The new Conan movie are gonna be made by Swedish mates!!

Well, i threw down on it, so why not... 14,000+ votes should be something they would be interested in seeing, but who knows.

http://ultimateconanfan.blogspot.com/2009/11/conan-actor-chosen.html

<(To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women, hihihi!)

I'm boooooored.







(Strangely enough, "Conan" should be a movie for guys... why are they hiring a chick's-wet-dream to star the movie? I suspect they want a Conan ala Wolverine, to get chicks audience. Therefore, this is gonna be TWILIGHT-CONAN bullshit.)

Bah. I don't give a turd. I like to think the people who is doing this pieceofshit one day will find a bunch of hardcore REH psychopurists who will give them what they deserve.

Didn't Conan have a chin? I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere....

Maybe they will add one with CGI... same time they change the eyes colour and remove the tattoos.

They picked him for his looks and eye candy Melrose Place shit. Is this their way of attracting homo's and females to the franchise? LOL! His lips are way too thick and chin weak. But I think we all surmised and guessed that any new Conan actor would be a model type. Even Milius was eying some handsome young male model for Kon.

Yeah, this is They did the very same with KULL.

I can imagine how many fans will get pissed by this. And same with many many fans of other many other franchises spoiled by such bad movies and "official" cinematographical interpretations of in origin good stuff.

Fandom could evolve into producers. Because, the only way of doing something good is doing it by yourself. (It's a clear lesson, I think, after all this mess Hollywood has been doing for years and years and years). There are tons of Conan fans who could produce a low-medium budget movie with only a little money of each one of them. They will know what would be real good and therefore wouldn't really need the money to be spent on idiot stuff like CGI tattoo removing. Also real fans are willing to make sacrifices for love of the material that commercial producers will never do in their entire lifes mostly because these don't really give a damn about the material.

HA, it sounds like 1997's Kull:

Quote :

That news comes via Moviehole, which has also seen some casting breakdowns for the Marcus Nispel-directed sword & sorcery project. They describe Conan as being in his 20s to early 30s (Arnold Schwarzenegger was 35 when the 1982 movie opened) and "Caucasian, powerfully built, broad-shouldered, sun browned skin lined with scars. Piercing blue eyes and square-cut black mane, tall."

The character breakdown continued: "Being the last of his tribe and having to watch his father die a cruel death, he is determined avenge his peoples slaughter by killing all those who led the attack on the Cimmerians, including the all-powerful Khalar Singh. He is prepared to die in order to accomplish his goal. What Conan did not expect, was to find a reason to live." Conan's dad is Corin.

Khalar Singh, meanwhile, "is driven in his quest to find the Queen of Acheron and has been building an empire to do so. His goal is to find the Queen whose blood will bring life to the demonic minions of Acheron while making himself king of this hellish power."

The female lead is Tamara, an 18-24 year-old Caucasian or Middle Eastern beauty. "A master of martial arts, she has been trained to be the Queen's servant, bodyguard and best friend. She and many other female bodyguards to the queen have been in hiding most of their lives because of the curse of Acheron, which would take the queen's life to bring almost immortal power to its king," according to the breakdown.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/103/1039397p1.html

The story reads like what it is, generic already seen junk.

How I imagine the pre-screening audiance to look from the screens perspective...

lamest script/plot I have heard since "King Arthur"

Sadly the audience won't be comparing the movie with the literary version, nor with the comic or even with the Milius version... they will be comparing it with the "God of War" videogame or at the most with the "Gladiator" movie. Therefore, bad news is... they MIGHT like it.

Flaming Turd wrote:

Sadly the audience won't be comparing the movie with the literary version, nor with the comic or even with the Milius version... they will be comparing it with the "God of War" videogame or at the most with the "Gladiator" movie. Therefore, bad news is... they MIGHT like it.

I'm pretty sure the demographic this new film will be aimed at "the aforementioned "Xbox360 gen"won't even have heard of REH or even have read a book past Harry Potter let alone seen any of the Marvel comics from the 70's-90's. You blatantly know this is going to be a PG-13 wank-fest fantasy RomCom supposedly starring a self-aggrandizing twat "McLaren". I'll admit I'm no Conan nut but seriously why even bother if you're not even going to be true to the material unless this is the typical Hollywood exercise of making a dull uninspired remake for cash.

What surprises me is if Oliver Stone and Ridley Scott (in my opinion two of the great film makers of epic stories most recently Alexander and Kingdom of Heaven - well at least the director cuts!) were interested in the making the first film why were they not approached for this?

robhiengler wrote:

What surprises me is if Oliver Stone and Ridley Scott (in my opinion two of the great film makers of epic stories most recently Alexander and Kingdom of Heaven - well at least the director cuts!) were interested in the making the first film why were they not approached for this?

Well... I am pretty sure STONE wouldn't want to go back to Conan because this, from the very beginning, was a producers-controlled project which will let very little for the creative artists to do. STONE is today a guy who can do whatever he likes, so why would he go into a project where he will be so limited? Also STONE's interest on Conan was that it could have been his first and greatest major picture, such an excellent launch for a young filmmaker. Today, does he need that? Nope. The script of this new CONAN has NOTHING that could really take the attention of STONE.

Guess is something similar with SCOTT. He, who is a director for assigned projects could have done an excellent technical job. He cam take crappy scripts and still make a crappy movie out of it, but is undeniable that he at least will direct it very good and with excellent techniques ("Hannibal" is an example). At least, the CONAN movie would have LOOKED allright, though it still would be a piece of bull. Why he wasn't interested in this project either? I would say because, as you say, this is a movie for teenagers and what the hell would Scott doing it, what good can he obtain from it? Nuthin.

To make a movie like this, and to be prepared to firts, CONVINCE the producers you are the right guy, and seconf, fight with them to obtain a minimal creative power, YOU NEED TO LOVE THE CHARACTER. And either STONE nor SCOTT are actually true fans of the character... Milius is, but he was kicked out mostly because he wanted to do HIS movie, and, hehe, let me tell you something, a director with personal creative ideas isn't something that producers actually like.

Flaming Turd wrote:

YOU NEED TO LOVE THE CHARACTER. And either STONE nor SCOTT are actually true fans of the character... Milius is, but he was kicked out mostly because he wanted to do HIS movie, and, hehe, let me tell you something, a director with personal creative ideas isn't something that producers actually like.

Sorry I should have clarified first; if they had decided it was going to be a re-boot (in the fashion of being well behind the band-wagon) it would have been wiser to approach two names (who are now massive) who may have been involved with Conan when Paramount had it, for them (Stone and Scott) to come up with a script IF they (Paradox and and Milleniums Films) were truly interested in keeping it to REH Conan - as they "claim".

With regards to Oliver Stone's "love" of Conan from just from what Milius says on his directors commentary of CtB is that it was Oliver Stone that was the enthusiastic one and introducing Milius to the REH Conan lore, whilst Milius himself admits when he took on the project he didn't know much about Conan and still they ended up taking a lot of key elements from Stone's script. In my opinion its evident that Oliver Stone had had some passion for Conan, rather than merely being his potential first big film, considering he claims he had read all the books and comics at that time; I don't see why he still wouldn't be interested (well I agree with you I can see why not with new script).

Both Stone and Scott STILL have to bow to the studios i.e. when it comes to them releasing their directors cuts, their films are far superior than the cinematic releases (I like Milius blame the dumbing down for American audiences) which if you listen to both directors were ham-stringed by the studio's editing decisions. Whether Oliver Stone or Ridley Scott "need" to do a film is beside the point; but the fact remains if you want to stay true to REH's vision as Paradox claims they want to two guy's who claim to know and understand the REH Hyborian universe and willing to push the boundaries I really couldn't have seen anyone better.

I completely accept your point perhaps the studio want a director they can just bully around and make a piece of eye-candy rather than a worthy artistic masterpiece.

Also I've got nothing against Milius I thought CtB was Pretty Good despite the purists saying "its not the REH Conan" but his vision of having three films with the "forging of the sword; learning to use it properly; and the consequences" would have been far better than Red Sonya (another bloody reboot) and CtD and this new film. You would have thought after three flops they would learn not to pander to the teen/tween demographic!

If you were looking for a faithful to REH movie, you can forget about STONE and even more about MILIUS. I am unsure Stone had actually read the books, as all the references that appeared in his script were in the Marvel comics, and also some were actually ONLY in the comics and not in the books. STONE wrotte a very passionate script, totally, and was heavily involved both in mind and heart. Still, that was FAR from being REH's (as he even placed the hyborian age in an post-apolcalyptic future!!).

I never heard (or read) Stone saying that he would love to do Conan again, I only read him saying that Milius' movie was bad and that his would have been better... So that's why I believe he lost his interest for the character when he lost his oportunity of doing his own version of him.


On the other hand MILIUS has claimed... well, a lot of different things, depending on his mood but he has continually said that considers his "Conan" one of his best films and that would love to do another one, then in 2000 he wrotte "KING CONAN" which didn't had anything to do with REH at all, but still could have been a damn good picture!

If anything, MILIUS is "fan" of HIS Conan, not that much of REH's Conan...


But I take what you say in your post and I tell you in my opinion it's preferable a good movie no matter if it's unfaithful to REH, than a bad movie which was totally faithful.

Sadly, what these motherf@# bring to us is a bad movie wich also is deeply unfaithful to REH. Total and ultimate crap!

I really dont know whats so great about Scott, its not like he writes his own material and then directs it. Moreover he did a remake of" CONAN THE BARBARIAN" called "GLADIATOR", which was a mix of "Fall of the Roman Empire with Sophia Loren and "Braveheart" and of course Milius' "Conan The Barbarian".

Milius I think had better luck with CTB because he was rewriting Stone's who no doubt re-wrote Roy Thomas/Summer's 1st movie script which became a comic book . Milius also mentioned he had a natural talent of imitating and rewriting other authors and couldve made a living off it(and probably did,lol).

The KING CONAN script wasnt very inspiring, I think he was clearly using elements from CTD and KULL along with some of the works of DeCamp over Howard .

I've read the scripts to these movies, and can tell you i would've preferred Pogue's CONAN 3/KULL to Milius' KING CONAN which was I think to overburdened with imitating GLADIATOR(or Shakespeare) which was a imitating of his own CTB, its whacky how Hollywood is.

Actually Thomas' CTD was a good read and had the movie had better production value and a more serious approach via director and acting, the movie couldve pushed CTB off the map as there was more action and adventure and a more warrior Conan. Major gripe about Conan in the first movie was that he was too much the child ,laden with too many 'father figures'.

*What Milius should do if anything, is make his version of his original First Draft but also include his 2nd/3rd draft with some elements of his KING CONAN mvoie and make 3 movies outve it thus remaking the series with fresh actors.

What I don't understand is why the fate of this character is in the hands of so many disinterested people. I'm sure that there is enough money coming from the name to fund a decent film... Why can't CPL do it? Why is hollywood being handed the job of f'ing it up? Shouldn't whoever owns the license be involved in this enough to ensure it goes properly? Would you drop your kid off at the doctor and just say, "yea... just do whatever... I'll be back when you're done."

Cromulus The Destroyer wrote:

I really dont know whats so great about Scott, its not like he writes his own material and then directs it. Moreover he did a remake of" CONAN THE BARBARIAN" called "GLADIATOR", which was a mix of "Fall of the Roman Empire with Sophia Loren and "Braveheart" and of course Milius' "Conan The Barbarian".

Right, that's why I call him a director for assigned projects. He's a great technician, he is able to imitate and take the best and more elegant tricks out of his favourite directors. Still, he has no personality.


About your words AOster, I agree and same as you, I don't understand either

Schwarzenegger reprising his role of Conan is too much a dream, as is Milius getting back on board. I held out for many years willing it to happen and then 2000 comes along and the big news of them returning to only have everything fall apart badly,lol.

The "RED NAILS" cartoon must also be crap, as its not released and its like 3 years old or so now.

Its a shame neither Schwarzenegger or Milius have the professional fortitude or balls of a Stallone or Gibson. They couldve had and gave us all their RAMBO or PASSION with CONAN 3. Schwarzenegger is too lazy and enjoying living off his laurels with re-doing Terminator 2 through the 90's or playing John Kimble-like parts. Milius is too much a sloth or something living off of Apocalypse Now and retelling his Francis stories and battles with Hollywood.

The greatness that was CONAN fell apart shortly after Milius wanted more dough for CONAN II and left not caring, Cobb was lured away with the prospect of directing ET to only be given the shaft in favor of Milius' friend Spielberg, and Schwarzenegger wanted to play Terminator all he time and do comedies for the rest of his acting career and get paid 20-40 million.

*CONAN III may be more complex since it was delayed initially to do I beleive the Wackocowsky's involvement. They wanted to wait to after their Matrix shits were finished and were ruining the structural integrity of the CONAN III storyline or where behind the scenes delivering ideas and Milius, being close friends with them probably didnt mind or catered to their demands to easily since he did 2nd & 3rd draft of the script. Thats my impression. Some of Milius' casting choices were also surprising at the time, whether they were his ideas or the producers I am not sure. He did seem on a WWF(WWE) kick though.



It'll be hard to recapture the luster and feel of CTB, back then there was something magical surrounding the project, same thing goes for STAR WARS, Lucas couldnt recapture anything and ruined it. Indiana Jones IV was so-so, something was lacking there. The storyline wasnt very good and the acting was tired and blase. It wasnt inspired and probably Lucas' involvment didnt help much being that his STAR WARS prequels were duds. It was more a nostalgia piece that had its moments. But atleast Ford wants to make another Jones film.

Cromulus The Destroyer wrote:

Schwarzenegger reprising his role of Conan is too much a dream, as is Milius getting back on board. I held out for many years willing it to happen and then 2000 comes along and the big news of them returning to only have everything fall apart badly,lol.

I too was duped around the hype in 2000. Although I don't know, if this film never gets made and the CGI in the next decade actually lives up to expectations then you might just see the 70 year old Governator reprise his role - I mean T4 CGI wasn't that bad for all 5 seconds worth.

Meanwhile do we want to see this "fagballs" in any film, period?

Andrew McLaren wrote:

The people and fans have spoken and want me to play Conan because I am the right man for the job. I look the part and act the part. That's why right now I have ten of thousands of people across the world excited to see me in the role. I don't need the attention I had my own show on primetime and have several movies and shows currently being pitched to me, and have been on the front page of several newspapers google "new role for ex-marine". I'm an Iraq War Vet, and a former Blackwater Guard of President George W. Bush and a real fighter so nobody's smacking me in the face thats crazy talk. I'm a one in a billion actor and am training in sword fighting and immersed in R.E.H's vision of Conan.

This is actually on his imdb profile as if its going to land him the role as Conan. Feel free to abuse this guy on the Imdb message board.

Thanks, but I'm not interested on abusing the guy in any sense.

Well Schwarzenegger wanted The Rock to take over while the producers wanted Vn Diesel and Milius wanted Triple H.

Cromulus The Destroyer wrote:

Well Schwarzenegger wanted The Rock to take over while the producers wanted Vn Diesel and Milius wanted Triple H.

Well apparently the Triple H rumour is "actually" making the rounds although as if you didn't know already they're actually doing another script re-write.

http://www.conan.com/invboard/index.php?showtopic=7568&st=0&p=141914

I wouldn't hold your breath on anything too amazing happening though. The sole consolation is they might actually find a decent Conan instead of a pouting jackass.

What are the chances that Terry Gilliam would write it if he wasn't busy with Don Quixote?

Terry Gillian writting CONAN? Man, that would be very interesting, also would elevate the character into another dimension (and would start being appreciatted by idiot intellectuals-wannabe)... But for sure it won't be the Conan of Marvel or a generic action-movie ala Stallone or Schwarzenegger, as Gillian would focus more on what any previous Conan author never focused... probably he would explore Conan's weakness, madness, and bizarreness... which would be great I think. Then forget about sthylized Matrix action sequences and idiotic videogame camera effects. Which would be great too.

On the other hand, the movie could be unwatchable But original for sure, and that's something CONAN needs more than everything else, some fresh air and a complete new perspective.

But as we all know, that will never happen, period.

Flaming Turd wrote:

If you were looking for a faithful to REH movie, you can forget about ....

This movie. The script writers had no idea of who or what Conan was. I couldn't believe what I was reading.......it was as if they had this cookie cutter script laying around and just filled in the names. It still boggles my mind as to why the people in control of it all refuse to give us an adaptation of Robert E. Howard's Conan.

AmraTheLion wrote:

It still boggles my mind as to why the people in control of it all refuse to give us an adaptation of Robert E. Howard's Conan.

Because it wouldn't be commercial. In their minds, of course. Apparently there isn't a single producer anymore who thinks fiction movies must be done with any kind of literary consistence on the script. Why? I dunno, but I suspect it's because they are sure audiences don't read anymore, therefore they wouldn't like/understand a script with deepness. They believe modern audiences are used to the TV News language (extremely fast edited, and only telling the superficial facts without going any deeper on the themes) and also to the modern videogames visual style (storyline actually doesn't matter, neither realism, only that everything looks "cool" and "bigger than yours"). Therefore, they believe audiences are idiotized zombies so they make ONLY movies for them.

Besides this, which sucks BIG time (I would burn the balls of all that bunch of shit-heads responsibles of crap like AVPfranchise and this new Conan with a lighter, slowly and with an Hannibal Lecter smile in my face) I personally think REH would be extremely difficult to put on screen, mostly because the best of REH's tales was actually his prose, the way he so extremely passionately described situations, feelings and fights. On screen, that narrative voice is lost, therefore things like "Conan the Destroyer" happens: there's only the surface, and that surface (a very angry giant brute in a loincloth who in front of a problem he just kills) can too easily be something ridiculous and goofy. To do it right, you need a screenwritter and director who has a deep and literary vision of the character, so he can become the substitute for the narrative voice of Howard. And today please tell me one director (who works) that has ever read a book (besides Ken Follet bullshit).