A message!

First, a sincere apology for the lack of updates.  A series of events behind-the-scenes have been mounting, particularly one situation which started in August (not what you think) but didn't really escalate until a few months ago.  It's a deeply personal family matter, so I won't get all morose or maudlin, but suffice to say I've been in a somewhat erratic and unpleasant state of mind.  I had hoped to keep this off the blog, but it spilled out in some unpredictable ways: again, I can only apologise.
Secondly, and more pleasantly, I have a renewed sense of purpose.  This is going to be the final post I make regarding the film for the foreseeable future.  I've said before that I felt a tremendous sense of futility when the film came out: all that time analysing screen captures, set photos, cast documents, script pages and magazine interviews.  Thousands of words of analysis and conjecture based on every morsel of detail I could get.  I must've written something like a hundred thousand words at the end of it all.  All for a film that I personally considered barely a Conan film at all.

I was distraught. Actually, it was worse than that: I felt destroyed. I felt like I had wasted over a year of my time on something that didn't deserve all that effort.  Look at all the things that fell by the wayside: my look at Almuric, the Hyborian Age Gazetteers, Barbarians of Middle-Earth, Frazetta & Howard, the Newcomer's Guide - how much more work could I have done in those series?  The Encyclopedia didn't suffer as badly since I was determined to work bit by bit on that every spare moment, but I certainly would've spent more time on it without the film.  All those posts, articles, essays, drawings and projects took a back seat to The Wrath of Zym.

If I found the film good enough on its own merits, that may have helped; if it was at least a box office success, I could take solace in the fact that many more potential Howard fans may use it as a gateway.  But it was a disaster critically and commercially.  It didn't matter that Howard fans and scholars whose opinions I respected enjoyed it, found it an enjoyable enough film, even found it better than the 1982 film - I didn't enjoy it.  I didn't see what they're seeing.  For all the good it did in being freer from the 1982 film's influence than the series or films before it, and for Jason Momoa being closer to Howard's creation than Arnold could ever be, I couldn't help but think: just how many people are going to go out and buy a Howard collection?

It may be that I'm being unfair on the film. The filmmakers seemed to be happy enough with the product despite the problems in the production.  I don't doubt that they thought they were making the best film they could.  Yet, well, the numbers speak for themselves.  If there's anything good I can glean from the experience, it's the knowledge that I felt I did my best.  I sought to mention or bring up Robert E. Howard as often as possible, explaining the divergences and similarities to his work, and bringing up all the books and essays I could.  I met a lot of new Howard and Conan fans, and I feel I must've done some good being one of the few blogs reporting on the film from a different point of view from the Remake Brigade.

But, as they say, onwards and upwards.  There isn't any upcoming news apart from the Blu-Ray/DVD/Digital release.  If a sequel's coming out, it won't be for a long time - and I honestly don't know if I'll be covering it if it does.  Solomon Kane fooled me once.  Conan fooled me twice.  I have serious concerns about Kull and Bran Mak Morn (if the latter's still coming).  And I'm absolutely terrified by what Christophe Gans might have in store for Sword Woman.  I just don't think I could muster the enthusiasm, knowing that any or all of those films could be at best as "good" as Solomon Kane, and at worst as bad as Conan.

But that's in the future.  For now, I have more time to dedicate to the Encyclopaedia, and I'm going to use the blog as the central news network: previews, sketches, queries, the works.  I may do cross-posts on other sites to maximise saturation and get the most possible feedback.  Since I'm kicking the Encyclopedia into overdrive, however, this means that the Blog may not be updated as often: I'll endeavour to keep you all informed, but if you don't see new posts for long stretches, know that this is because I'm hard at work on the Encyclopedia behind the scenes.

I may be knocked for six, but I'm not licked yet.  Conan didn't kill me, and it isn't going to kill the Encyclopaedia.

So what did you all think?

I really haven't been keeping up to date with my replies to comments, but hopefully this post will provide one I can't ignore: what did you think of Conan the Barbarian 2011?

I've already expressed my thoughts at ridiculous length, and frankly, I don't think they've changed much from my initial reaction. What little that was good in the film was swamped and consumed by everything that wasn't as good, and the infuriating thing is, it's easy to see why it went wrong.  Well, easy for this armchair analyst who really has no business talking about why a film flopped, but maybe a few shots in the dark will actually hit their target.

Something of the glamour of a crusade...

One of the more contentious aspects of The Blog That Time Forgot (well, me) is my propensity to go on crusades to enlighten, correct or otherwise address people that get things wrong.  In the past, I've been criticized for it - "The Blog That Does Nothing But Whine" being a zinger that still zings a bit to this day - but I've been doing my best to bite my tongue unless I find something that has to be dealt with.

Luckily, I'm not alone in this. Damon Sasser of Two-Gun Raconteur has regularly commented on these situations on the 'Net, and my Cimmerian Blog compatriot Brian Murphy goes for the jugular when it comes to J.R.R. Tolkien, as evidenced by two recent posts, one addressing a Class 3 Camper, another barely containing his irritation at Evangeline Lilly's latest comments.  I must admit, I tend to grit my teeth whenever I see Evangeline Lilly at the best of times, so I can sympathise. However, there's been something of a backlog building up with People Who Are Wrong On The Internet, and rather than dedicate a number of posts to any one of them, perhaps it would be better to deal with them in one place.

A Tale of Two Remakes

A very interesting little link that perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about when I say Conan really needed more than Grog, Girls and Gore to succeed.  This article talks about the differences between Rise of the Planet of the Apes and Conan the Barbarian: obviously I don't agree with everything, but it's still very well thought out, and the description of the form in particular rings true.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is really more of a “reboot,” to use the preferred terminology of an entertainment industry that has real trouble coming up with fresh ideas, and has therefore taken to devising a whole new language for retreads.  Actually, since Tim Burton already tried rebooting the Apes franchise with his lavish but unloved 2001 film, this is technically a re-re-boot.  It makes a few cute nods toward the original films through repurposed dialogue, but it sets up an entirely new version of the POTA universe, which was originally (spoiler alert for those who somehow missed the earlier films!) a massive temporal paradox.

Despite its copy-of-a-copy pedigree, the new Apes film is terrific, because it found something fresh and original to do with its venerable material.  The rise of the Apes is now a result of bio-engineering run amok, rather than time-traveling chimpanzees giving birth to their own predecessor.  Within this framework, tough moral questions are asked about the nature of loyalty. 

James Franco gives his best performance to date as a scientist whose enduring love for his father, and resulting determination to cure Alzheimer’s, leads him to cut some corners that should not have been cut.  He’s right and wrong, admirable and worth of censure, in equal measure.  In fact, all of the human characters in the story make the epic mistake of underestimating a technology that has the power to rewrite not just DNA, but history itself.

This technology leads to Caesar, a hyper-intelligent chimpanzee brought to life with an astonishing motion-capture performance from Andy Serkis – the undisputed grand master of an entirely new form of theatrical performance.  Caesar’s loyalty to the humans he sincerely loves is pitted against his sense of duty to his species, and his growing hunger for personal dignity. 

What results is a tragedy that becomes all the more powerful because it seems so horribly inevitable.  Great special effects and stunt work are placed in the service of a solid, thoughtful script.  It’s great science fiction, because it takes a single hypothetical – and not entirely implausible – bit of technology, and weaves an entirely believable story around it.  

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The trailers for Rise of the Planet of the Apes showed a compelling story: the tale of good-intentioned science leading humanity down the road to hell; the battle an oppressed minority wages in order to achieve dignity, equal opportunities and fair treatment; a man realising the unforeseen consequences of his work. You wanted to know what happened to the characters you see; you want to know how the story will unfold, even if you know it'll eventually end with the Apes dominant; you are invested, interested, piqued by what you're seeing. And that's just the trailer!

Again: who saw the Conan trailers and thought "wow, I wonder how this story's going to end up?" "What's Khalar Zym's story, what does he want, what will he do?" "What is this movie about beyond the lizard-brained thrills of Grog, Girls and Gore?"  It sure wasn't me.  If there were, then all power to them.  But I wasn't seeing any. This is as much the fault of advertising as it is the film, of course.  When you think of the many ways a Conan film could be just as provocative and meaningful to modern times as Apes - think about how the barbarism/civilization dynamic could be applicable to the modern world, how the treatment of faith could be mirrored by modern interfaith dynamics, how Conan himself could be a different kind of hero - it really drives home what a colossal failure Conan was from a creative standpoint.

It's perhaps inevitable I'd find issue with their discussion of Conan, but although they're there, most of their criticisms are entirely valid.

There was no need to retell his origin story.  This was not a franchise that needed its own Casino Royale or Batman Begins​.

On the contrary, I think it did - because the 1982 film's origin story is completely and utterly different from what Howard told us.  Conan's village was never wiped out, his parents never killed, there was no quest for revenge against an evil warlord, he never had some special sword, he was never trying to retrieve his father's sword - virtually anything that the 2011 film shares with the 1982 film has nothing to do with Howard's work.  The Conan franchise needed to start from the ground up and completely forget about the 1982 film, incorporating the elements that Howard DID mention.

Imagine a Conan origin film that doesn't have a revenge plot at all, where Conan isn't enslaved - be it literally, or metaphorically - nobody kills Conan's parents or destroys his village, nobody steals his father's sword, he doesn't have to learn some ludicrous riddle or mystery of steel.  What about an origin story that's nothing like the 1982 or 2011 films, with young Conan breaking a wild bull's neck, hunting mountain-beasts with a spear, slaying chieftains, climbing the cliffs and crags of his homeland, culminating in the battle of Venarium; then going north to fight alongside the Aesir, being captured and escaping the Hyperboreans, experiencing the civilized wonders of the Hyborian Kingdoms, and ending up in Zamora in time for "The Tower of the Elephant." Then imagine how the barbarism/civilization dynamic comes into that, as Conan goes from a near-feral barbarian boy to a curious and awestruck thief.

Obviously I would prefer an actual adaptation of one of Robert E. Howard's fantastic stories than yet another origin story, but considering the 1982 film is so contradictory to Howard's creation, a new origin would establish once and for all that this is new, different and not a remake.  Pretty much like what Rise of the Planet of the Apes did.  Sadly, that wasn't the film we got, because Avi Lerner and Joe Drake are imbeciles.

She can scarcely hold her own against Conan’s bland love interest… who would have been a voluptuous damsel in distress in a real Conan story, but feminist Hollywood has strict rules against those, so she’s soon taking down the front-line warriors of the ancient world’s most formidable army.

Or she would be an actual action heroine like Valeria, a female warrior who's the closest anyone - man or woman - in any story comes to Conan's equal. Or she would be a dominant, independent, strident queen who's mistress of her domain like Yasmina or Yasmela. Or she would be a cunning, intelligent schemer like Belit or Zenobia... You get the point. Even the voluptuous damsels like Olivia and Sancha manage to be proactive: those two actually save Conan's life at some points in the story. Howard was actually very ahead of his time when it came to female characters.

Rather than any of those, Tamara was that most odious of modern action cliches, the "faux-action girl," where she's only as competent as the script demands.  If the script calls for her to be badass, she kills foes left and right: if the script calls for her to be captured, she screeches like Willie Scott and does nothing to save herself. In one scene, she's taking down entire groups of soldiers with clear finesse in her swordplay: in another, she's cowering in a corner in terror. No consistency.

Another strange aspect of the new Conan’s bloody, but bloodless, adventure is the decision to jettison its fantastical religious trappings.  One of the most memorable scenes from the original film was Conan’s up-yours prayer to his grim war god Crom, but the new film makes a point of having the villain declare that Conan’s people have no gods.  The Lovecraftian demons who frequently orbited Howard’s tales decided to take this adventure off.

The new film says the Cimmerians have no priests or churches, not that they have no gods.  You hear Ron Perlman say "by Crom."  It's true Conan never discusses his spirituality in the film, but at least he doesn't do it in a contradictory manner like the prayer to Crom (Howard's Cimmerians didn't pray: they figured any god worth their salt gave a man all they needed to prevail at birth, and that asking for further aid was a grave insult and sign of weakness and dependence). It would've been nice for him to say Crom at least once, though.

"Caesar the chimpanzee got a reboot, while Conan the Barbarian got a retread."

That, sad to say, says it all.

What the hell happened?

So not only is Conan: The Wrath of Zym 2011 a critical failure, but it looks increasingly likely that it's going to be a commercial disaster, too.  It shames me to admit I feel a small measure of shadenfreude: see, Lionsgate?  This is what you get when you try to remake an Arnold film without Arnold, and more importantly, without the things that made the 1982 film a cult classic.  See, Millennium?  This is what happens when you try and build a story around the sets you have available instead of the talent.  See, CPI?  This is what you get when you try to compromise, when you try to make a film that tries to appeal to the lowest common denominator instead of making something bold, challenging and different.

But frankly, all those feelings of "we told you so" are utterly submerged in a deeper, darker feeling of regret.  So many people worked hard to make this film work: seamstresses working their fingers to the bone, production designers having nervous breakdowns trying to make everything work, SFX engineers trying to wring every drop of quality out of their rendering software, actors sitting for hours in makeup chairs.  Even the people I hold directly responsible for the mess the film became - the producers, aside from Fredrik Malmberg (though I do think he made some decisions which didn't pay off) and especially Avi Lerner, and Marcus Nispel - didn't try to make a bad film. I may feel vindicated that another example of people monkeying around with REH and thinking they know how to make a better story than one of the founders of 20th Century fantasy fiction has failed... but I'm more angry that this happened.  After everything that's happened, I didn't want the film to fail.

What to make of this?

Preparing the S.H.I.E.L.D.W.A.L.L. for the onslaught to come

Man, that damned movie...

Anyway, I'm trying my best not to be negative, but in all the reviews for the upcoming film I've seen so far, few, if any, seem to know the slightest thing about Robert E. Howard. This isn't one of them - it's a review of the 1982 film - but it highlights exactly the sort of problems I'm having.  The largest of which being that some people think they can comment on Robert E. Howard purely by watching the 1982 film.  This review is the most profound example of that sort of thing for reasons which will become obvious.

Conan. Oh, Conan. A pulp hero whose whole deal was that he was big and strong and didn’t mind cutting a guy from crotch to throat, ripping out his tongue and throwing it to the starving dogs in the corner. But he also has a bruiser’s intelligence, that kind of thick-necked thoughtfulness an MLB slugger brings to the plate.

To be frank, that describes an awful lot of pulp heroes: Conan had a lot more to offer than that.  Conan was an outsider, someone born outside the comforts of civilization, and yet also curious about its history, wonders and treasures.  Sure, he's brutal, but also capable of great generosity and selflessness later in his career, to the point where he's a noble and just king.  He's a surprisingly complex, intellectual and thoughtful character who grows and evolves over the course of the stories without losing his sense of self. 

I will say, that description of "bruiser's intelligence" fits Steve Costigan to a tee, though.

Most importantly, however, Conan has the physique of, well, a bodybuilder. 

It would be fairer to say Conan has the physique of someone who lives his life on the edge of death.  He grew up climbing sheer cliffs, hunting animals with spears, constantly battling enemy tribes.  The bodybuilding physique only came from the illustrations and comics, and was further cemented by Arnold.


So far, so predictable.  But this... this is impressive.

They retained Howard’s almost Jungian terminology: Wheel of Pain, Riddle of Steel, Eye of the Serpent, Mountain of Power.

... None of those terms appear in any Robert E. Howard story.  At all.  They're all Stone/Milius creations.  The story of the 1982 film has nothing to do with Robert E. Howard, save that it features a character called Conan, from a place called Cimmeria, and he happens to be a muscular swordsman.

Now riddle me this: how can a film retain "Howard's almost Jungian terminology" when that almost Jungian terminology is completely and utterly absent in the stories?

This is just the beginning.  We've already had dunderheids making statements like this:

It’s certainly obvious that a lot of work went into the film, both as a faithful re-imagining of the original, and as a fitting adaptation of Robert E. Howard’s writing, with much of its imagery being pleasingly evocative of his books’ pulp covers... though it wisely never takes itself too seriously, it never gets too ridiculous. It’s certainly far more enjoyable than it might have been, and whilst inevitably the question must be asked whether a remake was necessary, the film is a solid piece of violent fantasy, that should be enjoyed by fans and newcomers alike.

And eejits spouting this:

Though in most films such a skeletal narrative would spell disaster, it actually works perfectly for Conan The Barbarian. This is a no-frills action experience so fast paced that it leaves no room for high falutin' clap trap like introspection and ambiguity, and Nispel sensibly makes no effort to modernise the brutish, boorish Conan, whose caveman-like demeanour is actually part of his muscular appeal. "I live, I love, I slay...I am content," he says in a rare moment of thumbnail self-analysis. The handsome, charismatic Jason Momoa (Stargate: Atlantis) admirably commits to the role of Conan 100%, and makes for a likeable, impressively physical hard-man hero, while simultaneously injecting finely judged jolts of humour into his essentially one-note character...
As originally designed by Robert E. Howard, the world of Conan The Barbarian was an ugly and violent one, and Marcus Nispel captures much of that greasy, mud-crunched viscera here. Though he fails to work up any truly unforgettable set pieces to rival director John Milius' inspired visions on his big-and-bold 1981 cult hit, Conan The Barbarian (which starred Arnold Schwarzenegger in the title role), Nispel certainly succeeds in making a gutsy, ballsy, bloody action-adventure flick worthy of its central character's towering, archetypal mythos.

And puddinheids trumpeting this:

Momoa actually filmed Conan before (now wildly successful) Game Of Thrones. And he exudes more charisma in his big screen leading role than most of the muscle bound heroes in previous decades, carrying the film with ease, even if Conan himself is restricted by his own motto “I live, I love, I slay and am content.”
Still, the lack of political correctness in Conan’s outlook on life and love is, depending on your point of view, part of its appeal, and for the most part is played in a comedic fashion, free from the malice which permeates so much modern horror, having most of the audience I saw it with laughing along.

And tubes mumbling this:

There is no point to analyze or criticize this bare bones plot because there is nothing to add. Going into Conan with zero expectations and a need to escape certainly helped the nearly two hours running time, and for its many flaws, unoriginal plot, wooden acting and atrocious pacing, Conan succeeds on some level because it fulfills the quota of a manly man beating stuff to a pulp... There is certainly nothing to be inspired by, it is all by-the-book and probably true to the source material in terms of how pulpy it all is... he kills stuff really well, demeans women and eats stuff really fast, there is not much more you can look for in a barbarian.

And glaikits simpering this:

Fully aware and firmly grasping how one-dimensional a character Conan is, Momoa gamely picks up the proverbial sword and hacks away at his enemies with strength and style. The plot is threadbare, as you should already expect, so, really, there is no need to break down what is simply almost two hours of testosterone-filled blood, sweat, fight and gore. Oh, and revenge... This is a lowest common denominator violent actioner, paced so fast you won't - and shouldn't - have time to breathe or think. Concentration, in-depth plot lines and analysis? There is simply no room or no time. Not when what you've come for is to witness a new brute flex his muscles and sell that rough-and-ready caveman-like demeanour. Call it man appeal in a bottle.

And most infuriatingly, numpties snorting this:

An ultra-violent action-adventure, which centers on the same character that Schwarzenegger played but is not a remake, the movie delivers the basic goods (but not more) expected of a primitive mythic epos whose story is driven by obsession and vengeance, guts and blood... The filmmakers are certainly aware of the simple (and simplistic) mythic qualities of the literary material, which explains its long-enduring appeal especially among teenage boys.

This entirely unnecessary potshot got my hackles up:

Screenwriters Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer and Sean Hood mercifully spare us most of the arcane mythology with which Howard larded his original tales, putting what little setup auds need into the mouth of narrator Morgan Freeman, whose presence offers the first clue that the project aspires to some sort of respectability. 

Mercifully? You say that as if Howard's work wasn't worthy of being collected in the Library of America or Penguin Classics, or cited as one of the foundation stones of the modern fantasy genre alongside Tolkien, or that the Hyborian Age wasn't a well-crafted and fascinating milieu worthy of consideration alongside Middle-earth.

And then this sirrah makes this magnificent generalization:

If you believe you’re going to see an intricately crafted piece of cinema, you are sadly delusional (and most likely insane). What we do get is something that, if contextualised in its genre, satisfies on an adequate level.The title alone generates associations and it’s exactly what we are presented with; testosterone, violence, objectification, blood, gore, and sheer brutishness in abundance, as we follow a protagonist that would make 300′s Leonidas look like a crying school girl. Sure, Momoa plays the title role effectively and let’s face it, it’s never going to be the most challenging, as intellect and subtlety are substituted for brawn and killing power (a prime example of the dynamic of the character is when he bellows, “Woman! Here! Now!”).

It doesn’t sink to its predicted lows, but you weren’t expecting the depth of Inception now, were you? It doesn’t try to be anything other than what it is; a non taxing, fantasy-action, that entertains when it comes to its set pieces and choreographed fights, yet ultimately proves that this, indeed, is no more than a shameless cash in, rather than a thought provoking creation, a la Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Momoa delivers a Neanderthal-like performance suited to the character, which culminates in a film that can ultimately offer no depth in terms of story or character development...

Expecting a Conan film to be an intricately crafted piece of cinema would make one "sadly delusional," and "most likely insane"?  Surely not, just "maladjusted to the point of psychosis" would suffice.

No, no, I'm not going to be negative.  I have to stay positive.  The Critique is... well, I'll be frank, it's going to rip the film apart.  The more I've been thinking about the film, the angrier I've been getting, especially when I come across "whadaya expect, Citizen Kane?" type responses.

Attempting A More Howardian Rewrite

Having read Lagomorph Rex's fascinating overview of Michael A. Stackpole's Conan the Barbarian novelization, I was struck by a few things.  One thing was that Stackpole made a lot of changes and additions that I would've made if I were re-writing this film: Conan's grandfather is mentioned, Venarium, greater care is made to have the world and events even broadly match what we know from Howard's work, etc.

Now that we've seen many of the characters and have an idea of the story, I figure I might as well post "Conan the Barbarian: Attempting A More Howardian Rewrite, Or, Let's Fix the Doppenheimer Script," with alterations rising from new casting decisions like Cheren.  I had written this a long time ago (16th March 2010, in fact), but because I wanted to include conceptual art of the characters as I would've depicted them, it fell by the wayside.

I've split the story into five acts, with a prologue and epilogue.  The acts are roughly twenty minutes to half an hour, while the bookends five or ten minutes.  At most, the film would be 2 hours 40 minutes, at least 1 hour 35 minutes: ideally it would be somewhere in between, perhaps a lean 2 hours. This is the best I could manage. I tried to include as many of the Doppenheimer/Lobel/Hood characters as I could, and as many of the plot points. It still isn't anywhere near perfect, and I don't doubt it leads a lot to be desired as a screenplay, but I figured I could at least try.

An Appeal for Atrocious Adaptations

Some of the regulars at Grognardia seem to disagree with me in regards to the Conan film.  Some seem to think I'm being unreasonable in wanting a film based on some of the best Sword-and-Sorcery stories ever written to adapt said stories, in a way that just about every other literary adaptation has been adapted.  Some seem to completely fail to understand the difference between this and the 1982 film's divergences from the source material, and the differences from other film.  One chap even brings up A Clockwork Orange, Jaws, and Planet of the Apes as examples of unfaithful adaptations.  As I said in the comments:

A Clockwork Orange retains the characters, themes and plot of the book. Alex de Large is a delinquent obsessed with classical music, leader of a gang called the Droogs, who commit atrocious acts of violence; after attacking a couple and raping the wife, he is captured, and subjected to the Ludovico technique, which instils an aversion to violence that utterly transforms him. Sure, certain elements are changed, but it still follows the story, adapts the characters, and retains the themes.

Same with Jaws. A shark is threatening Amity Island, Chief Martin Brody has to campaign against the mayor to close the beach and kill the shark, he hires oceanographer Matt Hooper and shark hunter Quint to kill it, the three don't get along but eventually bond, before Brody sees the shark die. Sure, certain elements are changed, but it still follows the story, adapts the characters, and retains the themes.

Planet of the Apes. An earthman crashes his spaceship on a strange planet; the humans are brutish and apelike, and encounter an ape hunting party, who have reached civilization, and have mastered language, technology and culture, though their origins are lost to time; the earthman is adopted by two sympathetic ape scientists called Cornelius and Zira, who are astonished by his intelligence; ape society is divided between warlike gorillas, political orang-utans and intellectual chimpanzees; the truth of the planet is discovered, as it's revealed to be earth in the far future after an ape rebellion. Sure, certain elements are changed, but it still follows the story, adapts the characters, and retains the themes.

Man, if only we got Conan films as unfaithful as those adaptations.

I've been through this before, but I'm still absolutely perplexed at the idea that anyone could consider what Stone & Milius did with Conan to be remotely comparable to those other films.  Then I thought: perhaps you, yes you, could help?

What I'm asking is for you to provide an example of an adaptation of a character which is as alien to the source material as Conan the Barbarian is.  In order to qualify, I'm going to suggest a few things:

• Every character in the film is an original creation, aside from the main character. They could borrow a name from the mythology or one of the author's other works (as in Thulsa Doom), but they have to be largely completely independent in personality, biography and appearance.
• The film's story is an original creation. There can be scenes and elements lifted from the source material, but the overarching narrative, subplots and the like have to be introduced by the screenwriters.
• The central tenets of the origin story for the character, if present, have to be either ignored or directly contradicted.
• The philosophy, themes and allusions are sometimes contradictory to the original source material.

Sound good?  It's actually bothering me that I can't think of that many adaptations. That said, I won't exclude suitably divergent adaptations that don't adhere to the above: I just want to know if Conan's in good company.

Right now, I can think of only one: Alex Proyas' I, Robot.  The de facto main character of the stories, Dr. Susan Calvin, is present in the film, albeit pushed into second banana for Will Smith, and aside from occupation, belief in the innate decency of robots, and antipathy to humans, she isn't very similar to the original character. For one thing, Asimov's Calvin wasn't a supermodel before she was a doctor.  The story is largely an invention, originally a science fiction film called Hardwired that had nothing to do with Asimov, before it was retroactively dolled up after the author's death. There are a few lifts from the stories, such as a robot hiding among its duplicates a la "Little Lost Robot," the reinterpretation of the Three Laws from "The Evitable Conflict," and the idea of a lying robot from "Liar," but hardly enough to constitute adaptations. I don't even need to tell you about the other things.

On the surface, Verhoeven's Starship Troopers would seem to apply, but then again, it does (poorly) adapt the plot and character: Rico, Raszcak, Rico being flogged for failing in testing, training is hazardous and deadly, the bugs annihilate Rico's home Buenos Aires, the invasion of Klendathu, Dizzy Flores dies, the arachnids are more intelligent than first believed.  I'd say it's closer to Conan the Barbarian than, say, The Lord of the Rings in terms of adaptation, though.  Certainly the themes are highly opposed.

So, over to you.  Can you think of anything?

Maps for a Land I've Never Seen...

The official map over at ConantheBarbarianIn3D.com encapsulates exactly what my problem with the film is.  And, to echo what I said over at CMB:

Let’s imagine Warner Brothers do something like this for The Hobbit: a stylized map showing all the regions in the film. Someone who knows nothing of Middle earth might see a cosy little village with doors in the hills; a stately town hidden in the mountains; high peaks shrouded in mist; a dark forest housing a hidden city and a black fortress; a grim mountain circled by a dragon; a city standing on a lake. A Tolkien fan, however, wouldn’t even need map markers to know what they were looking at – Hobbiton in the Shire; Rivendell; the Misty Mountains; Mirkwood, the Wood-elves’ realm and Dol Goldur; the Lonely Mountain and Smaug; Laketown.

A Conan fan doesn’t have that pleasure looking at this map. If I didn’t already know about the locations, I probably couldn’t even hazard a guess as to what the dark fortress, Greek-looking city, Middle-Eastern-looking city and coastal fort could be. I’ve even seen comments on the internet thinking the dark fortress, Middle-Eastern city and desert is Stygia, the Greek-Influenced Monastery and forest is Aquilonia, and the pirate ship is somewhere out on the Western Ocean in Tortage. Even considering that the broad location of the film is set on the “savage coast” of Turan, it’s parts of Turan we haven’t seen in any of the stories.

So the idea that the filmmakers have spent all this time and money making a completely new world when they already have 80 years’ worth of legend to draw from is… well, it is what it is, is all.

Then I imagined what a map of actual Conan stories would be like.  Conan the Barbarian: Black Colossus would have Kuthchemes, Khoraja, Aphaka, Altaku, Shamla Pass, maybe Eruk and Akbatana.  Conan the Barbarian: Queen of the Black Coast would have Messantia, the Black Coast, the Zarkheba River, the City of the Winged One, possibly adding Abombi, the Stygian Coast and Khemi.  Conan the Barbarian: The People of the Black Circle would have Ayodhya, Peshkauri, Ghor, Zhaibar Pass, the Gurashah Valley, Mount Yimsha.  King Conan: The Hour of the Dragon would feature Belverus, Tarantia, the Valkia, Poitain, Valbroso's castle, Messantia, Khemi, the Valley of Lions.

Wouldn't that be cool?

The Main Problem with the Conan the Barbarian Trailer (and film in general)

I've been holding off on revealing my opinion on the Conan trailer for a while, mostly because I think I've finally achieved the last stage of the Kübler-Ross model.

Stage 1: Denial
Date: 23rd February 2009
Trigger: the Latino Review Featurette
"Let's not be hasty, guys, the Latino Review might have gotten their facts wrong, or perhaps someone's screwing about with them. No way is this script outline real: "Khalar Singh"? Conan's tribe being wiped out yet again? Acheron being a significant plot point in what's chronologically the first Conan story, but never gets mentioned again until the very last? Come on, guys."

Stage 2: Anger
Time: 23rd October 2009
Trigger: Moviehole character casting sheet report
"I am vexed. After almost 80 years, we're going to get Another Made Up Origin Story just like the one we had 30 years ago.  It is extremely difficult to amply convey my deep and resolute exasperation at this turn of events."

Stage 3: Bargaining
Time: 12th September 2010
Event: Encouraging reports on Blackman's script for the sequel
"OK, OK, maybe there's another way of looking at it: if this film does well, then can we get an actual Howard adaptation? If this film does well at the box office, maybe we'll finally get a Howard story on the big screen. Maybe Blackman's script really is a pretty close adaptation of one of the original Conan tales - come on guys, this could be our chance!"

Stage 4: Depression
Time: 12th March 2011
Trigger: Conan the Barbarian teaser released

Stage 5: Acceptance
Time: 17th May 2011
Trigger: This post
"You know what? This is happening. It can't be stopped. It can't be changed. It can't be helped. We just have to figure out what we're going to do from here."

It's a source of constant amusement to me that there are several folk on various boards who think I'm somehow not a "real" Conan fan because I have the audacity to try and give the movie the benefit of the doubt.  Some even seem to think I've gone soft, that Sean Hood's outreach has given me some sort of about-turn on the project, and that I've said the formerly heinous script was now awesome (Wikipedius, he say: "citation needed.")  As far as they're concerned, I'm now the project's number 1 fan, and I brush off all criticisms with a "hey, at least it isn't Ahnold." They have no idea how very, very wrong they are. What they don't know is that giving the film that benefit of the doubt is the only thing that's keeping me sane.

It's as if they knew...

Yesterday, I decided to spend time with my mother.  Helping her out with housework, hauling bags and furniture around, chatting, that sort of thing. I thought: "eh, there hasn't been much news on the Conan movie front, I figure I can stay away from the computer for a few days."  I come back at about 2pm today, but since I've already spent enough time on the 'net, I get started working on my book again.  It had really fallen by the wayside recently, and I was starting to fear the monster Procrastination was rousing from its slumber.  So I stay off the 'net, and start collating and organizing references to Conan's adventures not catalogued in story form (his youth, burning the Stygian fleet, ascension to the throne, etc).

Then I check the time.  6 o'clock.  Hmm, time to check my emails, just in case there's some snippet of information.  I see Sean Hood's sent an email.  In it, he said the following:

...I'm sure you are watching and analyzing the trailer.

WHAT TRAILER

I immediately check my other emails, and sure enough, tons of people have sent me links to the new Conan the Barbarian trailer.  One was from 2 o'clock this morning.  I was 16 hours late on this massive Conan movie news.  The one day I decide to stay away from the distractions of the internet, and it's the same day the Conan trailer comes out.  So, in a veritable whirling dervish of watching, rewatching, listening and screencapping, I started analyzing the trailer 16 hours after it first came out.  Bless Sean and the others for thinking I was deep in thought carefully analyzing this bombshell, but in truth I was going out of my skull sifting through notes on another thing entirely. I probably should've just lied and said "yes, of course, I've been spending several hours watching it on 1/20th speed hooked up to a 50-inch television backwards and forwards," but I'm a terrible liar.

It's preposterous.  This is cosmic junctioning of Adamsian levels.  Of all the days, it was this day?

Ask Momo!

I promise not to snort derisively at that "Robert E. Howard friendly" statement:

"With the new (Robert E Howard friendly) Conan the Barbarian due at cinemas August 19th, Lionsgate can confirm some very exciting news regarding a filmed interview with the awesome Jason Momoa (Conan himself) when he is in London briefly on May 10th. The idea is to open up the first big interview to “20 questions from UK fans/blogs” much like Peter Jackson’s legendary Ain’t it Cool News fan questions written piece during the early production of Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. This Conan version will be a video, and it is a very early opportunity... as such it seemed fitting to open it up more broadly than going with one big website or newspaper."

Well let's get cracking on this, folks!

I've already left my question:

Jason, which of Howard's stories did you draw from the most in developing your interpretation of Conan? 

But just so you know what we're up against, I've taken the liberty of showing the preceding seven comments:

Aloha Jason....your old Friend "Texas" here, I have a two part question for you.
1) As the new age "Conan", so to speak, what do you hope your fan's take away from your portrayal of Conan vs. the Iconic "Arnold's Conan?" I know the story line is portraying REH's Conan, however SO MANY people still compair you to the original.
2) Will we have the honor of seeing you at any Comic Cons or Cons in geneeral in the future?

 - Tiffinie "TexanBeauty" Edge

My question for Jason Momoa.
What three words best describs Conan to you?
 - Blue007

hi jason,as a kid i thought the arnold conan sword was the coolest thing i ever seen, did you try to get that original sword for your role.
 - lee gilhooley

What was it like to work with Rose McGowan?
 - Bruce

Were you allowed to bring in some of your own personality to make Conan a more 'loveable' character or was it necessary to keep the role inline with REH's description?
 - Mirishka

If you could change one thing about the Conan character, what would you change and why?
 - MoreMomoa

Between Conan, Ronon Dex and Khal Drogo characters, who was the most fun to play and why?
 - Julie Nicholls

Some good questions, some fair, others... Well, better get in there before the inevitable "who would win in a fight between Conan, Ronon and Drogo"

Love, Cimmerian Style

A curious post regarding the recent teaser's use of "I live, I love, I slay, and I am content" over at the IMDB, apparently originating over at The Conan Completist:

"...it's used to define the character in the trailer and they should have chosen a different line to present him. The line and specially the way it was spoken presents Conan primarily as a seductive man, not as a tough warrior. And we fans we don't want a movie about a lover, we want a movie about a warrior (if he also loves it's ok, but it should't be a essential part of the character from the start). Conan was not into giving his heart to every women he met. He was gentle with them, but he just *beep* them, didn't loved them. 

In the REH story the line was told to his most important lover (his true love indeed, not one of his several bitches), to seduce her and let her know he had a heart besides being a slayer. He was actually speaking about his happy days with Belit, when he killed men and loved her after the battles, but these days were not his normal way of living cause he usually was a total loner who didn't gave his heart to anyone. In that quote with Belit he was opening his heart as he never did before. It's not Conan said that line to every person he met to define himself, at all. It's absolutely taken OUT OF CONTEXT. If you choose that particular quote you are thinking on letting know the audience this character is equally a lover and a killer, and that's not the point. He was a survivor, warrior, a killer, mainly. Then he could also love but only to a very few women really, so it doesn't define REH's Conan spirit.

I think the quote was, sadly, chosen to attract female audience.

A line which would more faithfully define Conan's spirit would be "I live, I *beep*, I slay...". Of course that wouldn't attract female audience cause that's too male chauvinist and zero romantic. Ironically is more faithful to Conan's everyday life."  

Hmm.  I'll have to discuss this.

One of these is not like the other

The second part of Mark Finn's interview with Adventures Fantastic (the first part of which I swore I commented on, but apparently haven't) is up, and as ever, Mark has a lot of things to say.  Mostly in the manner of the Texan, natch.

However, the beginning of the interview just hammered something home to me:

Howard films…I have to tell you a quick story, an anecdote.  We managed to get ahold of a copy of Solomon Kane from a friend who taped a bootleg.  My wife Cathy was real excited to sit down and watch it.  We were five minutes in, and she said, "Was this Robert E. Howard right here?"

And I said, "No."

Then she said, "Okay."  And we watch a little bit more.  He goes through the things he goes through and he's killing people left and right, and she says, "This has got to be Howard."

And I said, "No, this isn't in any of the Solomon Kane stories."  

"Huh."

I said, "I'll tell you what.  I'll let you know when the Howard stuff shows up 'cause I'll probably get real excited about it."

She goes, "Great."

Thirty minutes go by.  She says, "He's met the family now.  Is this Howard?"

"No, this isn't Howard."

We get to about ten minutes before the end, and she says, "Honey, is there any Robert E. Howard in this?"

I said, "Well, the guy's name is Solomon Kane." 

She said, "Honey, that doesn't count."

The friend I went to the cinema with to see Solomon Kane didn't ask, but then, I'd been bleating about SK's divergences beforehand and told her that this was basically a made up story featuring a dude called Solomon Kane.  Come to think of it, I think I might do a Youtube video of Conan the Barbarian, Conan the Destroyer, Kull the Conqueror and Solomon Kane consisting *only* of the elements one can find in the original stories.  A bit like the purist edits for Jackson's Lord of the Rings, only they'd be about 10 minutes long.  Altogether.

This part spoke to me too:

You know, it's a little sad that the best one of the bunch is still the old "Pigeons From Hell" Thriller episode.  Boris Karloff's adaptation of "Pigeons From Hell" still stands out as following the storyline.  Which is such a novel approach.  Why didn't I think of that?  Why not just take something from the books?  How simple and how basic.  “No, no, no, you don't understand, Mark, we've got to rewrite Conan so that he's on a quest for vengeance.”  Oh, cause that hasn't been done to death.  Yeah, yeah, that makes prefect sense.  Yeah, why not, why not?  In fact, I got an idea.  Why don't you have a Vikings kill his family.  We've never seen that before in a film. 

It just makes me crazy that these guys in LA have…I don't think it's ignorance.  I think it's a willful self confidence there that feeds an ego that has to be the size of C’thulhu.  It's the only thing that makes sense.  If I come to them with a proposal set in a savage land in a distant time about a guy who walks into town out of the wilderness and through strength, cunning, guile, his own wits, he pulls himself up by his bootstraps to become the most famous rogue in town.  But because he's still new in town he hasn't counted on the forces of civilization rallying around him, and so the story ends when he's betrayed and has to leave town.  And they say, "What's the name of this piece?"  and I say, "Krogan the Mercenary".  They'd be like [snaps fingers], "Awesome, we'll run with it.  It'll be just like Walter Hill did in Last Man Standing.  Yeah.  We won't give him an origin.  No, it makes him mysterious.  Perfect!  I love it!" 

That should be the Conan movie.  That should be the Conan movie.  But no, noooo, let's give him a family.  Even though Robert E. Howard's stuff so seldom uses family for anything, much less a motif for vengeance.  Usually it's an excuse to move away.  

Inspired by Mark's post, I created a little bit of comparison between the fantasy films and television series which we've seen in the past decade.

The Harry Potter film series - stuck to the story, characters, themes and setting of the original literature. Some egregious changes, a few additions and many omissions, but it's at least recognizably an adaptation of the author's actual stories.

The Lord of the Rings - stuck to the story, characters, themes and setting of the original literature. Some egregious changes, a few additions and many omissions, but it's at least recognizably an adaptation of the author's actual stories.

The Chronicles of Narnia - stuck to the story, characters, themes and setting of the original literature. Some egregious changes, a few additions and many omissions, but it's at least recognizably an adaptation of the author's actual stories.

Bridge to Terabithia - stuck to the story, characters, themes and setting of the original literature. Some egregious changes, a few additions and many omissions, but it's at least recognizably an adaptation of the author's actual stories.

The Golden Compass - stuck to the story, characters, themes and setting of the original literature. Some egregious changes, a few additions and many omissions, but it's at least recognizably an adaptation of the author's actual stories.

Stardust - stuck to the story, characters, themes and setting of the original literature. Some egregious changes, a few additions and many omissions, but it's at least recognizably an adaptation of the author's actual stories.

Hogfather - stuck to the story, characters, themes and setting of the original literature. Some egregious changes, a few additions and many omissions, but it's at least recognizably an adaptation of the author's actual stories.

City of Ember - stuck to the story, characters, themes and setting of the original literature. Some egregious changes, a few additions and many omissions, but it's at least recognizably an adaptation of the author's actual stories.

The Spiderwick Chronicles - stuck to the story, characters, themes and setting of the original literature. Some egregious changes, a few additions and many omissions, but it's at least recognizably an adaptation of the author's actual stories.

Coraline - stuck to the story, characters, themes and setting of the original literature. Some egregious changes, a few additions and many omissions, but it's at least recognizably an adaptation of the author's actual stories.

The Twilight film series - stuck to the story, characters, themes and setting of the original literature. Some egregious changes, a few additions and many omissions, but it's at least recognizably an adaptation of the author's actual stories.

Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief - stuck to the story, characters, themes and setting of the original literature. Some egregious changes, a few additions and many omissions, but it's at least recognizably an adaptation of the author's actual stories.

Conan the Barbarian - made up a story, characters, themes and settings that can't be found in the original literature. Bares no resemblance to any of the original author's actual stories.

A Game of Thrones - stuck to the story, characters, themes and setting of the original literature. Some egregious changes, a few additions and many omissions, but it's at least recognizably an adaptation of the author's actual stories.

Can you see anything unusual there?

*As James noted in the comments, calling some of these "recognizably an adaptation of the author's actual stories" might be over-generous on my part, but in comparison to Conan the Barbarian...

Why Does It Bother Me So: Why The Upcoming Conan Film Is So Important

Full disclosure: this is going to be a very polarized post.  Yeah, one of those.  Lots of very angry things, and lots of super-duper happy things will be said.  It regards the upcoming film.  Just warning you.

Let's play the "Totally Looks Like" Game!

No, I'm not actually saying or even implying that the upcoming Conan film is ripping off the original Conan the Barbarian logo, the new Hydra symbol from Captain America: The First Avenger, Lurtz from The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Kirk Douglas' titular Spartacus, or the Psychlos from Battlefield Earth.  Sure, there are some vague similarities, but nothing to get in a tizzy about.  I'm just having a bit of fun.

Because if I don't have a bit of fun, I'll probably eat my beard and tear my brains out through my nostrils.

Watch, as Al Descends Into Madness

I don't think I can really talk about the new Conan teaser in any more fairness - or, rather, extreme generosity - than I did on Conan Movie Blog.  I'll probably just descend into gibbering paroxysms, blaspheming cacophonously, screaming words over and over with seemingly no rhyme or reason.  DREADLOCKS!  TEETH!  TATTOOS!  MANGLED!  STILLS!  SYNCH!  INCEPTION!  FACEBOOK!  SWORD!  DELIVERY!  EYEBROWS!  MUMMIES!  BLASPHEMY!

And the fanboys all nod, dripping globules of schadenfreude from their grinning teeth, chanting "We told you.  We told you.  We told you they could never remake Conan the Barbarian.  Didn't we tell you?  Didn't we tell you?"

I rage against the horde, bellowing out more words and phrases.  HOWARD!  THIRTY-TWO!  PULP!  CROSS PLAINS!  EIGHTY!  WEIRD TALES!  LANCERS!  COMICS!  FRAZETTA!

I bash against the cyclopean figures, tall and vast as the basalt pillars of Fingal's Cave, the futility and despair strangling me like a noose.  Still they smile.  Still they chant.  "Milius was right.  Milius was faithful.  Milius was true.  Milius was once, future and forever.  There is none but Milius.  Milius is Conan.  Stone is Conan.  Arnold is Conan."

I scream.  No words come out.  No articulation.  Just roars and bellows, and when my throat fails, rasps and whispers.  I beat the ground with my fists, my elbows, my head.  Exhausted, I slump to the ground.

I see a figure emerge from the congregation of the Milius faithful.  He is tall, strongly built, muscular.  His muscles bulge under his skin like watermelons in a straining burlap sack.  He is smiling.  There is a gap between his teeth.  His chin is strong and proud.  He knees down as I stare, dumbly.

"You weell nevah be free.  Aye am Konahn.  Konayn is aye.  Deny eet ahll you wahnt.  You knoar eet too bee truw.  Konahn ant Ahnuld ah connecteed bay pap calturahl ahsmoarsees ant smoarl rehfehrehnce puls.  Wee cannatt bee sepahrated.  Konahn weell nevah be free, foar een dee ayes oarf der peepul, aye ahm he."

He rises.

"Waht a wayste.  Cahnteemplayte dees oarn der Tree uff Woar."

When a chap kills his father, and causes a lot of bother...

This is a very unsettling development.

If it does turn out that Marique and Zym's relationship is somewhat more involved than most, then that makes me worry an awful lot. Considering Marique's mother has been cast in the film, I wonder if we'll actually see some sort of play on Sophocles' Electra in the film, where Marique murders her mother to avenge her father, or some such variation. Yeah, the whole "villain engages in incest to make him seem even more depraved" has already been done in Gladiator, Chinatown, mythology and who knows how many other films, but let's go with it.

In concept, I could deal with it. Hell, I love the idea of mythological allusions in a Conan film to complement those in "The Frost-Giant's Daughter," "The Scarlet Citadel," The Hour of the Dragon and others, and it would show a level of sophistication the film would sorely need. And as we all know, mythology is rife with bizarre family situations. However, this particular myth, in conjunction with the horrible old ideas on Howard the Oedipal, I see bringing nothing but migraines.

Seven real eastern swords that would be cooler than Khalar Zym's

Double bladed, parallel scimitar.  That can break into a scythe.

I'm not including some of the beautiful historical curved swords like the Talwar, Yataghan or Shamshir, because I wanted to show that there are even more unusual weapons that would make visually striking arms in a Conan movie.

Well, obviously, I wouldn't be making this movie at all, but just because I'm stunned by the mere idea of a Double Bladed Parallel Scimitar, I think it's worth exploring the more exotic blades of the East which were actually used.

Sean Hood Attempts To Explain Himself

Man, this guy.

And so full of contradictions: apparently, Howard's dialogue is archaic and purple... yet he makes a point of putting Howardian dialogue from other stories into the script.  Apparently, changing the motivations, personal history, and very core of the character is just a compromise we have to "get over"... yet his heart is apparently with us.  Apparently, the Conan stories suffer from the lack of recurring characters and an overarching theme... yet the film introduces entirely new characters we've never seen before, and a plot we've never heard of, all of which will never be seen again.  Apparently, the film doesn't have wire-fu, unrealistic weapons, or fake combat... yet we've seen photographs of dudes on wires in front of greenscreen, horrible LARP weapons, and Double Bladed Parallel Scimitars. Apparently, Doppenheimer are accomplished screenwriters... yet Sahara, and A Sound of Thunder.

Bless Sean, I think he's trying his best, but there's just no point.  No amount of sprinkling in Howardian references will address the biggest problems in the script.  It's the equivalent of building a Ford Fiesta, and trying to pass it off as a Lexus by plastering a papier-mache Lexus framework over it: sure, it might look a bit like a Lexus, but it ain't gonna be a Lexus.  You can drown the film in Howard references, even fill it with nothing but lines culled from other Conan stories, but it won't make a bean of difference.