[Trailer] Solomon Kane

[Mouseferatu]

and their main character appears to have more in common with Van Helsing than Solomon Kane.

Interesting. While I only discovered Solomon Kane a couple of years ago, I've read almost every one one the stories, and I have to say that the character looked and acted almost exactly as I've always pictured Kane. I'm curious what you thought was off about him.

 

[NiTessine]

The backstory. They're giving him one, and if the review is anything to go by, it has nothing to do with Howard's character (And really, now, a Puritan in a monastery?).

Kane never went "If I kill you, I shall go to Hell. It is a price I'll gladly pay". He went "Men shall die for this". He did not renounce violence, he embraced it. He wasn't conflicted about his soul or seeking redemption. He simply fought evil, because evil should be fought. The fragment "The Hawks of Basti" also suggests he was pretty much always like this.

Kane did what he did and was what he was for the sole reason of being Solomon Kane and it being the right thing to do, and that was the long and short of it. To try and explain where Solomon Kane comes from is to dilute the character and waste screen time that could be used to advance the real story. Really, the main character of Shoot 'Em Up feels closer to Howard's Solomon Kane than this movie's main character.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Hmm...

While I agree with you that Howard never gave Kane a backstory, let's be honest. Few pulp characters had anything approaching what modern audiences would call "backstory."

Or "depth," for that matter. And I say that as a fan of Robert Howard, Burroughs, and others.

I agree that the story isn't Howard's. But the feel of the character works for me. It's something that could have made Kane what he is.

I'm not claiming that it's an exact fit. I'll be the first to admit that it's not, and if the movie doesn't feel, to me, like Solomon Kane, I'll be the first to say so. But the character, as portrayed, feels like Kane to me so far, especially allowing for the difference in both medium and audience.

 

[Felon]

Indeed, but the trailer reminds me more of Van Helsing than of the Solomon Kane stories, and their main character appears to have more in common with Van Helsing than Solomon Kane.

This trailer doesn't evidence any of the glib wisecracking that made Van Helsing feel intentionally campy. It seems very much the stark affair that VH should have been yet wasn't.

As to having more in common with Van Helsing than Solomon Kane....how so? You mean the big hat, dark cloak, and long hair? You mean the concept of the character being a Christian monster-slayer? The two characters share those traits in common.

 

[Felon]

Hmm...

While I agree with you that Howard never gave Kane a backstory, let's be honest. Few pulp characters had anything approaching what modern audiences would call "backstory."

Or "depth," for that matter. And I say that as a fan of Robert Howard, Burroughs, and others.

Exactly. Pulp characters were not intended to have a dead Uncle Ben to feel angst over. They were resolute he-men lthat readers of the time idealized for their lack of flaws, regrets, and compromises.

Why did Conan leave his people and set off to travel the world in search of fortune? Not because of a melodrama involving family honor and dead loved ones, just plain old wanderlust. Why did Doc Savage and the Shadow fight crime? They just made a rational decision to improve the human condition. Their stories might be fun to read, but they're two-dimensional characters, and that just doesn't play to the masses anymore. In modern cinema, characters are expected to have a bit of an internal struggle. When you adapt a character for a different time and a different medium, the character has to actually, you know...adapt.

I suspect what we'll see is the story of how Kane transforms into the grim spectre of justice that we know him to be. And a transformational experience makes for much better entertainment than "oh, I was just always like this".

 

[CCamfield]

In modern cinema, characters are expected to have a bit of an internal struggle. When you adapt a character for a different time and a different medium, the character has to actually, you know...adapt.

Yes, but that introduced internal struggle is a bit of a cliche, really. Look at what they did with The Shadow in the 1990s film. Almost exactly the same thing as here. We can't have a hero who isn't conflicted, so we'll give him an EEEEEEEVIL past so his motivation is to redeem himself or whatever. What they have done here is not original.

Why not a history in which he didn't act, didn't do the right thing, and someone he cared about suffered for it? You could use that and have charact development without this hackneyed change to the character.

 

[NiTessine]

This trailer doesn't evidence any of the glib wisecracking that made Van Helsing feel intentionally campy. It seems very much the stark affair that VH should have been yet wasn't.

As to having more in common with Van Helsing than Solomon Kane....how so? You mean the big hat, dark cloak, and long hair? You mean the concept of the character being a Christian monster-slayer? The two characters share those traits in common.

Well, if we're gonna go there, Purefoy's Solomon Kane does look more like Jackman's Van Helsing than the classic Gary Gianni paintings. More belts and buckles and no white collar.

Neither character seems to have much, if anything, to do with their source material, and were given a contrived internal conflict (although they didn't really do much with it in Van Helsing). It's not depth, it's just a different two-dimensional shape.

I would also argue that Howard's Solomon Kane had depth. He wouldn't be as compelling as he is if he didn't.

I think the concept of Solomon Kane as presented by Robert E. Howard is strong enough to stand on its own. That is why the stories are considered classics. There is a long history of people messing about with classics and creating significantly inferior works. We don't need origin stories for each and every character.

It may be worth noting that The Dark Knight kept the origins of the Joker a secret, and I shouldn't need to tell you the results of that particular storytelling experiment.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It may be worth noting that The Dark Knight kept the origins of the Joker a secret, and I shouldn't need to tell you the results of that particular storytelling experiment.

Absolutely. And that was a brilliant decision--for a villain. It might even work for a secondary hero.

It does not work for the main character/hero of a piece under most circumstances. In the overwhelming majority of cases, for an audience to truly sympathize and identify with a character, they have to have at least some idea who that character is.

Howard's Kane had more depth than most pulp heroes, I'll agree with you that far. Unfortunately, given the average pulp character, that just means he's two-dimensional rather than one-dimensional; he still doesn't remotely approach three. And a lot of who he was had to do with the fact that all his religious and moral reasons for hunting monsters were mere justifications--even in his own mind--to excuse the adventurous urges he felt anyway.

I really don't think that would work for the average audience today, even if you could somehow get it across in the medium of film. (And since it was something even Kane himself didn't realize, and was only in the stories via narrator explanation, I think you'd have to change the character more to express it than you would to give him additional motivations.)

But frankly, when you get down to it, I don't expect--or even necessarily want--fidelity to all the details when it comes to cinematic interpretations of literary works. I want thematic fidelity. I want to watch a movie and say "This feels like Solomon Kane," or "This feels like the Fellowship of the Ring." The details are, to me, far less important than the overall effect--and so far, from what I've seen, the overall effect works. (For me, anyway.)

Ultimately, of course, it's all about how the movie as a whole comes together, not the trailer. I think it looks like a reasonable interpretation--not a perfect one, but very much more than "close enough." You, rather obviously, do not. All I can say is, I hope that you're wrong and I'm right.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It's also worth noting--on a broader, more general point--that I believe there's absolutely nothing wrong with taking older stories/characters/concepts and adapting them to modern techniques and theories of storytelling. I'm a big fan of a lot of older fantasy/sci-fi/horror, including those from the "pulp" era. But I can be a fan, and still acknowledge that modern conceits of storytelling have strengths and benefits that older methods of writing did not.

Take the notion of realistic dialogue, for instance. The idea that characters in novels should speak as real people do--that dialogue isn't just a place for info-dumping, or making sure the reader knows what the character is thinking--is relatively recent, when measured against how long fiction has existed in our culture and our parent cultures. But I'd argue that it's absolutely an improvement.

Or, to put it in other terms, the fact that something is a classic doesn't mean it cannot be improved on--and indeed, many older works are classics in spite of the storytelling precepts and techniques of the time, not because of them. (And yes, I said "many," not "all." Just to be clear.)

Now, whether any of the above applies to Solomon Kane--either as a character in general or with this movie in particular--is obviously up to personal taste and interpretation, and subject to seeing the movie as a whole. I'm just throwing it out there as a broader theory and belief, since it seems to be relevent to the topic.

(And yes, just for the record, I preferred the Lord of the Rings movies to the books. I don't think every change was for the better--some were very much not--but I felt they improved more than they weakened. OTOH, I much prefer Howard's Conan stories--or at least most of the ones I've read--to Arnie's movie.)

 

[Dioltach]

It's perhaps worthwhile noting that Solomon Kane's background is hinted to be shady, at the least.

For example, in The Blue Flame of Vengeance he says, "Aye. I led a rout of ungodly men, to my shame be it said, though the cause was a just one. In the sack of that town you name, many foul deeds were done under the cloak of the cause and my heart was sickened ... and I have drowned some red memories in the sea --." In Hawk of Basti, Hawk, recalling a time when he and Kane fought together against the Spanish, calls him "my sober cutthroat" and "my melancholy murderer".

I think it's a fair enough change by the movie makers, even disregarding the differences between the two mediums and their audiences. That said, I'd have been perfectly happy without the added backstory. I think it would make him more menacing.