King Conan

[Mark]

What was wrong with the first movie, you know the one that made all the money and became a classic, why don't they try to make one like the sucessful movie instead of going down the same road as the crap movie.

I have to agree but they've now cut ties with the old guard and it might be better to make suggestions that can be beneficial. I know it seems kinda strange but with web crawlers gathering our every word, and film companies using search engines to keep their fingers on the pulse of the public, you'd be very surprised what they read and where they get their ideas.

 

[jdavis]

Ok Positive notes.

1. Kinder and Gentler are not terms to use to describe a Barbarian.
2. Saying that you are going to cut the budget and rush the movie out to try to get a big opening weekend is not a sound strategy. (doing that is ok, but admitting to it isn't)
3. This is a cult classic movie, you need to cater to your fan base, if it is good they will see it over and over again. If it is bad....well see point 4 below.
4. The last thing you want is for your movie to turn out like Highlander 2 or Batman and Robin, it will kill the property.
5. Not having Arnold is a huge blow, you need to do something positive to gather interest in this property, saying you are going to do a cheaper movie isn't a positive. I personally don't care if Arnold is in it or not, there are actors that can do the role, but the public likes to see the same actors in the same roles.
6. Kinder and gentler are not terms to describe a Barbarian, I never saw the Scorpion King but I did see interviews with the Rock where he talked about what a bad kick butt fighter his character was. It is a action movie after all, people want action in their action movies.
7. The most important thing to remember is that most of your fan base wants to see a movie that relates to the first Conan movie and pretends the second movie was a bad dream. The First Conan movie is what you shoud strive for not the second.

Ok so that didn't turn out as positive as I hoped but I'm sure I am not alone in my thoughts on this. The first Conan movie was a masterpiece, the reason there is interest by the public in a third movie is the hope of one like the first the second movie killed the property for years.

 

[Phowett]

OMG I think I'm going to faint from a BIG disappoitment.

 

[durath]

bah!!

This just plain sucks. How could they not have Arnold in this movie? It'd be like having another Indiana Jones movie without Harrison Ford.

If they want to make some crap movie go ahead, but call it something else. Don't ruin Conan by making it a Scorpion King knock-off.

Sorry to rant a bit here but I cannot stand "cheesy" fantasy. Herucles, Xena, Scorpion King etc. I hate all these. I enjoy fantasy that takes itself seriously.

There is a reason LOTR:FOTR is considered a good movie and The D&D movie isn't. Do you think that LOTR would have been as big if Sam would have had lines like "I got to get paid!!"

I can see it now:

Conan sits upon his throne with a troubled brow. His many enemies beleager him from every side. Undaunted the mighty barbarian arises to confront his enemies and says:

"Can you smell what King Conan is cookin'?"

Kill me now.

 

[John Crichton]

Re: bah!!

"Can you smell what King Conan is cookin'?"

Kill me now.

That's funny and scary.

He's the People's King. LOL

 

[Chain Lightning]

Mark wrote:

I'll admit to enjoying some of the cheesier films in our favorite genres nearly as much as the classics (and some films are both!)

And that's cool. I too enjoy the cheezy fantasies as much as some of the serious ones too. But I enjoy them for different reasons. Both serve to entertain two separate tastes. If Conan became cheezy....it would not entertain either for me. And its because Conan is not suppose to be cheezy fantasy.

Sure I like cheezy fantasy....when its suppose to be and when its done well. [ "Army of Darkness", "Princess Bride"]


Or do you mean cheezy as in 'B-Movie' cheezy? In that case....I don't mind those either....as long as they do it in their yard and not in a huge property like Conan. Its okay for "Beastmaster" to be cheezy because it is it's own property. It didn't 'turn' cheezy froma previously established serious material. It didnt' mess up a property. Turning Conan cheezy would mess it up.


Mark wrote:

Perhaps when the delve deeper into the source material available from Howard and others they will realize the folly of the "kinder, gentler" mantra and make a film worth seeing.

Mark, you're an optimist aren't you? Either that, or you're naive as to the amount of wisdom that exists in Hollywood.

But let's hope you're right.

Mark wrote:

My point is that it would be better to let someone new try something and fail than to wait for those that had the rights to have done nothing at all.

I disagree. What happens when you let someone try and fail is you get a property/film franchise that dies and no one (as in the funders with money) wants to resurrect it when someone good finally does come along to 're-do' it better.

No one is going to re-do a good 'Street Fighter' movie because Steven DeSouza already messed up. Same with 'Resident Evil'. Look how dead in the water the 'Alien' franchise is.

Proper resurrection of a film franchise is possible, but it usually involves a long wait for audiences to 'forget' the last horrible one. So if we went with you sentiment Mark, we'd see a terrible Conan movie that fails around 2004 (you'd get your quick fantasy fix) and then no one will touch the property for 10 years. Because that's how long it will take other directors and producers to convince some studio exec that they can do it right 'this time'.

jdavis wrote:

What was wrong with the first movie, you know the one that made all the money and became a classic, why don't they try to make one like the sucessful movie instead of going down the same road as the crap movie.

Because most of those in Hollywood with the power over your beloved property lack common sense. In other words.....they're stupid.

 

[Mark]

Well, if they are doing what they seem to be saying that they will be doing (starting from scratch, from the beginning, so they can build a long line of movies) then "The Rock" is too old just like Arnold. They'll need a new, young actor much closer to the age of 20 than 30.

I'm not sure there are any regular movie or television stars of that age range that have the physique to carry it off. Much like with Arnold, they'll have to hit the body building circuit or muscle beach. Of course, Arnold wasn't very well received when he came to the screen from that realm.

I'm guessing they'll elevate some unknown who may not even have any acting experience (which bodes well for the budget.) Locations are a potential cost, as are animals. The early Conan stoires dealt primarily with, shall we call it NPC interaction, primarily.

It would seem that they will have a decent amount of the budget to steer toward a director and script, which does bode well also.

 

[Mark]

And that's cool. I too enjoy the cheezy fantasies as much as some of the serious ones too. But I enjoy them for different reasons. Both serve to entertain two separate tastes. If Conan became cheezy....it would not entertain either for me. And its because Conan is not suppose to be cheezy fantasy.

Sure I like cheezy fantasy....when its suppose to be and when its done well. [ "Army of Darkness", "Princess Bride"]

Or do you mean cheezy as in 'B-Movie' cheezy? In that case....I don't mind those either....as long as they do it in their yard and not in a huge property like Conan. Its okay for "Beastmaster" to be cheezy because it is it's own property. It didn't 'turn' cheezy froma previously established serious material. It didnt' mess up a property. Turning Conan cheezy would mess it up.

I don't seem to recall Conan ever punching a camel into unconciousness in the books that I read growing up, though it's been a while (early seventies). My impression was that scene was added as pure cheese (and stolen from Blazing Saddles). The clever dialogue (and I mean any of it, anywhere in any of the Conan films, isn't in the original stories) that I remember either. Any time that someone got "clunked" on the head and made one of those goofy faces as they slid down a wall, wasn't in any of the stories. I think people seem to be more forgetful of the cheese that appears quite frequently in the Conan movies. As much as I do not mind that, with the people who made the previous movies in charge we would have had more of the same. I think the only way to be sure that cheese is avoided would be to have someone new in charge who wanted to stick closer to the original stories (and I do not mean the various works of authors who have co-opted the Conan character beyond Howard's stories.) Perhaps your memory is better than mine, I was only 20 years old in 1982 when Conan the Barbarian was released.

Mark, you're an optimist aren't you? Either that, or you're naive as to the amount of wisdom that exists in Hollywood.

Optimist? Yup. Naive? I doubt it. Too much whining on the internet as it is and your assumption and accusation that I might be naive is typical of the kind of non-productive comments that make the Internet so cluttered and discourteous. Stating your opinion doesn't require that you take a shot at someone, unless you feel your opinions cannot hold up on their own. If you walk away from this discussion with nothing else, take that along for future reference. Learn to be courteous and you'll go further and be taken more seriously. There a lot of people who read these threads that never post and they also form their impressions of you based on your approach with others. Besides, I like to be different. As to the amount of wisdom in Hollywood...

Hollywood is made up of a lot of people. Lumping them all together in one group might be convenient for sweeping generalizations that some people like to make, but in the long run it's simply rhetoric. The kind thrown into conversations where it is much easier to intellectualize than to speak in specifics and add concrete ideas of lasting value. If any of the many people who might be attached to future Conan films wanted to find some ideas on how to do Conan movies, they couldn't check the Net (for the most part) since the budget for time and money to weed through all the complaints would doom the film from the start. Most of what I read online is how NOT to do something and what people do NOT like. It would be interesting to see some people break out their Howard stories and suggest some scenarios of how to build the film franchise into something worth seeing, but I highly doubt we'll see that here. It's much easier to complain about what you don't like than to bend your mind toward thinking of good ideas that can be beneficial. It also comes with a risk of others not liking the same things that you do. It can be frightening, but you should give it a try. Please, check my other posts for my suggestions, though in the main I think starting from scratch is a good plan.

What happens when you let someone try and fail is you get a property/film franchise that dies and no one (as in the funders with money) wants to resurrect it when someone good finally does come along to 're-do' it better.

No one is going to re-do a good 'Street Fighter' movie because Steven DeSouza already messed up. Same with 'Resident Evil'. Look how dead in the water the 'Alien' franchise is.

Proper resurrection of a film franchise is possible, but it usually involves a long wait for audiences to 'forget' the last horrible one. So if we went with you sentiment Mark, we'd see a terrible Conan movie that fails around 2004 (you'd get your quick fantasy fix) and then no one will touch the property for 10 years. Because that's how long it will take other directors and producers to convince some studio exec that they can do it right 'this time'.

Yup. I remember how they allowed an animator get the rights to a major epic tale and then pulled the plug on his budget because it wasn't testing well. Then they handed the property to the "finale" over to the same animation studio that had trivialized the story that had preceded the epic. What we got was a weak The Hobbit special, and half-hearted The Lord of the Rings and something thrown together called The Return of the King. The first and last by Rankin/Bass and the middle (attempt at a serious animated film, as opposed to television special) by Ralph Bakshi. I think it's taken about twenty years (plus) to recover from that mess. The Lord of the Rings (animated Film) was well into production when Rankin/Bass got ahold of the rights to do The Hobbit and both were released in 1978. The Return of the King was released in in 1982. The Hobbit and The Return of the King were made for television, just to be clear.

Because most of those in Hollywood with the power over your beloved property lack common sense. In other words.....they're stupid.

You use far too broad a brush to paint a very sorry picture...

 

[jdavis]

Because most of those in Hollywood with the power over your beloved property lack common sense. In other words.....they're stupid.

I don't think I would go that far, if they were so stupid then how come every movie is not bad. Hollywood runs on money, bad movies don't make money, thus they try make movies that people want to see, and suprisingly they suceed sometimes.Yes they fail alot but if they were not making money then they would be out of business. For what it is worth the vast majority of the decision makes are alot smarter than any of us, they do what they love and make money by the wheelbarrow load, that seems pretty slick to me.

It took the Conan Property years to recover from the crappy second movie, and for that matter if it wasn't for the Scorpion King making a huge pile of money then it would still be a dead property. I don't think the Rock will be in it as he will probably making Scorpion King 2 in the next year or so. The worry I have is that they will mess up through impatience, oh and the whole kinder and gentler bit is just silly. They need to head to the gym and find a new guy, there are not that many actors who are built good enough for the role. I also fear the chance they will go for a wrestler, I love wrestling but man Stone Cold as Conan makes my head hurt. They need a back to basics script with a good balance, the first movie had a decent balance, the second movie was just crap because they tried to have wacky stuff in it. The most important thing they need is a good director and one who is a actual fan of Conan. The bad thing about this situation is that the screenplay and the preproduction that was just given up on was looking to be pretty good.

As far as Aliens being a dead property, WRONG. Aliens 5 is alive and kicking: http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/details/alien5.html

Resident Evil dead, WRONG, Resident Evil 2 is in the script phase: http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/details/residentevil2.html

I'll give you Street Fighter looks to be dead, good riddance.

For that matter if you want a idea of what is in the works check out corona: http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/filmlistings.html

 

[Chain Lightning]

Mark wrote:

I don't seem to recall Conan ever punching a camel into unconciousness in the books that I read growing up, though it's been a while (early seventies). My impression was that scene was added as pure cheese (and stolen from Blazing Saddles). The clever dialogue (and I mean any of it, anywhere in any of the Conan films, isn't in the original stories) that I remember either. Any time that someone got "clunked" on the head and made one of those goofy faces as they slid down a wall, wasn't in any of the stories.

I don't consider any of those humorous moments you've highlighted (from the first Conan movie) as cheese....or aspects that made the movie cheezy. They were small LITTLE moments of humor. Which IMHO, when mixed into even a serious movie in small doses, doesn't turn the movie into cheese.

To me, cheese is when a movie's 'cheese' level exceeds...oh I don't know.....about 50%. Like "Xena".

While I agree, the first Conan movie (which everyone celebrates as being so awesome) isn't 100% true to the books. Okay, I'm not an expert. I've only read two of the Conan books (from Howard) and listend to the book on tapes version of "The Further Chronicles of Conan" (by Jordan). But I see where you're coming from Mark. Actually, I don't think the first Conan movie is as perfect as everyone seems to make it out to be. Heh heh, blasphemy I know. But its just my opinion. I still love it though.

Mark wrote:

Optimist? Yup. Naive? I doubt it. Too much whining on the internet as it is and your assumption and accusation that I might be naive is typical of the kind of non-productive comments that make the Internet so cluttered and discourteous. Stating your opinion doesn't require that you take a shot at someone, unless you feel your opinions cannot hold up on their own. If you walk away from this discussion with nothing else, take that along for future reference. Learn to be courteous and you'll go further and be taken more seriously.

Mark I think (and let me remind you that this is only speculation), that perhaps your previous experience made you feel that this thread was gonna bring down a quick and immediate hail of the kind of (as you said) 'non-productive comments that make the Internet so cluttered and discourteous'. If you were thinking this and expecting it, perhaps also.....your mood going into this thread has already been set to receive a lot of negativity.

Basically, what I'm saying is.....could it be because you were ready to expect a lot of mindless negativity you were already in a fighting mood? And, in being in a fighting mood....I think (again, only speculation) you thought I was taking a shot at you?

If I had miscommunicated my intentions, then I will step forward and apologize. It was not my intent. I think what we have here is a bit of misinterpretation of my sense of humor.

I wrote:

Mark, you're an optimist aren't you? Either that, or you're naive as to the amount of wisdom that exists in Hollywood. But let's hope you're right.

Please re-read this. As you can see I put a big smiley face at the end of that jibe. Which I thought to be the universal indication that I was only joking and just teasing on that second part that suggested you being naive. I thought it obvious, that its more likely I believe you to be an optimist. Which is not an insult. Then I followed my sentance with , "But let's hope you're right". I thought this would indicate that I have at least one foot standing on your side.

Mark wrote:

Hollywood is made up of a lot of people. Lumping them all together in one group might be convenient for sweeping generalizations that some people like to make, but in the long run it's simply rhetoric. The kind thrown into conversations where it is much easier to intellectualize than to speak in specifics and add concrete ideas of lasting value.

I don't think I ever lumped them altogether. Again, I think there's a misunderstanding here. I never said "ALL of Hollywood lacks wisdom". To do so would also insult some of the very creative minds that I admire who are also considered a part of Hollywood. Plus I have many friends that work in the entertainment industry as well. They are bright and imaginitive creators who've I've also seen make wise creative decisions. I too would not like to insult these people. When I said, " .....naive as to the amount of wisdom that exists in Hollywood, " that was just a part of the joke. Meant for a laugh because most here do consider a large portion of Hollywood to lack wisdom when it comes to translating beloved properties to the screen. I wanted those guys to smirk at that comment. A sentiment I also share and has plenty of evidence. Again though....let me emphasize that I do not consider ALL of Hollywood to be like this. I just said a large portion.

My response to jdavis' question was: "Because most of those in Hollywood with the power over your beloved property lack common sense. In other words.....they're stupid."

Your response to that was:

You use far too broad a brush to paint a very sorry picture...

Not sure why you said this. Did you want me to give examples of where Hollywood has taken beloved properties from comic books/novels/video games and did poor jobs? Thus not being broad and being specific?

By the way, I said 'most of those'. Emphasis on 'most'. I did not mean all.

When you said I used too broad a brush to paint a sorry picture, are you saying that you'd rather I spoke more detailed in painting a 'sorry picture'? And is the 'sorry picture' the history of Hollywood translations of books (and other things) to screen or is my own opinion a sorry picture?

If you meant that by me saying, "Because most of those in Hollywood with the power over your beloved property lack common sense. In other words.....they're stupid," was too broad a statement on Hollywood's history of screen translation/adaptations...... then I agree. It is a broad statement. Most times I don't have time to elaborate in great detail. I felt that statement didn't need it. Plus, that was my point. jdavis had a long question and my intention was to answer it in a short and simple way. Do you believe my sentance is false?

Anyways, Mark.....I think that maybe you may have read my post too fast. Or something. I wasn't trying to mindlessly bash Hollywood. And I definitely wasn't trying to take a shot at you.

Mark wrote:

Most of what I read online is how NOT to do something and what people do NOT like. It would be interesting to see some people break out their Howard stories and suggest some scenarios of how to build the film franchise into something worth seeing, but I highly doubt we'll see that here. It's much easier to complain about what you don't like than to bend your mind toward thinking of good ideas that can be beneficial. It also comes with a risk of others not liking the same things that you do. It can be frightening, but you should give it a try.

I obviously can't and should not speak for any other posters, but I have my own reasons as to why I don't always post my improvement ideas up. You're saying that a lot of Hollywood production people do indeed surf the net and cruise message boards. And why not make some good suggestions as to how to make Conan a good movie rather than just bash? That way they can read it?

Well, its not from a fear of others not liking my idea. For me, its more to do with my preference as to how much I spend my creative energy and on what. I really don't like coming up with a cool idea (assuming my ideas are cool, they could very well suck ) and posting it on the internet for some producer to come by and take it for himself. Not that I only give away ideas for self profit but I just don't like giving away ideas to strangers. I'll give ideas away for free to friends anytime. Heck, they dont' even have to credit me. I'm just glad I was able to help them brainstorm on something. Plus I spend most of my creative 'juices' on my own stories and game sessions that I don't have any left over that I want to contribute here.

Mark wrote:

....I think starting from scratch is a good plan.

I totally agree. Sometimes there's nothing wrong with bringing in a fresh new team. The part I don't like is not the decision to start with a different team. Its the part that makes them sound like they want to create something that is very much NOT in the spirit of what Conan stories are. And I am the opposite of you. I have very little optimism where you have more. That doesn't mean I think you're my enemy.