Friday 28 January 2011

Ralph Bakshi's Conan the Barbarian?

I came across this rather interesting little snippet a while back:

"See," he says, "I really wanted to do 'Conan the Barbarian'. Oliver Stone, who is a friend, wrote it and wanted me to direct. But we had to get Arnold Schwarzenegger's approval."

The trio met for drinks to discuss the movie. "And wouldn't you know it," says Bakshi, "I had one too many scotches and offended Arnold by saying, 'Arnold, if I direct this picture, you have to lose weight. You're just too big.'"

Arnold was not amused, and John Milius got the job. "John called me up and thanked me for my stupidity. And of course, it was a bad picture because Arnold was just too big."

What makes this especially baffling is that Arnold did lose weight for the film, because his muscles were impeding movement.  Look at the difference between Conan the Barbarian's fight scenes, and those in Conan the Destroyer, and consider Arnold was pushing it in Barbarian already. It's somewhat perplexing that Bakshi would be fired for doing something Milius would end up doing anyway.

I'm not sure if that's poorly-translated sarcasm in the last sentence or not, but it would be silly to assert Conan the Barbarian was a bad picture purely on the fact that Arnold was already awfully big.

While Bakshi's obviously quite experienced in live-action filmmaking, he never seemed more at home than when he was doing animation. Well, I think we can all imagine what Ralph Bakshi's animated Conan the Barbarian would've been like:

4 comments:

  1. Bakshi tends to exagerrate and twist events in his stories to make them as funny and baffling as possible, I've found from interviews.

    I really enjoy Bakshi's work in animation, I even have a soft spot for his much-derided "The Lord of the Rings" adaptation--he had the potential of making a great animated Conan with the right script. But not by Roy Thomas; the greatest failing of "Fire and Ice" was the weak screenplay by Roy, only saved by great backgrounds and animation--and Roy also came up with the crappy story for "Conan the Destroyer" (I don't really care if the script was better before studio changes. It was still bad. Just like Chuck Pogue's Kull-in-name-only the Conqueror).

    ReplyDelete
  2. i like fire and ice, i think the story is fine for what it is and what the art calls for.However i do not think bakshi would have done any better or worse with conan than milius though.I did not care much for his animated lotr( and i am a fan of alot of his other stuff american pop wizards fire and ice and street fight come to mind), it would have been it's own entitiy much like the way the milius film is in relation to the character. But though arnold was heavier (10lbs i think)in destroyer, I must say i perceived he moved a bit faster in destroyer with his sowrd movement than in barbarian.( my own thought on what appears to be slowness in barbarian is that it is accenting the power of the blows tying in visually with the theme of the flick, which is power.the movie is more a visual and musical experience, which could explain why not much attention is paid to detail, and the slow yet forceful swordplay, i believe is all a part of and in milius mind consistent with this universe created for the flick. i dont think many of us would withstand his defensive parry, much less a forceful blow from him)Destroyer was stylistically ( is that even a word?)a different pic and i found arnold swung his sword and spun around with greater speed , despite his more ripped physique. Al , watch the way he does his silly sword spin thing in barbarian (after he is resurrected) and note how deliberate he is( and slow) but then watch the scenes( i think there's at least two) in destroyer: one is that horseback fight against sven ole thorson( rematch) and then i think when conan and bombatta fight the protecters of the horn. he's seems faster and more adept in destroyer to me.-Mario

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bakshi tends to exagerrate and twist events in his stories to make them as funny and baffling as possible, I've found from interviews.

    And you would know!

    I really enjoy Bakshi's work in animation, I even have a soft spot for his much-derided "The Lord of the Rings" adaptation--he had the potential of making a great animated Conan with the right script.

    Most assuredly. There are parts of his LotR that did parts from the books even better than Jackson's.

    But not by Roy Thomas; the greatest failing of "Fire and Ice" was the weak screenplay by Roy, only saved by great backgrounds and animation--and Roy also came up with the crappy story for "Conan the Destroyer" (I don't really care if the script was better before studio changes. It was still bad. Just like Chuck Pogue's Kull-in-name-only the Conqueror).

    Thomas did a great job promoting and adapting REH, but his original stories just couldn't measure up to the Howard ones. Whose can? That said, I definitely don't think The Horn of Azoth was one of his better stories, but it's still *leagues* ahead of CtD, more than Pogues' Conqueror was over the film.

    But though arnold was heavier (10lbs i think)in destroyer, I must say i perceived he moved a bit faster in destroyer with his sowrd movement than in barbarian.

    Hmm. I'll have to watch again.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've been a Bakshi fan since I was introduced to Lord of the Rings! I think his version of the Nazgul were much more horrifying thant the ones in Peter Jackson's movie. And his orcs made more orcish sounds rather than animal growls. I especially liked how the rivalry of Ugluk and Grishnak played out.

    Fire and Ice is also a superb Swords & Sorcery adventure, the Darkwolf character has influence a lot of my RPG characters, and the sub-humans are how I like to envision orcs for D&D.

    ReplyDelete