His first film is the only reason Conan even exists in the modern cultural consciousness.
No, it's just the last good thing which came at the high point of the Conan franchise before it plummeted into a decline from which it's only started to recover. Prior to the 1982 film, Conan was a massively successful comic character who was comparable in popularity to Spider-Man, and the star of books that sold in the millions. After that.... nothing. A terrible sequel that was a financial success but has none of the qualities of the original, a plethora of terrible books from Tor, a sharp decline in quality in the comics, culminating in the '90s with the cartoon and live-action series. There's also the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger is one of the biggest action stars in cinematic history, meaning just about anything he touched would be immortalised.
Considering the recent Howard renaissance has been happening with absolutely no lip-service paid to the films, I'd say Conan's continued cultural relevance is not solely due to a 1982 film.
Milius's film was a far tighter narrative, and still managed to grasp the essence of the character.
To be frank, it's difficult to get further from Howard's character than what Milius did. They're both called Conan, they're both Cimmerians, and they're both muscular guys who can swing a sword. There the resemblances end.
reply
share