• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Finally, some King Conan news!

Dark Jezter said:
Yeah! Casting a pro wrestler in King Conan would be almost as silly as casting a professional bodybuilder in the original Conan the Barbarian. ;)

I don't have any problem with a wrestler being Conan or his son. I have a problem with Triple H being Conan or his son. I've seen pretty much every promo Triple H has cut for the last 10 or so years. Yes, he knows his lines. Yes, he gets good heat from a crowd. I just don't believe he makes a convincing actor.

Did you see him on Mad TV? I know comedy is hard, but I don't think a career beyond wrestling is going to fly for him. At least not with the acting skills I've seen so far. If he ends up as Conan or Kon, I want him to succeed, for Conan's sake, not Triple H's.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

cignus_pfaccari said:
Me, too. Wrestlers, to be successful, do have to be able to act, at least to sell hits and such. Besides, I always liked Triple H.

Brad

Don't forget that Hulk Hogan was one of the most popular wrestlers of all time. Have you ever seen him "act"? :)

Unfortunately, for every Rock or Jesse Ventura or Roddy Piper there are 10 Hogans or Rob Van Dammes* or Tor Johnsons or Kevin Nashes.

I'm hoping Triple H can pull it off just because I don't want to sit through a bad movie. I don't expect it, though.


*Rob was in Black Mask 2: City Of Masks, a sequel that threatens to topple Highlander 2 as the worst of all time.
 
Last edited:

Faraer said:
I think Conan the Barbarian is a good film, but not a good Conan film: the Milius/Schwarzenegger character just isn't like Conan in most ways that matter.

(snip)

Better for Milius to put his vision, which isn't Howard's, into his own world and character (and the same for Triple H) rather than cashing in on and further corrupting the Conan name.

To each his own, I guess. Robert E. Howard's Conan stories are my favorite fantasy tales of all time, and I reread them on a yearly basis. I also thought that the first Conan film was absolutely wonderful, and is one of my favorite movies. Could you please clarify why you thought that the movie was such a bastardization of Howard's stories?

Truth be told, most of Howard's Conan stories wouldn't make good movies. While Howard's short stories are gripping tales of adventure, they are episodic in nature and usually don't contain enough events to fill out a 2-hour movie (with a few exceptions, such as The People of the Black Circle and The Hour of the Dragon).

Without that, and with the script the hotchpotch it seems to be, what does the film have going for it?

The reviews I've read for the King Conan script have all been quite positive (caution, those links are full of spoilers).
 

Well, Conan the Barbarian took various images and elements from various Conan (and Kull!) stories and stirred them into a new narrative: it certainly is a hotchpotch, but I'm not saying that's inherently bad. But Conan is intelligent and articulate, melancholic and haunted by his memories of Cimmeria, fundamentally Celtic (like many of Howard's other leads); and the Milius-Schwarzenegger character isn't (but he does pray to Crom and lives as a slave for years which Conan wouldn't have done). Those are the biggest differences for me.

Milius read into Howard his own Nietzschean (some would say crypto-fascist) philosophy and made a John Milius film. There's enough of a linking thread that it's not an altogether absurd switch; but there's so much more to Howard's underlying themes that the film just knows nothing about.

I'm not one to criticize films that haven't been made, but if Triple H can't pull off a really powerful and subtle performance -- which based on his wrestling work I do tend to doubt -- Conan 3 isn't going to do much for Robert E. Howard's literary reputation.
 
Last edited:

Huh. I never thought the original Conan movie was all that good. Certainly it had extremly little in common with the literary Conan. Apparently I'm an aberration.
 


Faraer said:
Well, Conan the Barbarian took various images and elements from various Conan (and Kull!) stories and stirred them into a new narrative: it certainly is a hotchpotch, but I'm not saying that's inherently bad. But Conan is intelligent and articulate, melancholic and haunted by his memories of Cimmeria, fundamentally Celtic (like many of Howard's other leads); and the Milius-Schwarzenegger character isn't (but he does pray to Crom and lives as a slave for years which Conan wouldn't have done). Those are the biggest differences for me.

Yes, there are differences between the two portrayals of Conan, and there are also similarites. Howard's Conan is a raw, primal savage, almost an elemental force of nature. He posesses a keen and intelligent mind and the spirit of the untamed wilderness. Combining the inhuman strength, speed, toughness, and intelligence, Conan is a larger-than-life warrior king taken straight out of myth and legend. (Although I wouldn't use melancholic or "haunted by his memories of Cimmeria" as ways to describe Conan)

Milius, who is a long admirer of Kurosawa's samurai films, took a few artistic liberties with the character, which included the likening of Conan's development to a sword being forged from the development (because to a samurai, the sword was the soul of the warrior). Milius' Conan begins as a raw chunk of iron, strong but unfocused. Through his expiriences as a gladiator and education as a warrior, the forging of the sword begins and continues throughout the movie. Milius' Conan is a barbarian warrior with a samurai's spirit, who has learned focus and discipline, who has combined a powerful physique with education and cunning.

Of course, there are similarities between the two adaptations of Conan as well. Both are womanizers, both have a love for drink and celebration, and neither version lets a slight pass. Neither are big talkers, preferring instead to speak through their actions.

Milius read into Howard his own Nietzschean (some would say crypto-fascist) philosophy and made a John Milius film. There's enough of a linking thread that it's not an altogether absurd switch; but there's so much more to Howard's underlying themes that the film just knows nothing about.

Conan the Barbarian opens with the Nietzschean phrase "That which does not kill me only makes me stronger." This is important because it basically sets the tone for the entire movie. After his village is raided as a child, Conan is forced to push a giant grinding stone called the Wheel of Pain for several years. He manages to survive the harsh conditions of his slavery while the other children fall over the years (until eventually Conan is the only one left pushing the wheel), and by the time he reaches adulthood Conan has become a physical powerhouse. The Wheel of Pain did not kill him, it made him stronger. Conan's next test is in the gladiatorial combat arena, where he again persists and survives the challenges presented to him. He survives the fighting pit, and emerges a seasoned warrior and a master of weapons. This trend continues throughout the film, with Conan facing challenges that fail to kill him and instead leave him stronger, wiser, and even more dangerous than he was before.

When directing Conan the Barbarian, John Milius set out to create his own version of Nietzche's übermensch, the self-actualizing, self-overcoming overman. Although Milius' Hyborean-age psudo-samurai may be different than Howard's Conan, both are fascinating and incredible characters in their own right, which is why I'm not upset over the fact that Milius' movie isn't a word-for-word retelling of one of Howard's stories.

Howard's Conan stories traditionally revolve around civilization versus savagery, although that theme is only present in a few stories, such as Beyond the Black River. Milius' film is full of symbolism and subtext as well, and can be explained by this in-depth and incredibly well-researched article: A Critical Appreciation of Conan the Barbarian, written by David C. Smith, the author of nearly twenty fantasy and horror novels, as well as several short stories.
 
Last edited:

Great news on the planned King Conan release, even better news that John Milius will be directing.

Conan the Barbarian was a terrific movie because of Milius' direction (plus the great score). The only fantasy movies I'd rank above it are LOTR and Excalibur.

That said, I hope Milius has the courage (and the studio backing) to make another movie worthy of the first -- something with more to it than just mindless action. Please, please no Conan the Destroyer. I still cringe when I think of that abomination.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top