Saturday, November 24, 2012

The Legend of Conan, How Excited should we be?

I received my copy of the Fall 2012 REH Foundation Newsletter today. As usual, it contains items of interest to the REH nut. What caught my attention right off was "The Letter from the Board" in which the "...recent announcement of the new movie The Legend of Conan, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger" was discussed.

This is old news to Crom! readers. Mikeyboy pointed us to the breaking news way back on 10/26.

As reported in Reuters, Legend (the most current working title I know of) is based upon the 1982 film staring Arnold and ignores Conan the Destroyer and the 2011 Conan the Barbarian. This means by default that it is only nominally based upon the writings of Bob Howard.

REH purists may rage, but I'm okay with it and I love me some REH. My wife calls it one of my many unhealthy addictions (I find it and many of my other addictions very healthy). It is my truest desire that Schwazenegger's involvement in a long anticipated film will bring new readers to the Conan/REH front and being that I am not a purist, I say bring on some new pastiche! And of course I hope that by summer 2014 Dark Horse Comics will smother us with new Conan/REH titles.

Again quoting from the latest Foundation "Long ago there was a poll, which asked what had brought people to read REH for the first time. Almost a third of those readers came to REH because of Conan the Barbarian". While my first experience with Conan was Marvel's Savage Sword of Conan, it was without a doubt Arnan which made me a Conan and REH fan for life. Furthermore, "An additional benefit...may be that more movie and TV interest in other REH creations will be generated". Here here! I truly hope so.

It may not be REH, but it can still be great and for a wonderful account of what The Legend of Conan should and should not be, check out this great post at The Conan Movie Blog. Read it, then come back. Good stuff wasn't it? And much of it I agree with, even though the concept of putting Conan in the corner is tough to take, in the context of Arnan's age it makes complete sense and I agree with the blogger, don't try to hide the age issue, we are too smart for that. The concept of Conan's son taking center stage is intriguing and combing through the possibilities of who could play that role riles up my nerd.

So how excited should we be? As excited as we dare.

3 comments:

Mikeyboy said...

Any new news and updates are indeed a welcome event. Thank you...too bad we have yet to see any new images of Arnie as Conan

Cromsblood said...

Savage Sword was also my introduction to Conan (a few years before CTB was released) and seeing CTB as a teen was an utter delight – swords, blood, boobies, kick-ass soundtrack, it was a teenage boy’s fantasy. Gotta say I’m pretty stoked to see a sequel, and Arnie will undoubtedly be center stage…maybe less in the action department (although I’m sure he can get ripped in short order and can participate in a fair share of it) and more as a leader of men.

We’ve certainly seen his acting chops improve immensely over the last decade during his run in the long running sitcom, “The Governator”. :)

And son or no son, there is no reason why there can’t be a lot of bloodshed and mayhem, be it from his troops, concubines, enemies (given the path of destruction he left in CTB, I’m sure there’s a lot of Thulsa Doom’s allies and family wanting Conan’s head), supposed friends, usurpers, etc.

Fingers crossed for something stellar!

Yo ho ho and a bottle of zingaran fine wine said...

Nothing wrong with ending the Arnie cycle with a King conan movie, , even if it's about Milius' "Clonan".
I hope it will wash away all memories from the so-called reboot junk.

It's weird that the officials said that Legend would "ignore" the Destroyer movie. Destroyer stands on it's own or could perfectly follow the first movie, it's story doesn't affect Milius' Conan in any manner
The only case where I see the obligation to ignore the DEstroyer would be that in 2014, Legend of Conan sees the cimmerian fight a cetain Toth-Amon.
Anyways, who gives a damn, the names are already all mixed up, Belit and Valeria form the original stories are blended together and remodeled into one blond thief with the name "Valeria" , Conan who was never enslaved becomes a child slave who finally gained freedom around his 20s, Thulsa Doom the skull headed villain from the Kull stories becomes a fat black sorcerer seeking the secret of steel in the Hyborian age and with Fleischer, Toth-amon becomes an old one-eyed wizard dwelleing in a crystal castle guarding some sort of...crystal artifact, his only power being to transmute into a monstruous ape and voilà.
So naming the new villain Toth Amon whether it sticks to the original stories or not may be all that' this is about, since in conan fans' minds Toth Amon is the ultimate foe of the cimmerian king.

Why else would the studios give this message about ignoring Destroyer? Because it was a flop?

(flop or not, it was more fun than the 2011 remake, that's for sure)