|
Post by MOK on Oct 10, 2019 19:42:42 GMT
No joke, it's a better Conan movie than any official Conan movie ever made. Are you kidding me MOK! The first Conan movie was the best movie of that type to come out up till then and beyond. Up to then “sword and sandal” movies were at the bottom of movie genres below even sci fi movies (Star Wars changed that genre). Use to watch Sons of Hercules on Saturday mornings and loved them but they were called spaghetti sword and sandal shows. Low budget. DeLaurentis(not sure spelling) brought in a big budget, a real martial artist to teach the three main characters sword work(he’s the one that slaps Arnold and kicks the other body builder in the nads), high quality film, and made fantasy films mainstream. I think I saw all those type of films back then and none imo could hold a candle to Conan. Not saying it was an Oscar quality film but come on. I think it changed Hollywood’s attitude towards that type of film. Anyways, sorry for the rant but I guessed you just touched a nerve about one of my favorite films of that type. Hope we’re good. Milius's Conan the Barbarian is a great damn movie in its own right, but as an alleged adaptation of Robert E. Howard's stories of Conan, the Cimmerian, it sucks.
|
|
|
Post by paulmuaddib on Oct 10, 2019 19:56:12 GMT
Are you kidding me MOK! The first Conan movie was the best movie of that type to come out up till then and beyond. Up to then “sword and sandal” movies were at the bottom of movie genres below even sci fi movies (Star Wars changed that genre). Use to watch Sons of Hercules on Saturday mornings and loved them but they were called spaghetti sword and sandal shows. Low budget. DeLaurentis(not sure spelling) brought in a big budget, a real martial artist to teach the three main characters sword work(he’s the one that slaps Arnold and kicks the other body builder in the nads), high quality film, and made fantasy films mainstream. I think I saw all those type of films back then and none imo could hold a candle to Conan. Not saying it was an Oscar quality film but come on. I think it changed Hollywood’s attitude towards that type of film. Anyways, sorry for the rant but I guessed you just touched a nerve about one of my favorite films of that type. Hope we’re good. Milius's Conan the Barbarian is a great damn movie in its own right, but as an alleged adaptation of Robert E. Howard's stories of Conan, the Cimmerian, it sucks.
|
|
|
Post by paulmuaddib on Oct 10, 2019 20:09:05 GMT
Sorry messed up again. MOK you are correct in that. I’ve read all the R E H stories,Conan and all others. It took parts of some stories but I don’t think you could make a movie about any single Conan story. They were quite short. They would lend themselves to a serialization better than a movie. My point was you said “Sword and Sorcerer” was better than any Conan movie. No good swordwork from what I remember, quality of photography not as good and if I remember correctly Matt Helm(can’t remember actors name) for goodness sakes. Maybe I need to watch SaS again, after all it’s been 40? some years since I saw it and I only watched it once. Maybe we just need to agree to disagree on this one. Anyway we’re good on my end.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2019 20:32:50 GMT
Robert E. Howard was an absolute nut! His stories are amazing works of pulp fiction. Remember, he originally published these stories in pulp fiction rags like Weird Tales, the same publications that featured the work of Aleister Crowley and L. Ron Hubbard. Howard's work is a fascinating combination of anthropology and history that combines elements of a clash of cultures, the evils of civilization, rugged individualism, and sword and sandal tropes.
Milius, another complete nut, interpreted Howard's work through a different lens, and I think the result is a classic entry in the genre of sword and sandal. It's highly original, though, and the quality of the film making is stellar: outstanding score (a primitive sounding Wagner), stellar production design, and a great cast that doesn't act with words so much as they act with their bodies (Milius wanted athletes, not actors).
|
|
|
Post by paulmuaddib on Oct 10, 2019 21:02:18 GMT
Robert E. Howard was an absolute nut! His stories are amazing works of pulp fiction. Remember, he originally published these stories in pulp fiction rags like Weird Tales, the same publications that featured the work of Aleister Crowley and L. Ron Hubbard. Howard's work is a fascinating combination of anthropology and history that combines elements of a clash of cultures, the evils of civilization, rugged individualism, and sword and sandal tropes. Milius, another complete nut, interpreted Howard's work through a different lens, and I think the result is a classic entry in the genre of sword and sandal. It's highly original, though, and the quality of the film making is stellar: outstanding score (a primitive sounding Wagner), stellar production design, and a great cast that doesn't act with words so much as they act with their bodies (Milius wanted athletes, not actors). You are 100% correct on all counts my good sir. And DeLaurentis produced and I think he pretty much did just big movies with big budgets if I remember correctly. And like I said earlier Conan did for sword and sandal movies what Star Wars did for sci fi. My roommate at the time was so excited about Arnold S. starring in it. He said finally someone big enough to play Conan. I said “who?” I had no idea who Arnold was and wasn’t into body building. And all due respect to Marc Singer and others, they were in good shape but Arnold was just in a class of his own especially in Hollywood. Whoda thunk a review about a sword in a cheesy movie would get all this response. Love this forum. Btw my roommate came to Conan thru the comic books and I thru Howard. Definately different story lines and origin stories from each other and from the movies
|
|
|
Post by demonskull on Oct 10, 2019 21:55:48 GMT
My point was you said “Sword and Sorcerer” was better than any Conan movie. No good swordwork from what I remember, quality of photography not as good and if I remember correctly Matt Helm(can’t remember actors name) for goodness sakes. I believe that was Lee Horsley. Not worth the effort to look it up though.
|
|
|
Post by paulmuaddib on Oct 10, 2019 22:04:25 GMT
My point was you said “Sword and Sorcerer” was better than any Conan movie. No good swordwork from what I remember, quality of photography not as good and if I remember correctly Matt Helm(can’t remember actors name) for goodness sakes. I believe that was Lee Horsley. Not worth the effort to look it up though. I did look up the movie because I wanted to make sure I was remembering the right movie and yes that was his name. Tom Selleck wanna be. Now don’t get me started on Magnum P. I. One of my favs back in the day. The porn staches on the actors back then though. Haha
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 11, 2019 1:06:33 GMT
Sorry messed up again. MOK you are correct in that. I’ve read all the R E H stories,Conan and all others. It took parts of some stories but I don’t think you could make a movie about any single Conan story. They were quite short. They would lend themselves to a serialization better than a movie. My point was you said “Sword and Sorcerer” was better than any Conan movie. No good swordwork from what I remember, quality of photography not as good and if I remember correctly Matt Helm(can’t remember actors name) for goodness sakes. Maybe I need to watch SaS again, after all it’s been 40? some years since I saw it and I only watched it once. Maybe we just need to agree to disagree on this one. Anyway we’re good on my end. I think it would be more accurate to say that Milius and Stone took a few names, a few character roles and a few set pieces - not even full scenes, just individual elements of them - from some of the stories revised or entirely written by L. Sprague de Camp, mixed them all up out of context, and sprinkled them lightly over a generic revenge plot. Unfortunately, in the process they removed all agency, drive and competence from Conan himself, to the point where his owner has to undo his shackles and physically shove him away several times in order to make him escape from slavery - Ahnuld is just this passive lumbering dolt who wanders through the plot, wide-eyed and slack-jawed, molded and pushed entirely by other people to be and do everything he is and does, and the grand total of two times he actually does something of his own initiative it ends in disaster because he goes about it like a clueless idiot. It's an amazing movie, epic, atmospheric and compelling - and Basil Polidouris's orchestral score is untouchable, of course - but with an abysmally written main character. The Sword & the Sorcerer at least has a protagonist who actively drives his own story! Talon has goals and desires beyond just petty vengeance, skills and talents beyond just being big, and he does things competently, of his own free will and on his own initiative. I think it also does have some pretty nice action (I'm particularly fond of the interrupted knife fight and the final all-out smackdown); a genuinely imposing villain who, while no James Earl Jones, is quite memorable in his own right; and in all honesty some moments of excellent cinematography. There's this one shot in particular, filmed in stark silhouette, when Talon escapes from the cross and leaps into a swarm of baddies, that really could be straight out of a Frazetta painting... TS&tS isn't half the movie CtB is, but it's ten times the Conan story. PS. Yeah, we're good! Nothing personal, I just have some very sore sticking points with Milius's masterpiece. And you're right that a direct adaptation of Howard's short stories as a whole would work better in serial format, although there are several that would make excellent movie scripts almost as-is (e.g. just imagine "Red Nails", "The Black Stranger" or "People of the Black Circle" done almost as a Sergio Leone style western, just with swords instead of sixguns).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2019 1:13:47 GMT
As a lover of the Milius film and Howard's original tales, I agree with you, MOK. Conan is not a compelling character in the film, but Thulsa Doom is, Akiro the Wizard is, and Valeria is a pretty solid female character. Thank goodness film Conan is not very interesting, because I don't think Arnold was up to the challenge. Physically, though, what a specimen he was!
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 11, 2019 1:29:10 GMT
And of course CtB has the cooler swords by far!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2019 1:32:34 GMT
And of course CtB has the cooler swords by far! And only a crazy person like Milius opens a movie with a genocide. It's a pretty brazen movie when you think about it. The design is breathtaking, from the big sets to the swords. I think this film kindled my interest in swords more than any other, apart from Excalibur.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,625
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Oct 12, 2019 1:48:44 GMT
I was really disappointed (though not particularly surprised) by the Conan reboot. Jason Mamoa is physically much closer to Howard's description of the pantherine warrior. Schwarzenegger was too short and overmuscled, though Mamoa is too pretty for my tastes. Conan should be fierce looking, and scarred, though handsome in a rough sort of way. The Schwarzenegger version wasn't nearly clever enough. Conan lived by his wits at least as much as by his strength and quickness. I grew up with the Howard stories and the Savage Sword of Conan comics.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 12, 2019 6:21:54 GMT
I was really disappointed (though not particularly surprised) by the Conan reboot. Jason Mamoa is physically much closer to Howard's description of the pantherine warrior. Schwarzenegger was too short and overmuscled, though Mamoa is too pretty for my tastes. Conan should be fierce looking, and scarred, though handsome in a rough sort of way. The Schwarzenegger version wasn't nearly clever enough. Conan lived by his wits at least as much as by his strength and quickness. I grew up with the Howard stories and the Savage Sword of Conan comics. The bit with child Conan is awesome, though, right up until the script says he has to suddenly stop being badass because plot.
|
|
|
Post by Voltan on Oct 14, 2019 6:28:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Oct 14, 2019 14:13:27 GMT
Wow...great picture! And yes...he'd do it proud. IMO...the problem with the early fantasy movie swords is by modern standards, they are ugly crap at best. Voltan's sword would need some love to make it stand out. I'm thinking swap the skull for a crystal one {full of vodka) fullered pattern welded blade, maybe a nice walnut handle, or wrapped leather in the same basic shape...but the cross-guard...that's where I'm stuck. I can't think of a way to make it look better and not have it look like a piece of 80's trash...
|
|
|
Post by Voltan on Oct 14, 2019 17:07:12 GMT
Wow...great picture! And yes...he'd do it proud. IMO...the problem with the early fantasy movie swords is by modern standards, they are ugly crap at best. Voltan's sword would need some love to make it stand out. I'm thinking swap the skull for a crystal one {full of vodka) fullered pattern welded blade, maybe a nice walnut handle, or wrapped leather in the same basic shape...but the cross-guard...that's where I'm stuck. I can't think of a way to make it look better and not have it look like a piece of 80's trash... The photo is from an auction house that was selling the actual prop sword from the film. I'd probably have a few touch-ups done, but not much. When I first saw the film back in 1980, I found the hilt quite unique. I'd have the skull pommel done in bronze, as that is brotherbanzai 's specialty. A fuller would make the blade much more appealing true enough, but I'd want the guard to remain as is. I'd consider having "The Dark One" (Voltan's nickname) carved into the guard, on both sides, in runes. I'd want the grip's shape to remain as is also, albeit done in a nice dark hardwood of some kind. I'd imagine such a project would require a significant amount of coin...
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Oct 15, 2019 13:39:16 GMT
I can agree, it would not be cheap... I'd keep the handle shape the same too, just maybe leather wrap. But wood is far prettier...I was thinking functional rather than display...but if I dropped 2k+ on a replica...you can bet it would never get used... Bronze pommel, yes, I was just thinking on how to upgrade it and make it a fantasy sword cranked to 11 with the carved crystal skull. And I'm at a loss how to keep the guard in the same look/feel, but not make major changes, and still upgrade the look. So It would have to stay the same... Fullers... What about making a triple fuller? Rolling it around in my head, I'd think the blade might follow a later period design, just for bling factor.
I dunno...just rolling ideas around in my head...
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Oct 15, 2019 16:33:41 GMT
Robert E. Howard was an absolute nut! His stories are amazing works of pulp fiction. Remember, he originally published these stories in pulp fiction rags like Weird Tales, the same publications that featured the work of Aleister Crowley and L. Ron Hubbard. Howard's work is a fascinating combination of anthropology and history that combines elements of a clash of cultures, the evils of civilization, rugged individualism, and sword and sandal tropes. Milius, another complete nut, interpreted Howard's work through a different lens, and I think the result is a classic entry in the genre of sword and sandal. It's highly original, though, and the quality of the film making is stellar: outstanding score (a primitive sounding Wagner), stellar production design, and a great cast that doesn't act with words so much as they act with their bodies (Milius wanted athletes, not actors). Well said. It reminds me of the great debate about "The Shining." King is technically correct when he says the adaptation Kubrick did was way off from the novel. The characters are different, the motivations are different, the plot is different. But you can see what happens when the movie is "corrected" (LOL) by watching King's own version he did for TV. It's... not good. Film requires something different. In the case of "Conan," it's a kind of violent visual and audio poem. Complaining that the character is poorly written misses the point. He's written very simply, because no more story is really needed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2019 16:42:11 GMT
"Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." I agree with you in any case. Conan doesn't require much in terms of compelling character work. It's a visual feast served on a revenge plot and it works beautifully. It's an audacious film, and James Earl Jones is amazing.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Oct 15, 2019 18:31:59 GMT
In any case, thanks to this thread I re-watched the Rifftrax "Hawk the Slayer" with my son who is almost nine and can appreciate it. Glorious times were had!
|
|