Conan

[david icke]

The Stargate dude is the weak link. Replace his with Javier Bardem and save this movie from obscurity.

I have never seen this guy act, lol, but I am going with a gut instinct and thinking he is the *strongest* link in this production. He has a great look for the part, and I have read that he is pretty damn good in SG:A, with a great sounding voice. Also, he has said he will be giving us 'MrHoward's character.' Somehow, he may channel that guy if he is given even half the chance with the script.

 

[ChickenScratch]

I actually really like Momoa for the role.

 

[Octoberist]

Javier Bardem would never ever do a movie like Conan. haha.

 

[Rob Lobo]

I really love it when Stephen Lang was announced for this movie. Even though his character is an Asian, I'm willing to give a chance because he is a GOOD ACTOR and he played a Red Indian in Band Of The Hand (A damn cool movie!)

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I think the Man With No Name needs an origin story...

 

[david icke]

I think the Man With No Name needs an origin story...

Yeah, I've read it, he's an immortal who grew up in the time of the Dinosaurs, it's very 'the Valley of Gwangi'. It's called 'The Man With No Name (BC)'*



*Birth Certificate

edit: The man with no name is a bit of a cipher though, a very cool cipher as he is played by Eastwood, but he can easily be the guy from 'Yojimbo' as well as the guy from, TGTBATU. He doesn't say much, and I don't know that I recall any contradictions of interest in the guy.
If this was the same for Conan, we could believe Arnie was Conan. But, even before i started reading these SSoC's, and only had like 12 old Marvel comics of Conan at the point when i first saw the Arnie movie, I did not feel like he was Conan. A lot of that was to do with his silence, Conan talks and talks, and always has something to say and has an opinion on what to do in a situation, Arnie-Conan seems to go with the flow and does not say much about what he wants to do.
But, I understand the point, sometimes we just need to see a cool anti-hero do the biz, and watch him survive in his world.
I can put down Conan's decisions in some situations to his heart/concience getting the better of him and forgoing the treasure to help out, like with the alien in the Tower of the Elephant.
But, at others times Conan do something like kidnap a slave girl and pass her on as a king's missing daughter, could that put her life in danger? yeah, it probably could , they could kill her for playing along I suppose.
So, I mean, I would not mind *some* insight into this character, but I see he is not a man with a mission etc who does not need his mission explained.
and they have gave him just that here, a mission, and an origin intertwined with it.
So, by the end of the 1st movie that will be over, and they can get on with the random adventures. Just have him at some peace by the end of movie 1.


Man, I was thinking that story "The pool of the black one" could make a great sequel. Do it like a King Kong type movie, which it's quite similar to i suppose.
Expand the opening a bit, Let's see the actual adventure Conan was escaping from in the small boat that leads to him being lost at sea, and have the whole section about Conan onboard the ship open up more, play up on the relationships onboard, with the captain getting more and more suspicious of Conan.
Then have the whole second section like KK, with the crew going ashore on the island. But have it expanded, have the crew picked off one by one, instead of as one group like in the story, something like 'Predator', with Conan off investigating the city part while that is happening like in the story.

they can still do random adventures like that, *without* having to reflect on the killing of Conan's people, or having him appear like some mopey, tortured soul. They have to have him at some kind of peace at the end of the first movie though.

Also, i am surprised Conan does not have his own section over here.

 

[Shon]

Ok, while you were typing this up, I posted up a clear example of Conan killing for no reason other than he wanted the thrill of taking over a guy's ship.
Part of being a theif is the thrill, he killed for the thrill of getting the guy's boat and crew.

I have to say, i was a little shocked when I read that. But, I found it interesting as he went onto being very heroic in the same story, as i detailed in the post.

It has nothing to do with having or getting a thrill and everything to do with getting his on ship and crew. It is commonplace in hose times and amongst that company for the strong to lead, and if you challenge for leadership and get it, you lead. Nothing to do with getting a thrill. It is all about having the mantle of leadership and men following you and living by your decisions.

I see the point you are trying to make but your choice of words is incorrect.

 

[Shon]

As i said, even Conan himself did not feel his actons here were that honorable, but were sneakily done.

He said that he felt the crew would not be into betraying the captain and having Conan face him in a fight to the death. So, he did it when the captain was alone, and counted on the fact the crew's protests would not amount to much since the captain was already dead, and would accept Conan as their rightful leader.
the captain had allowed Conan onto his ship, and gave him work, he was a scumbag, but so were the rest of the crew, and Conan can be a scumbag now and again too.

Hi action in taking over the crew not not dishonorable really, he did not stab the guy in the back, he gave him a fair chance to fight. Open combat, weapons drawn, face to face and a fair shot.

 

[david icke]

Ok, yeah, that is what Chicken Scratch said essentially as well, I was just confused as to why Conan himself considered it a sneaky act. Like, if this is the accepted way of things, why didn't he challenge him in front of the crew?
Because the crew had loyalty to the captain I imagine, because he gave them work and board, like he did with Conan, instead of having him flung back overboard, as Conan says to him 'You should've killed me when you had the chance.'
So, the captain acts somewhat honorably and gives Conan a chance, something Conan would do, and Conan takes advantage of that and wants to kill him and take over.

Ok, so it's power play on Conan's part, he's not sure that the crew would follow him if he challenged the captain, and they would stand in the way of a challenge, so he does it out of the way.

I just thought Conan would have been the type to appreciate the act of allowing him onboard etc, as he has his honourable way about him. That's why it shocked me.
You could say Conan didn't like the guy as he kept the woman as a sex slave, but, as we have seen in other stories, conan has expressed the notion that he would keep the Navi against her will for these same kind of reasons, although we never got to see whether he would go through with it.

Ok, they are all barbarians, but i was trying to reason why Conan did not challenge him in front of the crew, if this was the accepted way of things, the strongest taking over, but sometimes there have to be powerplays and sneakiness going on too, like politics, if loyalties cannot be banked on.

edit: Ok, he is not a 'thrill killer' like a serial killer, I didn't mean it like that. It was about the booty. But, lol, getting the booty is still about thrills, thiefs don't have to kill, but, he is a pirate, sometimes pirates do kill for booty. So, I still think there is essentially a bit of the killing for thrills here, as it's for a luxury, it's not for survival, he had survival and was accepted aboard the ship.

edit: Just because it was the accepted way of things amongst pirates and barbarians doesn't exclude it from being a murder done with the aim of gaining personal pleasure, not necesarily from the act of killing, but from taking the man's possesions. Conan could have been a thief who did not kill for personal gain, but he chose to kill to gain control over the guy's ship.
It would have been diferent if Conan's life had been threatened by the captain, to exclude it from being a murder done in the name of personal pleasure.

 

[afan]

Ok, yeah, that is what Chicken Scratch said essentially as well, I was just confused as to why Conan himself considered it a sneaky act. Like, if this is the accepted way of things, why didn't he challenge him in front of the crew?

It is stated that he would be in violation of a Freebooter's "law", because he had not yet risen to a status that would allow him to challenge Zaporavo, in witness of the crew, but as we all know Conan being a barbarian has little respect or comprehension for the legitimacy of civilized conventions. He did however keenly recognize and judge that the crew had lost it's respect for their leader, that Zaparova had lost his edge, and that except for the law of the freebooters, the crew would accept a new and dynamic leader. So he challenged the pirate leader to combat, away from the eyes of the crew, to supercede the law. The combat was open and honorable, Conan faced Zaparova in equal combat. The Hawk was not defenseless. He was a dangerous foe, and obviously not an easy mark. Conan did not triumph because he was sneaky, he triumphed because of a supreme confidence in his ability, an accurate judgement of the crew's dissatisfaction with Zaparova, and his disregard for the laws of the freebooter society.

 

[That-Guy]

I was really excited when I heard that Stephen Lang was cast in this but... he's playing an Asian?



Visions of John Wayne as Genghis Khan immediately come to mind.

 

[ChickenScratch]

It is stated that he would be in violation of a Freebooter's "law", because he had not yet risen to a status that would allow him to challenge Zaporavo, in witness of the crew, but as we all know Conan being a barbarian has little respect or comprehension for the legitimacy of civilized conventions. He did however keenly recognize and judge that the crew had lost it's respect for their leader, that Zaparova had lost his edge, and that except for the law of the freebooters, the crew would accept a new and dynamic leader. So he challenged the pirate leader to combat, away from the eyes of the crew, to supercede the law. The combat was open and honorable, Conan faced Zaparova in equal combat. The Hawk was not defenseless. He was a dangerous foe, and obviously not an easy mark. Conan did not triumph because he was sneaky, he triumphed because of a supreme confidence in his ability, an accurate judgement of the crew's dissatisfaction with Zaparova, and his disregard for the laws of the freebooter society.

That is a fallacy. Go back and read the books. Conan though a barbarian is in most cases the most brilliant, intellectual and critical thinker of anyone around. He spoke every language known within REH's universe, he was verse in all their histories and customs, he was a master tactician. He's always seemed to me like an Alexander The Great, only born in less nice circumstances. Him being simply a barbarian is tantamount to saying a man cannot rise above the position of his birth using his mind and physical prowess ... which Conan clearly did.

In your description even, you state that he pretty much took the temperature of the crew's attitude and knew when to act. So I beg to disagree with your assessment that he's just a barbarian who knows little of the civilized world.

 

[david icke]

It is stated that he would be in violation of a Freebooter's "law", because he had not yet risen to a status that would allow him to challenge Zaporavo, in witness of the crew, but as we all know Conan being a barbarian has little respect or comprehension for the legitimacy of civilized conventions. He did however keenly recognize and judge that the crew had lost it's respect for their leader, that Zaparova had lost his edge, and that except for the law of the freebooters, the crew would accept a new and dynamic leader. So he challenged the pirate leader to combat, away from the eyes of the crew, to supercede the law. The combat was open and honorable, Conan faced Zaparova in equal combat. The Hawk was not defenseless. He was a dangerous foe, and obviously not an easy mark. Conan did not triumph because he was sneaky, he triumphed because of a supreme confidence in his ability, an accurate judgement of the crew's dissatisfaction with Zaparova, and his disregard for the laws of the freebooter society.

Ah, thank you, that explains it all perfectly.
I have only read the SSoC adaptation, that didn't say anything about the Freebooter's law.

 

[afan]

That is a fallacy. Go back and read the books. Conan though a barbarian is in most cases the most brilliant, intellectual and critical thinker of anyone around. He spoke every language known within REH's universe, he was verse in all their histories and customs, he was a master tactician. He's always seemed to me like an Alexander The Great, only born in less nice circumstances. Him being simply a barbarian is tantamount to saying a man cannot rise above the position of his birth using his mind and physical prowess ... which Conan clearly did.

In your description even, you state that he pretty much took the temperature of the crew's attitude and knew when to act. So I beg to disagree with your assessment that he's just a barbarian who knows little of the civilized world.

I wasn't being clear I guess. I am well aware of the intelligence of Conan, it is a cornerstone of the character.
Just to add though, Conan was a supremely gifted quick learner, and picked up languages very quickly, but in his youth he was very naive of civilized ways, often to his detriment. Though he became familiar with them, and realized the consequenes of ignoring them, he could never fundamentally comprehend or respect them.

My point is that he would be aware of the law, but find it's concept foreign and unapplicable to him. It would seem an artificial contrivance to him. Why should anyone defend a useless leader based on a social contract. Conan gave his loyalty based on his own judgement and not on the laws or contracts of civilization, and he would not comprehend those that do.

This example from "A Witch Shall be Born" demonstrates this disregard for civilized laws.

"Why, obedience to our queen is second nature to us, but we were struck dumb and found no word to answer. We broke ranks almost before we knew what we were doing, like men in a daze."
"But when the palace guard was ordered to disarm likewise and disband, the captain of the guard, Conan, interrupted. Men said he was off duty the night before, and drunk. But he was wide awake now. He shouted to the guardsmen to stand as they were until they received an order from him--and such is his dominance of his men, that they obeyed in spite of the queen. He strode up to the palace steps and glared at Taramis--and then he roared: 'This is not the queen! This isn't Taramis! It's some devil in masquerade!"

 

[ChickenScratch]

We are all naive as kids before we learn.

 

[Rob Lobo]

I was really excited when I heard that Stephen Lang was cast in this but... he's playing an Asian?



Visions of John Wayne as Genghis Khan immediately come to mind.

Stephen Lang is a Good Actor I must say. I'm convince that he can play an Asian and not all Asian looks Mongoloid you since I'm myself an Asian. Maybe his feature will look more of Hazara people of Afghanistan. Lang had played a Red Indian in Band Of The Hand and its quite convincing with the natives mannerism too.

Just my two cents

 

[ChickenScratch]

Yeah, Asian is a broad term. My family is Indian, we are Asian. A large portion of Russia, as well as many Russians who live in China along the frontier.

 

[nephron]

I was really excited when I heard that Stephen Lang was cast in this but... he's playing an Asian?



Visions of John Wayne as Genghis Khan immediately come to mind.

Yup. Don't be surprised, though. That's how this movie rolls. They've cast a Hawaiin to play a Cimmerian, too.

What else...

They've got a character described as a "half-witch", as if "witches" are a kind of race.

The movie has "Zamoran Pirates", which makes no sense either. Zamora's supposed to be a landlocked country.

It goes on and on....

 

[ChickenScratch]

You do know that Pirates are not limited to the seas right? Piracy is the act of a private party (not government affiliated) undertaking warlike actions.

 

[nephron]

You do know that Pirates are not limited to the seas right? Piracy is the act of a private party (not government affiliated) undertaking warlike actions.

Gee whiz, I had no idea. (You do know that's sarcasm right?)

Spare me the silly rationalization. "Zamorian Pirates" is another blatant twisting of the source material and we all know it.

Al Harron puts it about as well as one could:

"...the implication is that the Zamorian pirates are some sort of organization. A seafaring pirate organization originating in a landlocked country. Much like how the Golden Age of Piracy was ruled by the Mongolian Freebooters and Bohemian Corsairs."

 

[ChickenScratch]

Gee whiz, I had no idea. (You do know that's sarcasm right?)
Spare me the silly rationalization. "Zamorian Pirates" is another blatant twisting of the source material and we all know it. Al Harron puts it about as well as one could:
"...the implication is that the Zamorian pirates are some sort of organization. A seafaring pirate organization originating in a landlocked country. Much like how the Golden Age of Piracy was ruled by the Mongolian Freebooters and Bohemian Corsairs."

Silly rationalization? It's the truth, piracy need not be tied to just seafaring. I read the books just like anyone in here and I don't see a problem with calling them pirates. You should calm down, I don't see piracy your way so I get sarcasm.

 

[nephron]

Silly rationalization? It's the truth, piracy need not be tied to just seafaring. I read the books just like anyone in here and I don't see a problem with calling them pirates. You should calm down, I don't see piracy your way so I get sarcasm.

It doesn't matter how you or I see piracy. It only matters how piracy was portrayed in the stories. In the context of the stories, "Zamorian Pirates" doesn't make any sense and we both know it.

"Zamorian Pirates" makes as much sense as "The Ku$h!te Knights" or the "Cimmerian Circle of Magi". Or a DC Comics movie where they made Batman the protector of Metropolis, and Superman was an alien from Planet Oa.

Moreover, it's totally unnecessary. If it's only one word, why couldn't the writers have said "Zingaran Pirates", or "Barachan Pirates"? It would have been just as easy, and in-line with Howard's background setting.

The answer to the previous question is: They don't give two $h!t$ about anything Howard wrote. They don't even care enough to use the right geographic names.

I'll concede that "Zamorian Pirates", by itself, isn't that big of a deal, but it is one more thing that demonstrates the approach these people are taking, and their attitude towards Howard's work.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Well if you've missed a post of mine a few pages back you'll see that I've pointed out that after more than 20 Bond films we have yet to have a single one accurate to literary Bond, 2 came close (OHMSS and CR). Adaptations are a different creature and if you wish to be committed to the originals then the books are still there. I've got all the Bond movies on DVD but I don't consider them the real Bond or even close to Fleming's man. I view Conan in the same way.

Yes saying Zamoran Pirates may sound misleading, but only to those who don't know what "pirate" really means. Because I have no doubt if they are described as pirates then they will be committing acts of piracy. Or a DC Comics movie where they made Batman the protector of Metropolis, and Superman was an alien from Planet Oa. Gotta love the hyperbole there, I don't think anybody's locale is being changed, they just described them with a word you wish to quibble over.

 

[nephron]

Well if you've missed a post of mine a few pages back you'll see that I've pointed out that after more than 20 Bond films we have yet to have a single one accurate to literary Bond, 2 came close (OHMSS and CR). Adaptations are a different creature and if you wish to be committed to the originals then the books are still there. I've got all the Bond movies on DVD but I don't consider them the real Bond or even close to Fleming's man. I view Conan in the same way.

So you're saying that this movie has absolutely nothing whatsoever in common with Howard's work, and in fact goes out of it's way to completely contradict the source material in every way possible, including the stories' narrative events, the protagonist's history, motivation, personality, ethnic appearance, the geographic details and history of the background setting, and the central, unifying theme of the the stories because the people in charge only care about the capacity of the IP's brand-name to sell tickets and have no interest in the original stories in any way?

Well then it looks like we're in complete agreement.

 

[ChickenScratch]

I'll see the movie, but I expect the same from it that I've gotten from the Bond films or from most Sherlock Holmes films or Tarzan films. I never understood how people get bent out of shape over these things, the books are still there, if people watch and feel like they need to know more they'll find them. That's why there's a distinction between source and adaptation.

Terry Goodkind's Sword Of Truth is one of my favorite book series ever, the TV show Legend Of The Seeker just doesn't get it yet claims to be based on Goodkind's books.