Arnie set to do KING CONAN 2013?

It is true indeed dear old John had a serious stroke back in the year and lost his speech. Such a shame. He had also stated that probably would not direct the new film due to age and health. The filming of the first was so epic it needs a fit man to do it. Also the script he wrote could not be used due to rights and a lot of legal red tape. Very sad as this is for me and i am sure many others. I am sure i will love the new film but John is Conan for me and he took the character and really made something special of it. It matters none that Arnold spoke so little and in fact for me made it better. I love the dark brooding mood throughout the film and the deep philosophic theme in it.

I think if Howard were alive today he would have love John film and i think they'd have been great buddies.

Othnar wrote:

King Sven- The King Osric speech is taken from the opening lines of Howard's Kull story "THE MIRRORS OF TUZUN THUNE"

Well, if I remember correctly, it's not really the same and I prefer Milius' version (with the acting of Max Von Sydow..^^).

Quote :

I can't believe you find his Conan stories boring though!

And yet I do. Some of his monsters, like in the Tower of the Elephant, are.... well, honestly, ridiculous. Just my opinion though. For me, Howard was far more better in his horror short stories or the other adventure stories (Kull, Salomon, El Borak, Vulmea, and so on).

Sorry to hear of Milius' stroke. Don't wish bad health on anyone. Let me tell you guys an interesting tale. My family has been from Southern Colorado since my ancestors, the Jicarilla Apache, moved into the area. My father's father was half and his white side came into this country on a wagon train after leaving the Scotland area. My father's mother was Dark Scot-Irish and her family were some of the first white people to settle this area along with my grandfather's family. They ran some of the largest cattle and horse operations in a four state area. My grandfather was the first to raise registered poled Herefords in this part of the country. The men in my grandmother's family were all bare knuckle fighters and very shroud business people. Their frank way of dealing with people often lead to trouble. And that is where my tale comes in.

My grandmother's father was a large hard working rancher who said little and used his fists to settle many disputes. He lived near Manassa Colorado and would often go to drink in a near by saloon. One night in the early twenties he went for a drink and was minding his own affairs when a group of four young men entered the saloon. They began to cause trouble and it wasn't long until they decided to bait my grandfather. He was getting along in years by this time and was said to move a little slower than he did when he was younger and had lost some of his strength. He attempted to ignore them but they would not give up the baiting. What happened next is still talked about in Manassa's town history.

The leader of the group was an arrogant little roaster and continued to push and taunt my grandfather. After only a short period of time my grandfather had had enough and struck the young man in the mouth knocking him to the floor. He advised the man to stay down and attempted to walk out of the saloon, but the guy just wouldn't stop. He got up and that is when the real fight started. Witnesses say my grandfather gave him one of the worst beatings they had ever seen, it put him in the hospital. The other boys didn't want any part of it after my grandfather was finished with the young man. My grandfather calmly paid for his drinks, walked out of the saloon, and went home thinking the whole ordeal was over with.

Several weeks later my grandfather was awakened by what he thought was a woman screaming. He rushed outside to find that someone had poured gasoline all over his good mule and set it on fire. The mule was running around burning to death. He shot the poor animal and went to the sheriff the next day to report what had happened. The sheriff did an investigation and found that it was the young man my grandfather had whipped in the saloon. My grandfather wanted him arrested and to pay for his mule. But the law wouldn't do anything to the man as he was a town hero to them. My grandfather hated the man until the day he died and never forgot or let anyone in the family forget what had happened. He had always held to the moral code of fighting a man face to face and not hurting his family or property to get even. To this day I and my family hold the man who did it as a coward. That man was Jack Dempsey the famous "Manassa Mauler".

They have a small museum for him now in the little town and no one wants to remember what a jerk he really was. I have talked with many of the old people there and they tell me they couldn't stand him and always thought what he did to my grandfather's mule to be immoral and cowardly. Years after the burning my family was contacted by an unknown writer who had heard the story and was interested in the events and my grandfather. They sent him the details and had some further contact with him on and off. They said he was a little strange at times but okay for the most part. He had heard the story from a cowboy who was buying cattle and horses for a local ranch here, down in Texas. I'll leave it up to you guys to figure out who that writer was. And for those who would call me a liar I invite you to come and do some digging and see what you find!

bladesmith wrote:

Milius improved REH's Conan? Have you read the entire set of books by REH? The new film didn't even come close to the real Conan! I have been reading the original Conan stories for over 20 years and know the character inside and out. I think the confusion with Conan is all of the later works by other writers, comic books, people who have not read the books and garnish information from others, etc. If the real Conan would have been like the new film he would not have become the huge character that he did. For those who care to learn the real Conan you can still buy the Conan collection on Ebay for around $40. It is a hard cover that contains only REH's writings. Read it and see how you feel about the movies. Don't forget that REH's Conan is what started the whole sword and sorcery wave anyhow.

I like the 82 film but Arnold was no Conan by any stretch of the imagination. He said what, 5 words in the whole film? He protrayed a slow witted gorilla and that was not Conan. The real Conan was a brilliant strategist and could read and speak many languages. He laughed and was more open than Milius' character and was not a follower by any means. Milius was protraying Conan as a child like figure when in fact he fought his first battle at the age of 15. He never pushed the wheel of pain (which would not have put that kind of muscle on him anyway), was not trained by some sword master and never fought in pits. Though his father was a blacksmith. And his people were not wiped off the face of the earth! Conan returned home many times during his life. He was a free roaming adventurer who was naturally talented with the sword and was a physical power house (due to growing up in the hard hill country of Cimmeria) that could endure days without water or food. I used to body build and can tell you that someone with Arnold's physique could never endure the life Conan had to lead. I had to eat 8 times a day just to keep up with what my body needed. I have lived life abroad and can assure you, from experience, that a dependence on a constant food supply is impossible more times than not!

The cover art of the paperback releases was fantasy art and ruined the real vision of what REH thought Conan looked like. Thus we end up with Arnold protraying Conan. I have seen a few true to REH's vision works of art that captured Conan as he would have been. But they are far and few between. I really like the 82 film but become a bit upset when it is mentioned that Milius improved on REH's work. That in itself is a slap in the face of the man who created Conan in the first place. As you can tell I am very passionate about this topic. I am a writer also and hate when an editor "fixes" my work. If the editor wanted to be a writer then they should have followed that road themselves and not attempted to make it big riding on my shoulders. Milius should have stuck with the original story and he would have made millions and had numerous sequels as was his intention in the first place. But instead we ended up with Conan the Destroyer. The 82 film would have been better off being called something else entirely if he wanted to make his own character.

Milius only followed in the foot steps of Decamp and Carter (editors who thought they were writers and rode on REH's back to make a living). No doubt he is a very talented film maker but he did break that sacred trust of stealing someone else's work just as Decamp and Carter did. If you read the two books they wrote for the end of the series you will see the contradictions immediately. I have spent my life reading REH's Conan, Kull, Soloman Kane, etc. and my father was also a long time reader of his works. So not to sound arrogant, but I feel that I have a pretty good grasp on REH and his work. I have had a conversation with FT on this and he knows how I feel and what I am doing to change the public's whole view of Conan. You are welcome to read what we discussed (post of the Conan that should have been). But of course this is just my opinion and you can take it as you like!

I have read some of the Books , not all of them , Coming to them after seeing the movie for the first time and Honestly I was kind of disappointed ... it looked more like a typical B series sci fi of the 30s with a guy slashing here and there all kind of fantasy monsters without rest and much logical insight .... I think Milius version is superior ... like a cleaned version and polished from the original author base idea .... The books to me sounded quite boring and repetitive after a while and honestly not really deep apart beeing gore entertaining ... I do not want to make a critic to the books or the author but is just the feeling I had when I read them ...

Tough I must admit that right now I barely remember them and perhaps I may be wrong in my interpretation because I read them when I was a child like 8 or more ...

bladesmith wrote:

Let me tell you guys an interesting tale.

Allow me to tell you with that background you can surely not only writte/direct a truly Howardian movie but also do something worth watching being a REH fan or not.

To me, that's what matters. Do something with your heart, truly, bravely, with your damn heart.

If it also is respectful with what you consider was REH's personal choices in look and treatment, well, all heaven and hell together hail to you, brother.

Thank you FT. This is the first time I have told this story to anyone who was not close to my family or in on my dream of doing a REH film. And your right. It will take pouring my heart into it and that is what I am doing. People can never understand why the subject is so personal to me and now the cat is out of the bag so to speak.

To those who might think I am just a REH nut. I know alot of REH's personal flaws and flaws in his writings (quite a few dealing with Conan, some that never were in print) but don't let that stop me or change my view of his being a great writer. Some of his creatures were outlandish and a bit strange but that is what the publishers wanted at that time. There are many ideas and viewpoints that he had that I feel the complete opposite about. But with Conan he gave me someone to admire and to shape myself after in some ways. I grew up in a tough family with little contact with other kids my age and needed some outlet and the Conan books were it. I grew up in the mountains trapping with my father in the winter and doing what ever else we could in the spring and summer to survive. My cousins were all older than I and when we did see each other it was either to hunt and fish or fist fight each other. I had to grow up and grow up quick. I was packing around a 70lb. pack for hunting and staying in the hills by the time I was 8 years old. We hunted for our winter meat supply and if we didn't get anything we went without. The area we lived in was extremely hard and cold as Hell during the winter (-50C and lower) so we were kind of behind the times and isolated from alot of "new" things. Still are. We didn't have TV so reading, fighting and stories told around the wood stove were what we did for entertainment. So you can see how books like Conan could grip a kid in my situation.

I remember when the 82 film came out and I found out about it. My father and I both loved the Conan stories and made plans to go and see it if we could. We saved up some money and when we got there we were disappointed. And for obvious reasons. We knew the Conan from the books and didn't get our first taste of Conan from the 82 film. We liked it okay for what it was but it was not Conan. I can still remember my father and I talking during the movie about how that was wrong and that was out of place and time and so on. I guess I was like a little kid at Christmas who wants a certain thing and is a bit disappointed when it is not what was expected. When the title said Conan I expected to see the man I knew on screen. I still don't mind the film as it is beautifully shot and the swords Jody Sampson made are amazing. But it was like growing up knowing someone personally and then seeing a movie about them that did not even fit. So that is where I am coming from. Reading all of the posts I have seen that is the key difference between those who love the movie Conan and myself. Your first look at Conan was Arnold and mine was a big dark man who was a complex character that I could associate with and admire for having the same ideas about life that I did and still do.

Will Arnold do alright? For what the movie is I think he will. I have never really been a big fan of his other than in Predator so I am not as star struck with him as some people are. Personally I like Lou Ferrigno better and thought if they wanted to use a body builder they should have used him. I look more favorably on a man with great physical strength from hard labor and a hard life than a body builder. That is what makes us different. And like FT said it is up to me to bring what I feel is REH's Conan to film. Those who love the 82 Conan will most likely hate it but I hope to show some the real Conan and know that if I can protray him on screen the way he was in the books we will have an instant hit on our hands! Conan was a man's man and we have so few of those left today for our young boys and men to look up to. REH had a purpose and plan for Conan and that is what so many miss when they read the books. Perhaps I have an unfair advantage, but perhaps that is why things worked out in my life and in my family the way that they did? This is my last post on the subject and I will leave it to you guys who want to discuss the new upcoming film. As always this is just my opinion and you can take it anyway you please! FT stay in contact as I value your input as you have a direct and no BS way of saying what you think. I feel you could be a good resource for our project.

bladesmith wrote:

FT stay in contact as I value your input as you have a direct and no BS way of saying what you think. I feel you could be a good resource for our project.

You know where to find me.

Bad news about John Milius.

I liked the discussion about Robert E. Howard's Conan vs Conan in Films/Comics and Paintings etc.

I have read Howard's Conan/Bran Mak Morn /Cormac Mac Art/Solomon Kane and some of his horror stories.

I still have A lot more of his stories to track down and read.

If it had not been for the movie Conan the Barbarian 1982 I would not have know about Robert E. Howard and read some of his works.

Click here for A link about Robert E Howard's Work http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Robert_Ervin_Howard

We will never know what Howard would have thought about Conan in Films/Comics and Painting but I am betting the man from Texas would have loved my Warrior Women in Revealing Outfits Topic.

nerd alert wrote:

but I am betting the man from Texas would have loved my Warrior Women in Revealing Outfits Topic.

No words of J. milius :( .....


http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/10/25/arnold-schwarzenegger-will-return-as-conan-in-new-reboot

http://thearnoldfans.squarespace.com/news/2013/1/24/exclusive-arnold-co-stars-and-verhoeven-talk-conan-with-us.html

What does it means he won't star ? Means he won't playas Conan ? This is madness ....

and director (Paul Verhoeven) ??? How woudl that sound for that movie?

Co stars means Arnold plus possible co stars in the movie. Not that Arnold is only a co star.

Prometheus- Go back and read the beginning of that article over at the arnold fans again-slowly. It will make sense-fret not! I think there is some very interesting stuff in there. However, aside from the comments from Arnie and Fredrick Malmberg, it is only speculation and wishful dreaming on the part of Randy Jennings. I think Randy is goading the powers that be into hiring someone suitable for the job of director- stirring the cauldron if you will. That's great. Randy has a firm (some would say fanatical) grasp of what Milius' Conan is all about and I have to say I agree that Paul Verhoeven would be a logical, if not great, choice to fill the shoes of John Milius.
The most interesting stuff though, I found, comes from head of Conan Properties -Mr. Malmberg himself. They seem to be thinking a little outside the box here. I can imagine the lamentations of woe from the fans if the Atlantean sword is not used! I know last time round he was hoping for a more faithful return to Howard's original stories. Well we ALL got short changed by Lionsgate on that one (to put it nicely).
Malmberg does seem to have a grasp of what makes the original movie work though and that's important. As I've said before- this movie version isn't about adapting and being faithful to Robert E. Howard. It's an interpretation that has taken on a life all it's own. I can't wait to see the results.