A New Conan Movie?

[Scott H. Andrews]

Apparently a new Conan movie is in development (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i84d286596a535ecf5a3141fe4e1b2bee).

I'm of two minds on this. Attention to S&S classics is always good, but I also find that versions of most anything made for the popular market are full of concessions to general audiences that ruin the subtleties of the original (like Peter Jackson's changes that gutted The Two Towers). Lots of Conan fans hated the 80s movie versions for that reason; what's to say this new one might not be just as far from the original, just in a different direction?

[John Arkwright]

The mathematics of choice sheds light on the Conan issue.

The economic discipline views the Le Chatelier Principle as saying this. When a system is given more freedom, the maxima in the system cannot fall, but can possibly rise. Also, with more freedom the minima in the system cannot rise, but may fall.

Consider the lowest gasoline price in Charlottesville, Virginia. How does the lowest gasoline price in all of Virginia compare? The lowest price in all of Virginia may be lower than in Charlottesville, but cannot be higher (since Charlottesville is in Virginia).

With regard to Conan, another movie will either make me more satisfied or will not matter--it cannot leave me worse off. If the movie is bad, then it does not matter, since I won't see it. If it is good, seeing it leaves me more satisfied.

TLP holds under fully informed decisions. Hence, given that I might not be fully informed about Conan, I might see a bad movie, so that I would blow my money on a bad experience, leaving me worse off.

Perhaps, though, I view Conan not as a collection of products, but as an idea, so that the mere existence of "bad" Conan experiences tarnish my privately held idea.

Maybe I am concerned that potential future converts to Conanism will be turned off, similar to the way that a Catholic might cringe at negative publicity about the Church. Or perhaps I simply worry that my adopted brand of Conanist will be tarnished by a bad Conan movie--the way that I, as a Catholic, might be concerned that people will think less of me because of negative publicity about my Church.*

Surely the following cannot be the case. "I worry that simply because a movie is being made, it might turn out badly, discouraging a better movie from being made later on. After all, the movie currently being made may be a great movie--there is no reason to think the next one would be better."

On the other hand, if I have prior information that the movie being made is likely to be bad, the immediately preceeding case might hold. For instance, suppose I know that Hugh Grant has been cast as Conan. Any other movie would surely be better.

So, which is it? Or is it something else?

------------------

*Note: I am not Catholic. I use the example to advance my line of reasoning.**

------------------

**Further note: I use the term "reasoning" loosely.

[Saladin]

I've never been a massive Conan fan, so the stakes aren't very high for me. In general Hollywood has been paying much more serious attention to making quality SF/F/Superhero movies than when I was a kid, so I guess it's all to the good. But the other side of this is having to listen to self-congratulatory entertainment industry pinheads acting like it's *their* cinematic reboot that makes these franchises 'serious.' Despite what the reviewers are saying, Batman had a sociopsychologically fascinating story way before Christian Bale grunted his way through the role -- and, yes, even before overrated Frank Miller got hold of it, too. Maybe we'll get some good Conan movies about the inescapibility of violence and the way time wears on a man of action. But if we do, you can be sure some moderately-talented director will get all the credit instead of Howard.

PS - Far as I'm concerned, as long as the movie leeches don't **** with Fafhrd and the Mouser, they can ruin/'elevate' any franchise they want!

[John Arkwright]

I, too, love Fafhrd and Grey Mouser. For some reason I can't transmit that condition to my kids.

[ckastens]

The Conan stories were written so loosely that it's easy to make a movie and not conflict with the series. I mean, how many people have written "official" Conan stories and comics? At least thirty. Is there even a true canon for the series?

I enjoyed the Barbarian movie a lot, hated the other one, and would personally love to see a run of high-budget movies, even if it's a slightly new interpretation.

[John Arkwright]

Batman is a nice case study for movies based on well-known characters. I was in graduate school when the Batman movie was released in the late 80's. Michael Keaton had been cast and all of us comic book nerds were distraught. Mr. Mom is Batman?

The movie was great. We had no complaints.

The second movie fair. They went downhill.

The new vision of Batman (Begins) is excellent--better than the late 80's movie. I had only two complaints about the latest movie. First, Christian Bayle's growl was often indistinct. I would hear, "Har hurram maharan gah."

Second, I got overstimulated in the same way I do when I have fired too many shotgun rounds. After about thirty rounds my nervous system is jangled and I feel emotionally fragile. A little more than an hour into the movie, I thought, "This is really good. Make it stop." It kept on and kept on being good, but not stopping.

---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---
---Spoiler below---

Maybe I have two more slight gripes. I did not really buy the abundant humanity of the folks on the boat. And Two-face flipping the coin and then shooting Batman while Batman just stood there seemed a bit far-fetched. Even holding the kid at gunpoint, I figured no way Two-face could do all that without Batman sucker-punching him. Authors and directors have to do better than that.

[Boris]

IMHO, unless the currently attached screenwriters diverge from what they've done previously, the upcoming Conan script will be subpar.

[Scott H. Andrews]

The Conan stories were written so loosely that it's easy to make a movie and not conflict with the series. I mean, how many people have written "official" Conan stories and comics? At least thirty. Is there even a true canon for the series?
True, but I think many of the core fans, and me as well even though I haven't read tons of Conan, think that Howard's original stories are the true Conan, and the other stuff, even though official, is pale imitations. Which makes it even harder for any movie to live up to those fans' core-fan expectations--the movie could fit right along with L. Sprague de Camp or Robert Jordan Conan, but that's not what those fans think is true Conan.

I'm more worried about the inevitable concessions to make it appealing to mass audiences, like what Peter Jackson felt he had to do to Lord of the Rings. Hopefully Benicio Del Toro won't feel pressure to do that sort of thing to The Hobbit....

[ckastens]

think that Howard's original stories are the true Conan, and the other stuff, even though official, is pale imitations.

That's certainly one way to define canon. I did read all the Howard books when I was young, but even what he wrote is so loose as to allow a lot of interpretation.

The thing is, I would guess (and have no stats to back this up) that more people are familiar with the comic than the books. The comic was really popular in the 70s and 80s, they put out hundreds of issues and had multiple comics going at the same time, including spin-offs like the Red Sonya comics. I would assume a lot of the inspiration will come from there.

I'm more worried about the inevitable concessions to make it appealing to mass audiences, like what Peter Jackson felt he had to do to Lord of the Rings.

You use the right word there, "inevitable". The question is how far they go.

Also, you did know that a Solomon Kane movie has also been made, right?

[ckastens]

Forgot to add, I'll just stick to my "if it's a good movie, I support it". If people enjoy the movie, they just might go back and read the books.

If the movie sucks, forget it.

For all that LOTR diverged from the original material (and made a lot of noble characters look like dumbasses) the movies were still really high quality and I don't doubt a lot of people discovered the books because of them.

The movie needs to be fun, and Conan needs to kick a lot of ass. No matter how bad the odds, Conan finds a way to hack himself out of any situation. That, for me, is the spirit of Conan. :)

[Unregistered]

Any New Conan movie would have to be pushed quiet boldly, incorporating some of the true halmarks of howards character. Chauvanisim, racisim, bloody minded violence as the key to solving problems, and a dark grim world full of death. Political correctness, or an attempt to appease "modern" sensabilities in any capacity would uterlly diminish, or ruin altogether any new conan incarnation. Also for gods sakes I hope they do not use any mainstream actors that come with loaded charachter types.

[Scott H. Andrews]

I don't agree that any new adaptation of the Conan character would have to have him use chauvanisim and racisim among his problem-solving approaches. Those elements were in the original stories, but there's no reason that a modern adaptation couldn't be just as bloody-minded while not being chauvanist or racist. Modern productions of Shakespeare almost always use non-period costumes and women playing the female roles, two things that were never done in the era when he wrote, but the plays still retain their humanity and relevance. That's the core of any story, so anything that captures Conan's bloody-minded humanity would be fine with me.

[Greywolf]

A new Conan movie would be interesting if it could be done without the over-spectacular effects that appear to be the current trend. Arnie did a good job by brute force, even if he wasn't such a mature actor back then. Nowadays, actors are overshadowed by special effects and aren't even given the chance to show their stuff.

[The Crimson Avenger]

I'd love to see a new Conan movie, having ripped through about all of our public library's Howard books in High School.

But I have the sneaking suspicion any new Conan movie will end up looking like The Scorpion King. I've got nothing against Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (He might even be an acceptable Conan) but that movie was just plain horrible.

And I agree that the movie doesn't need to be chauvinistic or racist. But. If you could find the right director and studio to market it as utterly politically incorrect (think Inglourious Basterds) it might make a good movie. Not that Tarantino should make it. That's got disaster written all over it. But maybe Rodriguez or Del Toro.

You could still have the spirit of Conan.