Long ago, I discussed my own thoughts about the 1982 Conan the Barbarian movie. In issue #63 of Dragon (July 1982), Gary Gygax offers his own.
Long ago, I discussed my own thoughts about the 1982 Conan the Barbarian movie. In issue #63 of Dragon (July 1982), Gary Gygax offers his own.
My beef with the film was that it's need for an origin story and arc was more Kull than Conan. Can't we ever get proper Conan ?
ReplyDeleteThe same problem afflicts superhero movies. Most of the time the origin can be skipped. So he was bit by a radioactive spider, lets get on with it.
DeleteNo matter the era, no matter the subject, one thing is always true - nerds are never happy.
ReplyDelete#1 - I'll drink to that.
Delete#2 - I thought the original Conan movie (film?) was great. It was fun. So was First Blood. So was Southern Comfort. So was Death Hunt. So was The Terminator. So was The Road Warrior. I feel like I am revisiting the case for how the early 1980's was perhaps the most entertaining/fun-qualitative of all for movies. I can feel the wolves coming for the mid-1970's, but I'm ready. Also, other than Deliverance - 70's, I know - I never read the source material as reference for a movie.
#3 - Do people do this for Star Trek and Star Wars and all that comic book stuff, and Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan, etc. and sap all the (Biblical expletive) fun out it? Jimi Hendrix absolutely loathed playing his songs live per album.
#4 - There is always that guy in school who blabbers about a Ferrari 308 GTB (my era) 0-60 time. NO ONE drags to 60 mph; it is a minor traffic-merge and pullout guide. You drag to 120+, fourth gear Borg Warner (my era again), or until the other guy loses his nerve or your car shakes so badly you think it is going to hood-rise and flip, or you hit a deer or blow a Mickey Thompson tire on the Westbound Dulles Toll Road and die. Same for THD. Does the nerd have any idea how loud your Denon or Nakamichi rig has to be before the difference of a fraction of a hundredth of a percent can even be perceived? Total Harmonic Distortion is almost as useless as thinking twice the wattage is twice the volume.
#5 - All opinions and viewpoints are valid in America, which is what makes us great. Gary Gygax, Hulk Hogan, Tony Hawk and Dale Earnhardt totally changed the face of the world in the 1980's. Gary had a valid opinion, but it does seem whiny.
#6 - Actually, THIS seems whiny.
Gary just sounding like every pedantic whiny nerd on the internet these days but in his own Expensive Boomer Paper Format
ReplyDeleteGary was not a Boomer. He was a member of the Silent Generation.
DeleteAnd like many a pedantic, whiny nerd, he doesn't actually know as much as he thinks he does: De Laurentiis's production company made Conan (and the King Kong remake), but Conan was directed by the legendary John Milius (from a screenplay by Milius and Oliver Stone--and whether or not Conan The Barbarian is much of a Robert E. Howard movie, it's very, very, very much a John Milius and Oliver Stone movie, for better or worse).
DeleteI don't think much of it as a Howard adaptation, but it's a fun movie. There was a period in my life where I think I agreed with Gygax's disappointment (it was called high school and college), but I find that middle age has mellowed and sanded down some of the sharper corners of my nerdity and I think I'm just okay rolling with Conan being what it is.
But, y'know, if you're going to complain a movie didn't get the details of its source material right, you might want to get the director's name right. [/Grin.]
Silent generation? I guess no one told him.
DeleteOof; this review did not age well, and I think was recognizable as a weird, sour minority opinion even then. We are lucky to have such a good representation of Conan and his world in that first movie.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gary, actually. And I thought the movie was bad even before reading his review. Definitely a minority opinion, though.
ReplyDeleteAs for "nerds are never happy" upthread, that's not true. I adored the LotR movies, though I'm as much a Tolkien nerd as I am a Howard one. Nerds are never happy *when the filmmakers get it wrong*.
Anyone who thinks "Conan the Barbarian" was a movie worthy of Howard's Conan has never really read Conan.
ReplyDeleteI could write a book about what was wrong with that film. It completely misunderstands Conan, butchers his origins, mocks Conan's very philosophy and nature, and does a gross disservice to sword and sorcery in general.
"Conan Meets the Flower Children of Set" is a kind, polite damning of a highly damnable wreck of a film.
That said, if it had been "Joe the Barbarian," it would have made for a workman film, with an excellent if completely wrong portrayal of Thulsa Doom by James Earl Jones.
"Conan the Destroyer" did just that to any resemblance to Howard's Conan, but made for excellent Saturday Morning Cartoon fare, and is actually a pretty good Dungeons & Dragons film.
The Jason Momoa version managed to be an even more execrable version of Conan, though Momoa was a much better fit for Conan than Schwarzenegger.
And the so-called Kull movie was, I am certain, a joke played on Kevin Sorbo at the cost of everyone else's sanity.
I am showing my age. I new exactly what you were referring to just by seeing the headline.
ReplyDeleteConan just straight-up getting his ass kicked by that big guy is one of the most hilarious things about the movie to me. I've tried to enjoy the movie for what it is, but aside from the musical score I just don't like it very much.
ReplyDeleteToo much sex and violence in the Conan film Gary?
ReplyDeleteI've read Conan and I love this film. It's the greatest fantasy film of the 80s, perhaps the most D&D film ever. (pipped by The Princess Bride?)
Yeah there are legitimate critiques you can make of the movie. That is NOT one of them.
DeleteThe OG Conan stories are filled with sex and instances of conan getting clobbered by someone or running away. Face the truth, sheeple!!!
ReplyDeleteIt does tell you what you are in for right at the beginning, with the quote from Nietzsche. The movie is a study of what goes into the making of a man through his various trials in life. Also a reflection of American society at the time, with the Baby Boomers still trying to figure out their place after the chaos of the 1970s.
ReplyDeleteI guess the filmakers couldn't get the money to make that movie they wanted without attaching some IP with an audience to it, so they managed to get hold of the rights to Conan.
If I'm in a mood to watch something "deep" I'll pull out CotB movie every few years, but if I just want to blow a couple hours watching a fun S&S adventure I pull out The Beastmaster instead.
It's an entertaining fantasy flick with some corny bits. It's not terribly good if you are judging it by the high standards of REH literature or even Conan comics. Does any film ever live up to the book/s?
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned, AFAIC "Destroyer" was the perfect D&D movie and I prefer it of the two.
I love Gary, but don't always agree with him. Films, games, whatever. But perhaps He/we should take the next logical step from his "Books are Books. Games are Games" article- " Films are Films".
The 80s Conan films are still far better than the drek Disney has put out for the Lucasfilm properties.
Is the Disney drek worse than Willow, Howard the Duck and Jarjar Binks?
DeleteYes, by far.
DeleteThe Acolyte got a lower Rotten Tomatoes score than the Star Wars Holiday Special.
DeleteId rather watch Arnold on an endless loop screaming in the pit battle when that guy bites his ear than watch anything Disney has done with Star Wars except for about 10 minutes of footage from Rogue One.
DeleteHonestly, I'd rather watch The Force Awakens or Rogue One than The Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones.
DeleteI really liked Rogue One and consider it equal to Return of the Jedi in quality.
DeleteRogue One came out quite some time ago now. The Star Wars vehicles produced by Disney since have been utter trash.
DeleteThe Empire Strikes Back and Raiders of the Lost Ark came out quite some time ago now. The Lucasfilm vehicles produced for decades after that had been utter trash.
DeleteIrrelevant. The post that started this chain of responses claimed that the 80s Conan films are better than then Disney Star Wars drek. The fact that the 70s and 80s Star Wars and IJ films were better than those that came after reinforces his point that the 80s had great SF / Fantasy films.
DeleteYeah, I think people are challenging the part of the post that started this chain that was an irrelevant, gratuitous slam on Disney that had nothing to do with James' original post or Conan the Barbarian!
DeleteAnd they're also pointing out that Lucasfilm had turned to drek *long* before Disney ever got involved.
Well, just because we are way past the point of staying on-topic here now: as far as Star Wars is concerned, I did really dislike the sequels, perhaps even as much as the prequels. However, I feel most of the series Disney produced (Mandalorian, Boba Fett, Obi-Wan, Andor, Ahsoka) were really good and I enjoyed them immensely. I have to admit that I was a bit let down by 'Acolyte', but even that was decent enough for me and I'm sorry that the series is cancelled now, and we wont see what happens with all of the left-open plot points the first season introduced.
DeleteI've read all the REH Conan stories multiple times and the pistaches when I was young and I'm not really sure what the beef is claiming the movie wasn't REH Conan. Okay the first 15 minutes were all new stuff (or at least not things REH ever covered in a story) but once he gets to Zomara it seemed pretty solid REH Conan in his Thief period to me. What am I missing?
ReplyDeleteThe bit with him finding a sword was pretty close to The Thing in the Crypt, although that was a de Camp/Carter story.
DeleteThat was as close as the movie came to any Howard source material, and it was more of a nod to that story element than a full-on episode. The Wheel of Pain, sex with a witch, and Thulsa Doom (!) demonstrating his power over willing underlings was not Conan as read. It was fun, but middling fantasy.
DeleteI agree with Gary.
ReplyDeleteThe single worst thing about the movie is when Conan was roughed-up by a couple of temple thugs, and then Conan started crying about his mother.
Good grief.
One nit that I always disagreed with was this: "The armor was good, the weapons less so but passable..." Personally, as someone who has studied arms and armor for the bulk of my life, and made many reproductions of same, I would reverse this - the weapons were good, the armor less so but (barely) passable. Regarding the weapons, they were generally good if overly heavy. The armor wasn't horrible, and a few pieces were good, but much of it was sub-par. Good enough for Hollyweird, but that's about it.
ReplyDeleteIf you ever get the chance watch the DVD with Milius and Arnold commentary on.
ReplyDeleteOne of the best I have heard.
THIS IS THE BIT WHERE I PUNCH THE CAMEL
DeleteIt may not be the exact same as the stories, but there 1982 film is BY FAR the best sword and sorcery film out there - fans of the genre should be thankful it exists
ReplyDeleteThis discussion reminds me of the criticisms David Lynch's Dune film. That picture is certainly not entirely faithful to the details (e.g. the Ending, the 'Weirding Way'), but IMO it is entirely faithful to the tone and weirdness of Herbert's novel. By the same token, I think Conan the Barbarian, Milius's film, effectively captures the 'feel' of Howard's Hyborian age, even though it gets certain things wrong about Howard's version of the character. Of course, we can't know what Howard would have thought. It might be worth noting that Phil Dick, upon seeing pre-release footage from Blade Runner, was totally focused on how much the world felt like what he had imagined, even if it wasn't an exact adaptation.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think CtB is a good film but a middling adaptation, and I certainly don't think early 80s Hollywood could have done any better than the film we have.
Gygax's comment about L.S. de Camp is amusing, given how much de Camp did to sully REH's memory. If one hates the film, then de Camp was exactly appropriate as an advisor.
I think the first movie's good parts outweigh the negatives. Gary was welcome to his opinion, but didn't affect how I feel. Destroyer definitely has a D&D feel, but isn't quite as solid as CTB.
ReplyDelete" Director Dino Delaurentiis has a way of screwing up basically good material, as he did with his remake of King Kong."
ReplyDeleteHey ! Take that back ! That version of King Kong easily is my favorite version of all time, even better than the original and certainly better than Peter Jackson's version ! (although the fact that it was the first version I ever saw, at a young and impressionable age, might have something to do with that). As a youngster, I basically had that movie on auto-repeat for ages, once I had obtained access to a VHS copy of it.
Conan the Barbarian would have been one of the first films I saw with my AD&D playing, 14 year old friends without parental supervision.
ReplyDeleteAnd what a movie to get started on.
Sure, it may not have been true to the short stories, but 14 year old me didn't care and 50+ year old me still doesn't care.
It was, and is, a great action movie.
Man who writes game that (despite his claims) cannot reproduce adventures of Conan worth a damn complains that movie does not get Conan.
ReplyDeleteSounds about right, honestly.
OK, after some thought, here's a simple test to see if a "Conan" movie is a "Conan" movie or just another "Barbarian" or "Sword-and-Sandal" film that could have been produced without the Conan license:
ReplyDeleteChange the names.
Conan = Wulf
Valeria = Artemis
Thulsa Doom = Zygagar
Thoth Amon = Imhotep
Set = Serpentor
Cimmeria = Teutonia
Stygia = Aegyptus
Now watch the film with those names in place and write down everything in the film that is otherwise actually from a Robert E. Howard Conan story. In a separate column, write anything that is from a pastiche.
That will tell you exactly how much it is actually Conan.
Whats's this "Wulf/Artemis/Zygagar/Imhotep/Serpentor/Teutonia/Aegyptus" you speak of ?
ReplyDeleteThey are names to use in place of the listed names from the Conan stories.
DeleteI am saying that in any "Conan" film you could replace any name found in the works of Robert E. Howard and that would eliminate any association with those works, as the film otherwise has no association with those work.
Thus, the film could be "Wulf the Barbarian," with all the names changed, and you would not know it from any other of the barbarian/peplum films made throughout history, as it has no essential Howardian Conan material.
They could have made the three Conan movies, the execrable live action series, and the half-assed animated series without ever licensing Conan of Cimmeria if they had instead called him "Wulf of Teutonia."
Conan, The Librarian ?
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZHoHaAYHq8
Dang it, now I want to write the story and develop the world of "Wulf of Teutonia"... Coming soon to a blog near you!
ReplyDeleteYes, I shall follow Heinlein's maxim, "That's the way with writers; they'll steal anything, file off the serial numbers, and claim it for their own." By Odd and Thunor, so mote it be!
Delete