Did you know they’re rebooting CONAN as well?
Did you know they’re rebooting CONAN as well?
Mar 17
An Arnie movie without Arnie is a paradox the likes of which you’d think wouldn’t occur in this plane of existence, but here we have yet another Austrian Oak cult classic getting the reboot treatment: Conan (the Barbarian / the Destroyer). These films were never really great; they were cheap 80s swords-and-sorcery heroic fantasy pics which only turned a dime because of their strapping young star. Why anyone would want to reboot the franchise is beyond me.
Who have they got to direct? you ask. Marcus Nispel, the goon responsible for the criminally atrocious Friday The 13th reboot, as well as the generally awful Pathfinder. This is bad. Nispel’s desaturated, ugly films are notorious for their lack of character, plot, emotion, tension, goodness, etc. Working the keyboard are the verb-jockeys responsible for the Pathfinder script, so don’t expect a skerrick of wit or originality. The first Conan stories are nearly 80 years old, so when the screenwriters and director are quoted as taking an approach that is ”dark, badass, and faithful to the original novels” I get a little confused. Do they mean the more recent Conan stuff, like the comics and Arnie flicks, with the rampant violence and sexism? Or do they mean the racial politics, self-doubt and classical mythology of the originals? “Badass” is a uniquely juvenile and twenty-first century qualification, one that is probably applicable to Pathfinder and Friday The 13th, but come on, give the source material a little more credit than that; it aspired to be more than just ”badass.”
Okay, that’s not so good, but who’s going to play the eponymous hero? you cautiously query. Some Hawaiian fellow called Jason Momoa, from a Stargate spinoff called Atlantis. I’ve read internet opinions that Momoa is a better choice for Conan than Arnie, because Robert E. Howard (who wrote the original Conan pulp in the 1930s) wrote Conan to be cunning and clever, not just physically imposing. Let’s get this straight — Arnie was a millionaire before he even set foot in Hollywood, not because of his prestigious bodybuilding awards, but because he was a brilliant economic investor; Arnie’s no tool, and if you think he is, then he’s playing you like a fiddle. This Momoa bloke looks like a weak compromise between the sheer physicality of Arnie’s Conan and some wishy-washy business about “looking clever” designed to appease the source’s fans. Also, dreadlocks almost certainly don’t fit the classical swords-and-sorcery aesthetic. Then again I’ve yet to see Momoa in action; he might be an amazing and genuine performer destined to knock our socks off with his heartfel portrayal of a mighty warrior on a quest for vengeance. Or not.
Hmm, we’re not doing well, but surely there’s some casting news that isn’t all bad? you try one last time. Well, Stephen Lang (baddie Quaritch from Avatar) is on board to play Conan’s nemesis Khalar Singh. Lang’s okay in my books; for some reason he’s really fun to watch. And most recently, Ron Perlman replaced Mickey Rourke in the role of Conan’s father. People seem to like Perlman, and he’s a pretty reliable character actor, so that’s okay. But Perlman looks nothing like Momoa, so why bother trying to pass him off as his dear old pa? Maybe they should switch Lang and Perlman around, hmm?
Then there’s the latest casting: Rose McGowan has been tapped to play half-human, half-witch character, whose role and function are yet to be clarified. This may confuse people that still believe McGowan’s booked in for Robert Rodriguez’ Red Sonja reboot (Red Sonja is a character from Conan lore, you see), but I think the complete lack of movement on that project for the past few years is evidence enough that it’s not going anywhere. McGowan’s a fine actor often exploited for her looks; let’s hope she has more to do here than point her, um, leg at people.
This movie has increasingly slim odds of being anywhere near what a reasonable person would call “good.” You might say I’m counting my chickens before they have a chance to hatch and utterly disappoint me, but preemptive disappointment isn’t a bad strategy. If the movie’s good, I’ll be pleasantly surprised, and if it’s bad, then I’ll get a double-dose of smug “I told you so” opportunities to lose friends and alienate people. The odds are stacked against Conan; all we can do now is wait till its 2011 release to get a final verdict.
“An Arnie movie without Arnie is a paradox the likes of which you’d think wouldn’t occur in this plane of existence, but here we have yet another Austrian Oak cult classic getting the reboot treatment: Conan (the Barbarian / the Destroyer).”
I don't know, Conan got along perfectly well for a good 50 years before Conan the Barbarian came out. Conan's no more an “Arnie Movie” than the Tarzan films are “Weissmuller movies” or Sherlock Holmes films are “Basil Rathbone movies.”
“Why anyone would want to reboot the franchise is beyond me.”
Mostly because Conan the Barbarian bore little to no resemblance to the literary character it was ostensibly based upon, and the works are classics of fantasy literature that would also be extremely easy and successful transitions to cinema. Howard fans have been waiting 80 years for a Conan film that does the character justice. Besides, Conan's like Tarzan, Bond or Dracula: you could make dozens of films about his adventures, and I don't understand why Hollywood never did.
“Or do they mean the racial politics, self-doubt and classical mythology of the originals?”
I can sort of understand the racial politics and classical mythology, but self-doubt?
“I’ve read internet opinions that Momoa is a better choice for Conan than Arnie, because Robert E. Howard (who wrote the original Conan pulp in the 1930s) wrote Conan to be cunning and clever, not just physically imposing.”
I don't know whose internet opinions you've been reading, but many of the Howard fans I know are either disparaging or dismissive, with a small minority of advocates. Momoa is a better choice than Arnold for some reasons, and a poorer choice for others. Neither are ideal, really.
“Let’s get this straight — Arnie was a millionaire before he even set foot in Hollywood, not because of his prestigious bodybuilding awards, but because he was a brilliant economic investor; Arnie’s no tool, and if you think he is, then he’s playing you like a fiddle.”
That's all well and good, but does it affect his acting ability? Arnold the *individual* may indeed have a canny business head – and I agree – but we're talking about Arnold the *actor.* Being a business genius doesn't matter one iota if you can't act, and Arnold in the original films just wasn't at an adequate level to portray the character. Of course, a lot of this was to do with the script (who was substantially dumbed down in many ways), so one can't blame Arnold entirely.
“This Momoa bloke looks like a weak compromise between the sheer physicality of Arnie’s Conan and some wishy-washy business about “looking clever” designed to appease the source’s fans.”
HAH, believe me, if there's anything the new Conan film isn't doing, it's making any attempts to appease the Howard fans. Sure, there's a lot of talk about “being faithful to REH” but that's all it is. There's zero evidence of Lionsgate/Millennium going anywhere out of their way to throw REH fans a bone. In practice, it's a remake of Conan the Barbarian with the characters renamed, plus a few elements lifted from Red Sonja, Conan the Destroyer, Kull the Conqueror and other horrible films.
“Maybe they should switch Lang and Perlman around, hmm?”
That would be a step in the right direction, since 25 years ago, Lang would've been a fantastic Conan himself. Of course, that would rely on the monkeys running this show to have any sense whatsoever.
Regarding Arnie — in the early days his performances weren't great, but the point of showing that he's not a moron was to illustrate that he knew what was going on and played a certain role the best he could — that of the cold, heartless killing machine. He may not have been prodigiously talented, but he at least understood the purpose for which he was being used, and that awareness probably could have been tapped to add versatility to his performance; i.e. he could've played Conan “clever” if directed to do so, but no director at that time would've thought to direct him in any way other than “be big, dumb and scary”.
The reason I refer to it as an Arnie flick is that I imagine most people associate the franchise with his movies; general movie-going folk might not know or care better.
I'm glad to hear the fans aren't as mindlessly appeased as implied by Nispel in interviews. I hope they give this film a good hard inspection when it comes out and hold it up to what they know as the true Conan. I'm not personally excited for this film, but it wouldn't hurt to see some quality heroic fantasy hit our screens.
Have you seen Nispel's Friday The 13th or Pathfinder at all?