Arnold Might Return

LOS ANGELES (BNO NEWS) -- California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday hinted on a possible return to the big screen after recently meeting with the director of the "Terminator."

Schwarzenegger, 63, will be leaving office next week as he is unable to seek re-election for a third term as governor. On Tuesday, Schwarzenegger wrote on Twitter that he recently met with award-winning movie director and writer James Cameron.

Last week, Schwarzenegger was asked if he would return to the big screen after leaving office. "It depends," he said. "If someone comes with a great script, with a great idea. Will I still have the patience to sit on the set and do a movie for three months? I don't know," said Schwarzenegger, who has also expressed interest in writing a book.

My response to the inevitable "He Should Totally Make King Conan: Crown of Iron" rumours

This is not about revenge-

"Liar!"

-this is about saving the future of Conan!

"Al, let Arnold return to the damn role!"



I will not sacrifice a true Conan film. We've made too many compromises already, too many concessions. They make Conan the Destroyer, and we fall back. They make Conan the Adventurer, and we fall back.



And I will make them pay for what they've done to Conan!

(Disclaimer: if you can't see the humour in the above post, then I can't help you)

Gateway to the Conan Mythos: Conan the Barbarian!?!

This is an... interesting article. (Bold emphasis mine)

After all that buildup of Robert E. Howard, it might seem odd to recommend an entry point he had nothing to do with. But what sets apart the original Conan The Barbarian movie (a remake is planned for 2011) is that its primary creative forces, director John Milius and screenwriter Oliver Stone, had a genuine affection for and understanding of the character. Milius, an old-school Hollywood conservative, was drawn to the warlike nature of the character and his simple, brutal philosophies, while Stone liked his essentially gloomy, melancholic nature. Stone’s script is full of lines drawn from Howard’s original Conan stories, and Milius infuses every scene with the lively pulp energy of the stories. They play a bit fast and loose with the character’s history, but overall, it’s one of the best realizations of Conan: effective, thrilling, and a perfect way to draw new fans into the mythos.

The film has plenty of other merits, as well; it provides a good overview of the geographies and cultures of Howard’s “Hyborian Age” (a thinly veiled amalgam of the classical era of a number of European and Asian cultures), and has a tremendous soundtrack by the late film composer Basil Poledouris. Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn’t do the world’s best acting job, but he looks perfect, and is surrounded by a great supporting cast. The action scenes are terrific, the dialogue is highly quotable, and it captures the spirit of Howard’s stories surprisingly well. (It also has an amusing DVD commentary track featuring a wry Milius and a goofy Schwarzenegger.)

Uh... huh.

Conan the Barbarian: A work of comic genius.

It's all so clear to me now. Conan the Barbarian is a comedy.

Sure, it has measures of profundity and some very serious and tragic elements, but upon my most recent viewing I've come to the conclusion that there is a lot of humour in Conan the Barbarian - and I believe most of it to be intentional.  Sure, you have the alleged "camp" elements and occasional special effects mishaps, but I never really noticed just how much comic material there is in the film.

Rewatching Conan the Barbarian again, I couldn't help but notice little things.  Sometimes it's a reference, sometimes it's a simple gag, and other times it's an attempt to make the world more "real."  I love Cobb's production design (even if it is more early/post Hyborian than the age of Conan, in my opinion) and there are so many elements that leap out at me. Some of these things are utterly hilarious.

Midnight Madness: Conan the Barbarian

I'm keeping busy with a couple of projects, but I just wanted to share this with everyone.

In between penning Apocalypse Now and establishing his position as chief propagator of Republican revenge fantasies with films like Red Dawn and Clear And Present Danger, writer-director John Milius introduced the world to Arnold Schwarzenegger, and through him, Conan The Barbarian. 

This sentence is a bit worrying: is it saying that John Milius introduced the world to Conan the Barbarian the film, or Conan the Barbarian the character?

Milius’ 1982 film (reworked from a script by Oliver Stone) plays with the same surprisingly subtle themes as the Robert E. Howard pulp stories that inspired it. In telling the tale of Conan’s vendetta against Thulsa Doom—the dark shaman and cult leader who slaughtered Conan’s people—Milius ruminates on the relation between civilization and violence, with references ranging from Nietzsche to Genghis Khan.

Notice how the article gives the distinct impression that "the tale of Conan’s vendetta against Thulsa Doom—the dark shaman and cult leader who slaughtered Conan’s people" is inspired by Howard, and that among Howard's "surprisingly subtle themes" are "references ranging from Nietzsche to Genghis Khan."

Articles like this come up all the time, sadly.

It's a conspiracy! A conspiracy, I tells ya!

 
Just a few days ago, I was pondering the awesomeness that was Mark Finn doing a panel on Robert E. Howard in the comics, featuring Paul Sammon and Kurt Busiek.  This, in addition to the presence of the upcoming "Conan" film possibly including star appearances and even footage, as well as John Milius being in the vicinity.  It coulda been one for the books!

Triangulation: Momoa and Frazetta

Well, I certainly did more than last week. I just wish it was under better circumstances.

Monday comes the minor news of the first pictures of Momo as Coco, and the infinitely more important news of Frazetta's passing, followed by tributes on Tuesday and visual ones on Wednesday, with a personal one on Thursday. It was just a matter of time given his health and age, but it's still tough. On Saturday, I decided to pull the trigger on my "Frazetta and Howard" series, where I look at the illustrations in more detail.

First of all, there's this weird undercurrent in the internet that asserts Frazetta's Conan "doesn't really resemble Howard's" or some variation therein. I really don't think this is the case: the only thing that I don't think Frazetta did get was the hair, which was too straight for Conan's "unruly," "tousled," "lion-like mane." Not crimped or wavy like Momoa's or Moellers, nor straight like Frazetta, but somewhere in between that and the Bettie Page do. Something like Oded Fehr's, IMO. But apart from the hair, there's the clothing - and really, given how many costumes Conan goes through, it isn't like giving Superman or Batman the wrong costume. Everything else - dark skin colour, rough skin texture, hairy chest, musculature, proportions, facial features, scars, hair colour, eye colour - all present and correct.

Secondly, there are people who say Milius did a good "Frazetta Conan." Again, I can't say I agree. Arnold's Conan had moderately tanned skin with an oily sheen, brown flowing hair, green/grey eyes, different facial features, and different bodily proportions: a bodybuilder's physique instead of a warrior's. Arnold's Conan looks strong as an ox, sure, but Frazetta's Conan looks like he could believably hold off an army on his own. I never felt that with Arnold. It didn't help that he was subdued by a paltry minimum of two big dudes.

As an aside, I love all the comments on places like Superhero Hype, Comic Book Movies, IGN and whatnot saying that Ahnold would break Momoa in half, when his actual fighting prowess is so utterly laughable when one looks at it. He has some nice moments, like the Battle of the Mounds, but most other fights, he moved like a tranquilised sloth. If Momoan is anything like Ronan, Momoan would freaking eviscerate Ahnold. Does it matter how big your muscles are when your opponent is moving in x4 speed and slicing your limbs off before you know what's happening? (Whoops, getting dangerously close to defending the remake there...)

Then we get into the whole idea of Milius making Conan the Barbarian "an ode to Frazetta and Wagner" - I can't help but think he's too obsessed with the details to get the big picture. He goes for Frazetta's details - the sword design, costumes, architecture, whatnot - but he doesn't do the stuff that made Frazetta Frazetta, as opposed to his myriad imitators and students. He doesn't do the sweeping dynamic colours, the almost expressionist blurs and tones, the stark relief, the composition, the classicism. It's like dressing some street bum in lavish Macbeth costume on the side of a street, and expecting to get Sir Ian McKellan at the RST. Ralph Bakshi did a better Frazetta pastiche: heck, even Nispel did a better job bringing "Frazetta" to life (albeit in only one or two really cool shots).

The first picture in "Meditations" is one of my favourite tributes. It has Luana, which was my first exposure to Frazetta, leading Frank through his gathered creations to the gates of Heaven, and a silhouette waiting at the threshold... Man. Normally I find this indescribably cheesy, but this one just works. It helps that Luana has special significance for me. I might post some of my favourite Frazetta pics with a word about why on an off day, when I'm not so busy.

Anyway, getting myself geared up for Howard Days. Less than a month away! BTW, Drag Me To Hell is totally "Casting the Runes"/Night of the Demon with a different ending, setting and characters. Since Raimi infused it with a lot of his daft humour, it's probably best he didn't make a full remake, since Night of the Demon is one of the finest horror films ever made.

Recutting Conan the Barbarian

I was doing a little back-reading on The Cimmerian, when I found this old gem from Leo:

Other changes listed at Wikipedia sound even more dear, such as Faramir once again resisting the Ring as Tolkien so poignantly envisioned. I also hope that Théoden is less a grumbling and bitter contrarian and more the noble and wise lord that in Tolkien’s book prompts Pippin’s charmingly understated evaluation: “A fine old fellow. Very polite.” In any case, while there is still far more wrong with Jackson’s vision than can be cured with a re-edit, I’m going to download this version and give it a fighting chance to win me over. Just watching the montage in the new trailer of a deadly serious Gimli reaping his grim axe-harvest at Helm’s Deep was enough to stir my blood in a way I thought Jacksonian imagery never would. And if this new Two Towers does it for me, perhaps I’ll hunt down the re-edit of the entire expanded trilogy that’s supposedly floating around out there somewhere.

Intrigued by the concept of fan edits, I explored further.

Well, looks like Milius is getting his Genghis Khan movie...

With Mickey Rourke as a Mongolian.

"I read his script and you know, the man is known for his tough writing. He wrote CONAN and DIRTY HARRY and APOCALYPSE NOW, and it’ll be interesting to see how he works behind the camera. I’m playing Genghis. John wrote as a piece told from the son and grandson’s point of view, how they saw this mythic figure from their family. You see him in flashbacks, back when he was in his mid-40s. And back then, being in your mid-40s was being REALLY old."

It seems that Rourke is a fan of Milius. A while back, Rourke was in talks to play "Conan's" dad in the "Conan" movie, before the deal fell through. Rourke is known to be quite picky in his roles, and tends to make - let's just say - bizarre demands. Could it be that Rourke was initially excited about a new Conan the Barbarian film, realised that Milius wouldn't be involved and that the film would be different, and eventually backed out? It would be depressing if, in some interview down the line, Rourke said "When I read the script, I was all "brah, this is totally different from the original. Why'd you change it?" And when it was clear John wasn't even going to be involved, I didn't want to be party to a project that wouldn't treat the original movie with respect." Or some such.

And, of course, I can't help but make Conan the Barbarian comparisons. The very famous "Crush ya enemeez, see dem driffen befowr yu, ant heyah de lamentations of de wimmen" line from Conan the Barbarian is a slightly altered translation of a quote attributed to Genghis Khan. The original was better.

The greatest joy for a man is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms.

As an aside, the JoeBlo article has the best denoument possible in discussion with Genghis Khan.

He conquered vast portions of northern China and southwestern Asia before visiting modern day San Dimas for a high school history report.

Tarim's blessings on you, JoeBlo.

Triangulation: Gazetteers, Barbarians, Milius, Momoa and Empire

I just have to post a link to the Keegans' April Fool's gag. This was great fun, and I'd love to see some more crazy Two-Gun Bob crossovers!

John Milius Doesn't Like The Idea of Remaking His Movies

Came across this interesting snippet:

“Red Dawn” isn’t the only Milius film getting a new treatment. Marcus Nispel (“Friday the 13th") is making a new “Conan,” a retelling of the mythology that Milius explored in the 1982 film “Conan the Barbarian,” which launched Arnold Schwarzenegger’s career. But Milius is not too psyched about "Conan" either -- or remakes in general. “No one wants their movie remade, especially when the movies take on a life of their own," he says.

Doncha just love it when people have a false sense of propriety over things? What bugs me is that this article is about Milius' dislike of the upcoming Red Dawn remake. Here, he actually has some sort of justification for not wanting to see his movie remade, since Red Dawn was Milius' creation. Despite all the changes, Conan is at its heart an adaptation - a terrible, loose, broad adaptation, but an adaptation nonetheless - and Milius has no more right to be annoyed about a new Conan film than Gene Wilder did when Burton "remade" Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.

New adaptations of pre-existing source material from another medium are not remakes, and it irritates me when people assert otherwise. Is Orson Welles' Macbeth a remake of James Stewart Blackton's 1908 silent film? Is Batman Begins a remake of Tim Burton's Batman? Is The Greatest Story Ever Told a remake of King of Kings? No? Then a new Conan film is not a remake of Conan the Barbarian. True, the upcoming film does steal a bunch of elements, but that isn't what Milius said. What he said was No one wants their movie remade, especially when the movies take on a life of their own - implying that Conan the Barbarian was as much his own creation as Red Dawn was. Which it wasn't. Of course.

Also, "retelling of the mythology" gives the impression that Milius successfullly explored the Hyborian Age and Howard's universe - an impression in whose general direction I can only snort derisively.

A Comparison of the Howard Quotient in the Conan Films

It's crazy how little people seem to know about Conan the Barbarian's deviations from Howard. So, for the benefits of those people, I plan to enlighten them, so they can fully understand the enormity of the gulf between the two.