Howard's Conan relied far more on wit and cunning and ultimately became a sophisticated ruler. Dumbing down a character for the movies is pretty standard, though. Plus the novel format allows for more introspection and character development than even the best film can showcase. One day Howard will receive recognition as a serious writer regardless of the genre nature of his work. He really was very good. Few Texans even know of the literary contribution of their native son.

If you want to see a great Robert Howard film, see The Whole Wide World with Rene Zellweger and Vincent D'Onofrio. It offers a lot of insight into Howard and his creative process, based on a true story. And the performances are outstanding.

Reply

Not that Conan was an especially deep character, but Cath is right - the movies did overlook some interesting aspects of his personality and intellect. He may have had a fairly simple "philosophy of life," but his experiences in the wide world gave him much more mental fuel than Arnold's version had. His native intelligence and bravery (not to mention his greed and lust for power) were always at odds with his superstitions and his tendency to come unglued when confronted by the supernatural. Apart from that, my main issues with the films were stylistic. Not dark enough. Too many scenic forests, steppes and deserts; not enough dank, claustrophobic, monster-haunted towers. Too many airy granite temples in the sunshine; not enough alabaster-and-priceless-jewel palaces by torchlight. Even Arnold's Conan was too much the creature of light - far from the dark-haired, dark-visaged, battle scarred menace that Howard described. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what the new guys come up with. Hope they have a slightly different vision of King Conan

Reply

How about someone else to portray Conan then?

Reply

Conan comes from Barbarian stock, and his character and mettle were forged in the murderous colds of Cimmeria and educated by his tribe of raiding killers from the far North. Later, of course, he learned about the cruelty of slavery, only to survive that experience to become a pirate, soldier, marauder, thief, and even King of the largest Kingdom of the West, Aquilonia. And he didn't achieve it all by being Mr. Nice Guy. Along the way he battled all manner of demons, serpents, dragons, witches, warlocks, and sorcerers, giving no quarter and receiving none.

Conan at his core is a blood thirsty savage who despises the so-called civilized people and places. But by shunning the civilized, his adventures and interactions with others prove that what is so called savage is actually civilized and what people deem a civilized person or society is actually quite savage and brutish. Robert E. Howard was very much trying to convey this idea. He felt that the so-called “savage” was the true noble, honoring bravery and valor versus what he portrayed in civilized life where betrayal and underhanded tactics were the norm. Contrary to other people's opinions, I found that that in the first movie, Conan the Barbarian was close to an accurate portrayal. The second was awful in almost every regard, more comedy then anything else.

Reply

I've been following Conan ever since I found an old yellowed pulp magazine stuffed underneath a N.Y. City subway seat...when they were still rattan! Build-wise I think "Ahnold" made an excellent Conan...and his natural accent sounded "barbaric" enough to me. (Maybe Conan was a little taller). His facial expressions, at times, could have come right off of a Frazetta or Vallejo canvas. I understand that he used a full weight steel sword in the movie and that looked just the way I thought it should. His hair should have been raven black, though, and more emphasis should have been placed on the blue eyes.

While it was obvious that the screen writer(s?) had some knowledge of the Conan stories I was not happy with the storylines of the movies. I was especially annoyed with their totally off-the-wall depiction of Conan's origins.

Howard's narrative needs no improvement!! I also liked the way Nyborg(spelling?) DeCamp, and Carter depicted Conan. I think Peter Jackson should be given the job of making the next Conan movie
Steve P.
P.S. David Klein, (above) says it well

Reply

warner bros. your executive decision makers are idiots. Conan ? During a time of War ? You people are so Stupid. Okay your not that stupid. I could see why your creating the movie, the there's a game attached. Ahahahaha. conan the el`stupido`.

ytrash as usual.

PS

Reply

Yes Conan is, unfortunately, back ! However, and, 'Thank God', it is NOT going to be Directed by the Wachowski Brothers ! I believe they have other plans with a Screenplay in consideration, which was also mentioned on SCIFI.com and other Site a couple years ago before they decided to do VforVendetta. Or, it could be some rumor, but the movie was supposedly called, The Axis aka DreamScapesAxis could be just it's project name. Who knows ?

PS

Reply

Ms. Swift,

Regarding your comments about executive decision makers who are exploring the options of doing a Conan Movie during a time of war. Your comment infers that these people are idiots, nay, you directly say it!! However, how do you back up your comment? You are making some kind of assumption that the this movie timed with the war would be a terrible idea. You ASSUME that right? Clearly these EXECUTIVE DECISION MAKERS are in their positions for a reason. Perhaps they have MARKET RESEACH that indicates that this might not be a bad idea. For example, did you know that during times of PEACE, future looking movies such as Star Wars and even the Matrix have traditionally done well. Also, during times of WAR films that look to the past traditionally do well. Hence the success of the Lord of the Rings and even King Kong. So before you make comments such as "you people are so stupid" make sure you don't come across as stupid yourself.

Yours in Hyboria,

Reply