a long time Conan fan I would say that the new Conan movie is more like Conan than the Arnold version. It showed Conan as cunning, fast, charismatic, and merciless. All traits of REH Conan. The story is just bad.I will never understand why they don't follow the original stories.
As for Arnold's version, it was entertaining, and Arnold had the body, but nothing else. The portrayal was of a brute, more brawn than brain. Also, Arnold was always too slow as Conan. I cannot associate lightning quick reflexes faster than those of any civilized man coming from the Arnold version. For as bad as the Destroyer was, Arnold actually came closer to Conan's speed and demeanor in that movie.
Sully25ah wrote: "...I will never understand why they don't follow the original stories...."I agree completely. With the CGI tech they have today, they could recreate some of the fantastic scenes that Frazetta painted to complement some of the best action writing ever, but they don't. It's a freaking mystery to me.
Jim wrote: "Sully25ah wrote: "...I will never understand why they don't follow the original stories...."I agree completely. With the CGI tech they have today, they could recreate some of the fantastic scene..."
Its not a mystery, its the oldest trick in the book, the most lazy in show buisness. You take a story that has been popular 80 years and just use the character famous name. You dont care the fact Howard is one of the most entertaining authors around. Why follow what made Conan great story when you can make cheap film, with remake d-list horror director and hope for big BO numbers !
Robert E. Howard Readers
Books mentioned in this topic
If Chins Could Kill: Confessions of a B Movie Actor (other topics)I Am Legend and Other Stories (other topics)
Shadows In Zamboula (other topics)
Shadows In Zamboula (other topics)
Conan the Warrior (other topics)
More...
Avenging your father is very hollywood, they take any famous literary character and changing everything just to suit their taste,ideas.
Momoa is the only thing that looks good about the film. He looks hardcore as Conan.