Undoing the Reboot?

So on the one hand, you seem to think Conan was a bigger name who could draw in more viewers.

I *asked* if he was, compared to Kalidor, yes... I'm not comparing him to comparatively better known tales of, say, The Green Hornet and The Shadow (both of which had 30s/40s TV shows, apparently), Superman, Tarzan, Tom Sawyer etc

On the other hand, you talk about "fantasy nerds and the few fans of some comparatively little-known books..."

That was a separate matter where the audience is likely to be those who *may* have heard of a book, but would much rather the lesser effort of watching the movie. My wife is one - She'll not care to read the book when she "can just watch the film". I find it quite annoying, both that she thinks this way and that, hypocritically, I rarely get the time myself to read the books any more.

But given how many such nerds bitched about LotR and all it's glaring inaccuracies, how totally nothing like the books it was, yadda yadda... That's why adapting books is discouraging in the face of such overly-harsh critics. Yet, look how much it was talked about pre-release...

That said, ignoring the Howard fans is one thing: claiming that you're actually being totally super faithful to Howard's work is another.

The latter is just marketing, simple as. I won't even go into studio involvement in this one (thank-you 1980s 3D).
But everything always has to be the latest, greatest 'whatever' in it's field... I hate it when a film is self-decribed on it's posters as a combination of Film A with Film B, or it's Film XYZ with boobs/guns/attitude/horror/whatever-will-sell-this-film. I tend not to watch them anyway, though.
But no matter what you say, even if you say "very loosely based on", it will still be compared, rated and reviewed as if it were supposed to be a carbon copy made real. Might as well market it as such and get as much money as possible before it becomes common knowledge.

I don't know of a single book adaptation that has lived up to expectations of anyone who read the book (even if they hated said book).

But they actively courted the fans, because - again - Conan was a big name at the time, and very successful in the Marvel comics and books. That's the issue: not the fact that they're not faithful, but that they claim that they are.

If fans of the book eagerly anticipate the film, other people will take notice. He's read the book, so he must know, right? Those casual viewers are the mainstream audience and easier to impress if they haven't read the book as they have no comparison. Then, when the book-lovers start bitching, they are ignored or decried as elitist snobs... It had guns, fast cars, naked women (or whatever the main draws were (you telling me all those blokes went to see Basic Instinct for the thriller plot? :) )), ergo it's a good film as far as they're concerned.


I'm on your side, apart from the fact that I enjoyed both Conan films for certain reasons. But I just separate the films from the books into two completely independent entities and take each on it's own merits. I rarely read any critics' reviews because they are not me and have very different opinions.
Heck, my own favourite film was an utter train wreck, but I see what it was trying to achieve rather than getting hung up on the few mistakes that caused it's downfall.


The Spacehunter Forum:
http://spacehunter.phpbbhosts.co.uk/

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Oh, I do mean Thomas. I don't think he's that good comic writer and he used Howard too much of a crutch. It's more apparent from his own writings, which are frankly horrible. He's always been at best mediocre in what he's done.

reply share

add reply

formatting help