Religious propaganda? - Solomon Kane (2012) Discussion

[–] Otaku-sempai 15 years ago

Solomon Kane is not a new character. Created by Robert E. Howard, the first Solomon Kane story was published in the pulp magazine Weird Tales in 1928. Kane was always written as a stiff-necked, uncompromising moralist. He would be quite comfortable in the company of Watchmen's Rorschach. Although, Kane claims to be a Puritan, his moral code has been shaped by the sum of his life experiences and is unique to himself.

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion." — Harlan Ellison

reply

[–] amtico1 15 years ago

I'm sorry, but like 99% of the people, I haven't read the comic book. I´m not criticizing Solomon Kane, I'm criticizing the movie and how it portrays religion.

reply

[–] Snakeprophet 15 years ago

The film portrays religion and the world exactly as Howard saw it: uncompromising and brutal. By the way Robert Howard wrote pulp fiction and novels, not comics. If you feel like jumping in and commenting about the subject matter try to educate yourself on everything that concerns it first. You'll find you can answer more of your questions by heading to the library and checking out a few of his books to better understand the man and his rather bleak view on life. Some of us enjoy the more darker aspects of fantasy that authors like Howard and H.P. Lovecraft provided in the turn of the last century than any of the PC dribble that now passes as fantasy/horror literature.

reply

[–] amtico1 15 years ago

My piece of advice? Next time you go to the library, borrow Shakespeare or Austen. There's a story about a King Lear who gives the throne to the wrong child, bringing tragedy to the realm. And what about the knight saving the girl after killing a monster?. Yeah, that's really new...if you haven't read anything in your life.

I have to tell you, I don't give a d... about the book or the comic book or whatever. I went to the cinema to see a movie and then I came here, a web page about movies. That's why I'm commenting a movie, not a book.

Do I have to read the books to understand Solomon? Then, I suppose I have to read ALL the books (have you done that?). What if I miss one which says he is a demon? Then I wouldn't understand his actions. Do I have to "educate myself on everything that concerns" everything I read or consume? Next joke, please.

reply

[–] Snakeprophet 15 years ago

First off while I've read Lear and Pride and Prejudice, your point in bringing them up completely escapes me. I'm glad you've taken a basic course in western literature, but maybe its time you broaden your horizons and branch out from there, try some H.P. Lovecraft.

You came into this thread ranting about some religious agenda behind the film. As if Robert Howard was a great Christian Crusader, a ridiculous concept to anyone who actually knows anything about the author. Your comment about the film is a reaction based in ignorance that could have been solved simply by doing a little investigation before coming to a snap judgement.

Hell you didn't even need to read the book all you needed to do was just Google Solomon Kane the character and seen what comes up to understand the type of fantasy this is. So if you want to come onto a message board and act like a know-it-all with broad accusations and baseless theories on the religious message of Solomon Kane, then yes...it helps to "educate yourself".

reply

[–] dereksevilclone 15 years ago

I think amtico1 just needs to get laid.

"Your speech is wild and godless... but I find myself liking you." - Solomon Kane

reply

[–] nfaust1 13 years ago

Reading these post, I don't particularly agree with the original message of the person who is "standing up" for the film, book, and author. But when I get to your "needs to get laid" bit, I really roll my eyes. What a rude, stupid, and completely unwarranted thing to say. It's statements like these, made anonymously, that puts me off the whole idea of message boards. Frankly, the discussion had so far not gone in this direction. Apparently there's a bit of sublimation going on here. You, dereksevilclone, are the one thinking X rated thoughts; perhaps back in January, 2010, you were the one in need of sex and not amtico 1. I sincerely hope you've taken care of that problem, one way or another, by now.

reply

[–] berrorg 13 years ago

I think you too need to get laid.
:P

reply

[–] berrorg 13 years ago

BTW... my previous immature comment was meant as a joke (although you may not choose to take it). Cheers! ;)

reply

[–] nfaust1 13 years ago

The fact is, I probably get laid too much!

reply

[–] berrorg 13 years ago

"get laid too much! " <-- There's NO such thing!
Cheers!

reply

[–] zipdraw 13 years ago

lol

reply

[–] amtico1 15 years ago

Snakeprophet, you don't get it. The novel is aimed at a certain audience. The movie is aimed at a wider audience. The book is not the movie. The author of the book is not the authorS of the movie. I don't give a beep about the book. I talk about what I have seen.

Educate myself? To start with, I'm writing in a language that is not my mother tongue. I wonder if you can do the same. I hope so.

To the the rest, those who compare Greek myths etc...with Christian religion. You cannot make propaganda of something that doesn't exist and nobody follows. Let's take politics. I wouldn't care if they make a movie about paedarchy or government by children, but I would care if they made a Nazi propaganda movie.

Interesting interview with the director:

"THEY DIDN'T WANT THE STORIES DIRECTLY TRANSLATED TO THE SCREEN"

"This first movie explains the origins of the character WHICH ROBERT HOWARD NEVER WROTE ABOUT."

"I DIDN'T READ ALL THE STORIES"

"I TOOK A HUGE AMOUNT OF LIBERTY WITH HIS CHARACTER"

"Solomon Kane knows he is doing the right thing: YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, YOU'RE AN EVIL CREATURE, I'M GOING TO KILL YOU AND DELIVER YOU TO JUDGEMENT TO THE LORD. Yes, it's a very black and white character." And yes, this guy is the hero, the example.

reply

[–] Tarthra 15 years ago

How do you know no-one worships the Greek gods? Apparently, on census forms these days some people state their religion as "Jedi" - does that make Star Wars religious propaganda??
If the intention behind the movie is Christian propaganda, Puritanism would be a very hard sell these days anyway - those people didn't want anyone to have any fun. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the director is a card-carrying member of the god squad?? It might just be an entertaining story, set in an historical time when people believed that kind of stuff.
As to the whole propaganda thing in general, I'm a believer in the old adage "I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Btw, your ability to write English is very good!

And townsfolk wonder why I sleep in on Sundays

reply

[–] fatpie42 15 years ago

<b>As to the whole propaganda thing in general, I'm a believer in the old adage "I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" </b>

Another part of defending free speech is protecting the right to criticise what others have said. No one is saying that the movie should be banned. They are criticising the message it delivers. They should be free to do so. Propaganda is particularly worthy of criticism because it misleads people by biasing information to suit a particular belief or ideology.

This whole argument has struck me as rather random since both sides appear to be agreeing. The original Solomon Kane books apparently depict a character with a brutal, moralistic, Rorschach-like mentality. It's worth noting that some people horrified Alan Moore when they said "what we need are more people like Rorschach". If the character is an anti-hero and he is instead viewed as a hero-hero then the original vision is being distorted.

If the movie depicts Solomon Kane as "the good guy" bringing religion to the pagans when he is supposed to be a religious fantatic whose morality has it's various shades of grey, then that explains why they were irritated by the movie.

Please note that I am familiar with neither incarnations of Solomon Kane. It seems rather odd to me that a Puritan is being said to be surrounded by pagans in the 1600s. Where the hell are they exactly? He may be surrounded by other protestant groups and possibly Christians whose allegiance is still with the Catholic Church in Rome, but pagans are likely to be rather thin on the ground across the UK and Europe during the 1600s.

reply

[–] Tarthra 15 years ago

Yes, the right to criticise is implicit in the concept of free speech. There's no problem with a critique of the movie. I'm just wondering if it is really trying to deliver a message?
If the people behind the movie are card-carrying members of the god-squad, then it may well have a message to spread. I've no idea on that one. If they're not, I'm guessing the Puritan/Christianity/Hell stuff is part of the original literary character's backdrop. After all, don't we all know that there is no such thing as a 'demon'? In that time period, many people really believed the whole witches & warlocks stuff, so to have a fantasy [with the emphasis on fanatsy] movie, set amidst Puritans, reeking of sulphur & salvation doesn't strike me, personally, as misplaced.

And townsfolk wonder why I sleep in on Sundays

reply

[–] actionmanrandell 15 years ago

my fathers step son was very young like 4 or 5 and had very bad exima well he was always scratching and you could hear him scratch across the house at night well my dad went into his room and rebuked the demons in him and his step son fell fast asleep then when my father got back into bed his step son was scratching again and he went back in there rebuked the demons again and the kid fell fast asleep this happened like 4 times that night then my father went in there and bound the demons and rebuked them and the kid laughed like on the exersist just like on the exersist and fell right asleep and after that he never had exima again and had the most perfect skin complextion now i dont judge people for there belief systems but i have believe in the god of the bible and have witnessed the power of the lord

reply

[–] archer1812 15 years ago

by - imlivingontheedgein2007 my fathers step son was very young like 4 or 5 and had very bad exima well he was always scratching and you could hear him scratch across the house at night well my dad went into his room and rebuked the demons in him and his step son fell fast asleep then when my father got back into bed his step son was scratching again and he went back in there rebuked the demons again and the kid fell fast asleep this happened like 4 times that night then my father went in there and bound the demons and rebuked them and the kid laughed like on the exersist just like on the exersist and fell right asleep and after that he never had exima again and had the most perfect skin complextion now i dont judge people for there belief systems but i have believe in the god of the bible and have witnessed the power of the lord

"Exima"(sic) is caused by demons? Please, please tell me that joking. Are you a Poe, you can't possibly be for real.

reply

[–] netgrazer 15 years ago

I needed a laugh, thanks for that!

The story's not too long, not completely incoherent, and you even got the spelling and interpunction just right. A very convincing impression of a gullible dimwit, well done.

===
Rare things happen all the time.

reply

[–] Tarthra 15 years ago

That's great - your father could have availed himself of modern medicine & also achieved the same result for his step-son. Though you have piqued my curiosity, when he bound the demons, was it with duct tape or something else?
However, the power of the lord notwithstanding, the story doesn't change my point. Unless it is known [& I still confess to not knowing the answer] that the people behind the movie are 'Believers', they cannot be accused of propaganda - it is an illogical conclusion.

And townsfolk wonder why I sleep in on Sundays

reply

[–] Photon_Man62 14 years ago

You do realize this was a troll/joke? But no, you'd rather believe it's true in order to make yourself feel better about yourself compared to "all the others, stupid dimwits".

reply

[–] Tarthra 14 years ago

So no-one is allowed to play with the trolls/jokesters? How very dull.
And not sure what you're referring to with the "all the others, stupid dimwits" - not something you can attribute as a quote from my post....

And townsfolk wonder why I sleep in on Sundays

reply

[–] Photon_Man62 14 years ago

IT IS A QUOTE BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT YOU WERE FINKING YOUY BIGOTRIED ATHIEST

reply

[–] Tarthra 14 years ago

Ah, that it explains it then. Mind-reading, that's quite a talent.

And townsfolk wonder why I sleep in on Sundays

reply

[–] zipdraw 13 years ago

I think you left your CAPSlock on.

reply

[–] Photon_Man62 13 years ago

Not another one. God damn it.

reply

[–] Taranaichsaurus 15 years ago

The original Solomon Kane books apparently depict a character with a brutal, moralistic, Rorschach-like mentality. It's worth noting that some people horrified Alan Moore when they said "what we need are more people like Rorschach". If the character is an anti-hero and he is instead viewed as a hero-hero then the original vision is being distorted.

This was not the case with Kane at all. Kane was conflicted and had a dark side to his personality, but he was unquestionably a good man. He was gentle and kind to those weaker than him, had a strong sense of justice, and was determined to protect the innocent. The only people he sought out to kill were murderers, rapists, devil-worshippers (the kind whose devils actually turn up to torment humanity) and horrors from darkest evil.

Indeed, he's often shown to be highly critical of his Christian fellows. He decries witch hunts, since he knows (first hand) that no real witch would let themselves be killed by a bunch of yokels when they have the powers of darkness at their disposal. He never engaged in an "end justifies the means" option, and never compromised his sense of morality. He'll even question the actions of the Queen's men if he considers them immoral.

Of all Howard's heroes, Kane is the only one that could really be called a good guy. The only people he unleashes murderous vengeance upon are the exact sort of people who would be executed by any contemporaneous nation, and I'd wager they'd be marked for execution in many a modern state too.

If the movie depicts Solomon Kane as "the good guy" bringing religion to the pagans when he is supposed to be a religious fantatic whose morality has it's various shades of grey, then that explains why they were irritated by the movie.

Based on what I've read/heard, this isn't what film-Kane's doing at all. Kane is going around fighting demons and men serving those demons. Nothing about bringing Christianity to pagans that I've seen.

reply

[–] natos99 14 years ago

I dont feel there is religious propaganda in the film there was no need to crucify the main character though I think that was a little over the top they are just using religion to fuel the story as a baseline of the film..

but your are wrong about the inquisition it wasnt Christians killing innocent people it was Catholics killing innocent people & other Christians.

The catholic church felt to be different from the Jews they changed the 10 commandments, the one about the day of rest which was changed to Sunday instead of Saturday which is the true day of rest & worship. There are still Christians that worship on Saturday instead of Sunday..

Unfortunately most people seem to think that all Christians are the same but there is more then 6 different religions that worship Christ.. so you have to be careful when talking about Christians you may aswell say all black people eat chicken or all Arabs are Muslim etc.

reply

[–] Taranaichsaurus 14 years ago

but your are wrong about the inquisition it wasnt Christians killing innocent people it was Catholics killing innocent people & other Christians.

I'm not sure if I'm getting caught up in semantics, but Catholics are Christians themselves. Describing the inquisition as "Christians killing innocent people" is still correct - not as precise as "Catholics killing innocent people" but still technically correct.

reply

[–] sane1216 14 years ago

There is a difference in theology and doctrine. While the secular world lumps the two together and you will find some Catholic sympathetic believers lumping Catholics into Christianity...most who really really really study their Bible and know their doctrine will not.

So that's why you will find statements contrary to how you understand it regarding Catholicsm and Christianity. In the eyes of a real believer, Catholicsm is a heresy which has warped the real teachings of Jesus Christ thus making it a cult. Yes, I know non-believers atheist see all religion as cults, but I'm trying to help you with the semantics here.

This disconnect or misunderstanding comes from the erroneous definiton of Christian which most incorrectly believe to be a simple follower of Christ or his teachings. That's not the case. It's to be Christ like and to be Christ like you must COMPLETELY follow the words of Christ which also means not adding to them. Something Catholics have done as well as many other demoninations of Christendom.

Simply put, everything walking under the banner of Christianity for the past 2000 years is not specifically Christian...or a part of TRUE Christianity.

reply

[–] R011DaveAAA 13 years ago

but your are wrong about the inquisition it wasnt Christians killing innocent people it was Catholics killing innocent people & other Christians.

Protestants have killed quite a few people themselves in the ostensible name of their Faith in the last five centuries, probably as many or more than the Catholic Church. The Papal and Spanish Inquisitions, in fact, had good reputations for judicial rigour by the standards of the times. They presecuted far fewer opeple for witchcraft, for instance. Spain was far from the only place to expell its Jews, England did too. for instance, and Jews were freuquent targets of murderous poprgoms and repression throughout Protestant Germany.

reply

[–] Omegalomaniac 14 years ago

Some people have a severe allergy to religion and Christianity in particular. If a movie which in any way touches on religious faith doesn't portray the faithful as hypocrites and buffoons then it must be "religious propaganda".Lots of good has been done from religious faith as well as the bad,but the retelling of the good does not serve their agenda.Considerable evil has been done in the service of Godlessness,the millions systematically murdered worldwide by communists in the last century the most glaring example. A record "the church" has not matched in 2000 years.

Give me immortality,or give me death.

reply

[–] Craker101 13 years ago

The OP's original issue has been misunderstood and misconstrued more than once, and he/she has tried to steer it back to that issue, unfortunately without success. To reiterate: the problem amtico has is with the DIRECTOR's portrayal of the time period. NOT Solomon Kane's morality, or the original author's.

To omegalomaniac: The difference between Stalin and Hitler's genocides and any one of the numerous horrors visited upon the world by various religions is the motivation. Hitler hated the Jews, but he didn't murder them to convert them, or because he was an atheist. Hitler killed Jews because he was a psychopath. He didn't kill them and praise Darwin or something as he did so (eugenics notwithstanding). The witch hunts and the Spanish Inquisition, they were done in the name of God. If Stalin and Hitler's hideous records are counted as "in the service of Godlessness" (side note: since you capitalized there, I might assume you only eliminate the Abrahamic God, and not Zeus or Osiris. Try to be more inclusive next time, it's clearer), then every death in every unjust war or military action carried out by a theist counts towards "the church"'s. Re: Guantanamo, Rwanda, plus the actual wars that were based on religion, like the Thirty Years War, the Crusades, the French Religious wars.

All wars in the name of Godlessness (according to you):
Holocaust: 10 million
Holodomor (Stalin's genocide): 11 million
= 21 million

Some wars in the name of God/the Pope (according to everybody):
Thirty Years War: 11 million
Second Sudanese War (seeing as it's essentially Islam vs. Christianity): 2 million
French Wars of Religion: 4 million
Crusades: 9 million
= 26 million

Aaaand the Vatican has it! By 5 million souls. Despite His inferior killing technology (swords and arrows, excluding Sudan, which still lacks the firepower of Hitler's Panzers and gas chambers) and lack of people to die for Him (both the Thirty Years War and the Crusades wiped out about 2% of the world population each. By comparison, the Holocaust took about 0.4%) God (through his loyal servants, of course) has out-murdered the two most evil men in modern history.

And to say it once again, in case you've forgotten, Hitler and Stalin did not kill because they were atheist. Correlation, not causation. On the other hand, Pope Urban II and his successors DID kill because they were theist. Causation.

In case you can't tell, I'm an atheist. I've encountered this sort of argument before. The facts don't back it up.

reply

[–] skyjedifx 13 years ago

Religion isn't necessarily a reason people commit atrocities; a lot of the times, it's just an excuse. With Christianity, we're talking about a two thousand year old institution that dominated an entire continent and had inroads into others. You think that in two thousand years, there weren't any psychotic leaders in Europe besides Hitler who decided to use Religion as an excuse for carrying out their designs?

The fact is, a lot of these big "Christian Atrocities" you mention were more about cultural hegemony than religious fervor. The Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with that fact that Spain had been invaded by the Moorish forces coming up from Northern Africa and it had taken the Reconquista centuries to retake the Iberian Peninsula and Spain was still embattled centuries later? Given the political and military climate, the Spanish royalty viewed non-Christians as (very real) threats to their nation.

And the first crusade had nothing to do with the fact that while the Moors were pushing north from Africa and the Turks were pushing West from the Middle East, the Christian West was in actual danger of being subsumed and subjugated? The Eastern Empire was falling fast and Urban II sought to bulwark their forces to stop the encroaching Islamic forces, while also making a politically savvy alliance with the Eastern Orthodox Church, and--as an added bonus--uniting Europe (which has never needed much of an excuse for starting a war) against a common foe.

Many other religious wars can also be described in political terms. The Protestant Reformation represented a profound threat to established European monarchies, many of which had close ties to the Papacy.

Now, you'll always have some true believers who will kill in the name of God, but this is heterodox: the New Testament explicitly denounces violence (meanwhile, for all of the wars in the Old Testament, the Jews never converted by the sword--all of their wars were about nation-building, which, again, is not a strictly religious aspiration).

And furthermore, I can turn your comment about Pope Urban II around--how many Christians have done good charitable works because they were theists, while conversely, how many atheists have done good works for no other reason than because they were not theists?

reply

[–] R011DaveAAA 13 years ago

Thirty Years War: 11 million

You mean when the Catholic Bourbons fought the Catholic Hapsburgs using Protestant Germans and Swedes as proxies?

Second Sudanese War (seeing as it's essentially Islam vs. Christianity): 2 million

It isn't "essentially Islam vs. Christianity" anymore than the war by the same Sudanese Arabs against their fellow Muslims in Darfur is. It's a tribal and ethnic war of Arabs against Black Africans.

French Wars of Religion: 4 million

A high end estimate.

Crusades: 9 million

The Crusades were much more politically and economically motivated than religiously. As for "9 million", that number is a complete guess, and almost certainly nearly an order of magnitude too high.

reply

[–] Desepticon 12 years ago

You have some good info there but your incorrect about the Crusades. The Crusades were brought about entirely by a wave of religious fervor that swept the continent. Exactly what "economic" value does Jerusalem have? Not much. It's only value is that it is the Holy Land. Plus, it was a good excuse to kill Jews; which has always been a popular European pastime.

My brother was eaten by wolves on the CT Turnpike

reply

[–] chilone 13 years ago

People have been killing each other for pretty much any reason one can imagine for as long as humans have walked the earth. Keeping score of what their agenda was/is to give credence to ones so-called argument is infantile. We are all hell doomed sinners and there is not one righteous among us. No, not one. The only hope we have is in the life and forgiveness that Jesus came to give us. Yep, God fearing people have and continue to do awful things. Yep, atheists etc., have and continue to do awful things. You're really gonna keep score? Embrace your forgiveness instead. It's a lot more productive

On the other hand... there's a glove

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 13 years ago

Thats because any movie that doesn't portray Christians of 1600s as hypocrites IS a religious propaganda, since they WERE HYPOCRITES in 1600s.
Communists didnt kill "for lack of christianity". they killed for slave labour and ideology enforcement. claiming what communist did to diminish what christians did is simply ignorant.
There are more people kileld in car accidents than in ALL wars put together in human history. Does that mean we should forget wars and tunnel vision into hating cars?

--------------------------------------------------
If you want horror - tune in the news channel.

reply

[–] Ithual 15 years ago

I'll make this quick. Amticol, like all athiests you obviously find the idea that a higher being exists to be frightening. For some unknown reason it angers you, violates you even.
You mentioned the nazis. Are you really liking Jesus' teachings to Hitlers? Honestly?
In the few words you've said I have realised that you are an idiot. A person with an IQ of less than 50.
Goodbye

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 15 years ago

I didn't know Hitler's views represented those of ANY Christians. Hitler was an occultist who believed in a Hollow Earth. Hardly accepted beliefs to be found in mainstream Christian circles. By the way, I'm proudly Catholic, but I have no desire to see this movie. The trailer in no way resembles what Robert Howard conceived of Solomon Kane as, so I will be glad to skip this one, religious themes or no.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rogerscorpion 15 years ago

Great White, I'd caution you from judging a film based on it's trailer. Trailers are usually assembled by a promotions/advertising department---not the actual director.

Steve Martin complained that, when he tried to be serious, they'd promote the film as a 'Steve Martin comedy'--sending the wrong message.

Remember, Robert E Howard, created, along with Kane---Conan--hardly a Christian viewpoint.

Carpe Noctem

reply

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 15 years ago

I know quite a bit about what Robert Howard wrote, Roger. I've also read the Solomon Kane stories many times over the course of the past 15 years. Solomon Kane never fought any towering flaming monsters, for instance. When things like that that have no bearing on ANYTHING related to the source material and look more like Hollywood attempts at dumbing down the story are introduced, it's very hard for me to have any desire to see the full product.

reply

[–] Readnought 15 years ago

*SPOILER*

I thought they were about to go over the edge with that monster, too.
But to my consolation, he didn't actually fight it, either.
Nor did he need to.
(He was basically just being tempted.)

reply

[–] eventide_unicorn 15 years ago

Hi GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom,

I haven't read the Robet Howard books yet, but i have to say i'm a Catholic and i love this film. The trailer misrepresents the film in an attempt to draw in a non-religious audience, in my opinion.

This happens most obviously, for example, where it makes it look like Solomon Kane, when faced with a 15 foot fire-demon that's come to drag him to hell, just says 'Come on!' (i.e. & fight me). Actually, when faced with 50 possessed evil ruffians, he says 'Come on!'. When faced with the 15 foot fire-demon what he actually says is 'My God, you are the only one who can help me now'. Just to give one example.

I really love this film so i wouldn't want you to miss it due to the misrepresentation of the trailer. However, i haven't read the books yet, so you may be absolutely right that it doesn't do the character justice! :)

reply

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 15 years ago

In the stories--Howard actually wrote no books about Solomon Kane although all his writings about the character are available in a book called The Savage Tales of Solomon Kane--Solomon Kane is religious, but at times he's willing to join forces with African witch doctors or use pagan staffs to battle monsters. He's obsessed with justice and righting wrongs. To that end, he travels Europe and Africa (and apparently the New World too judging by hints dropped at various times) with a kind of wanderlust that drives him on to an apparently mysterious fate. Never once does he fight some 15-foot-tall demon, and he never says things like "Come on!" He views himself as God's avenger of wrongs. This is most apparent in the first story Howard wrote about him, Red Shadows, where Kane chases a brigand from Europe to Africa over the course of several years because the man had brutally raped and murdered a young girl Kane didn't even know. There are other examples, but I'm sure you get the idea. The trailer may not do the movie justice, but when I see Kane fighting the aforementioned fire-demon or flipping a dagger off his boot into his hand, I realize this is not an accurate representation of R E Howard's Solomon Kane. For that reason, I have no desire to see the movie.

reply

[–] mcr76 15 years ago

Normally I don't try to correct the Great White Ape but there is one mistake-the story your referring to is actually called Red Shadows. Red Nails was Howard's last Conan story. Just giving a heads up before somebody else catches it.

"With every mistake, we must surely be learning..."

reply

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 15 years ago

Thanks! That was a really stupid mistake. I have no clue how I made it. Thanks again though, Mc.

reply

[–] eventide_unicorn 15 years ago

Fair enough. Reading between the lines from the reviews i've read, the director has made the character enough like book!Solomon Kane that a lot of viewers don't like him and not quite enough like book!Solomon Kane for the die-hard fans to like him. I've got no complaints, though. This film makes me one happy little bunny :D

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 15 years ago

There's a difference between trying to please the fans and actively antagonizing them. Solomon Kane is not some medieval Van Helsing who battles giant fire demons while spewing banal dialogue. That is exactly what the trailer portrays though. Howard's characters were more like earlier versions of Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name or the characters Toshio Mifune portrayed for Akira Kurosawa in The Seven Samurai and Yojimbo. They're supposed to be reticent men who shake up situations because of their understated yet overwhelming presence, not Hollywood-style Last Action Heroes who engage in overdone theatrics.

reply

[–] deborahbrancheau 15 years ago

The director, Michael Bassett, is not a Christian. In fact, the director does not believe in a god. So how could this be religious propaganda?

He took Howard's character, Solomon Kane, who is a very religious man, and gave him a backstory or how he got that way. The quote you are using of Michael Bassett is taken completely out of context. He is expressing how he finds that concept of people thinking that just because you don't believe in God, you are therefore somehow and evil creature.

Just because you tell a story does not mean that you believe the story to be based on facts. This is a fictitious story based on the thoughts and feelings of Howard not Bassett. Bassett is simply fascinated by the story, the character and the genre. And the fans are as well.

Speaking for myself, I am an agnostic. I don't believe in a god. But I am desperate to see this movie. I love watching movies that deal with religion. It fascinates me. It's as simple as that.

reply

[–] MikeMonger 15 years ago

The novel is aimed at a certain audience.

Having never read the novel and obviously being completely unfamiliar with the author, how exactly do you know what audience the novel was aimed at?

BTW, Howard wrote for the same audience that movies like this are aimed at.

reply

[–] Belnick 14 years ago

umm would you say noone follow the Aesir as well ?

I can tell you right now there are a few thousand of ppl that are still "Asa troende" a religion NEVER dies, NEVER !

always some ppl to lift it up from one time to another

reply

[–] wakemerobot 13 years ago

take a bow, son.

reply

[–] daydreamer021979 12 years ago

My impression of the OP is as one of those types who likes to think they are of the intellectual elite too cultured and erudite to be understood by the rest of us uncouth brutes. Hence the Austen and Shakespeare comment. I find it amusing when such people find out those they are speaking to actually have more than a little education of their ow and are less than impressed by their pompous preening. I'm also a little confused as to why someone who despises religion as much as, I'm guessing he, would bother to watch or comment on a movie whose plot is so based on the subject in question.

I Am Who I Am.
Your approval isn't required.

reply

[–] burnside986 14 years ago

jesus christ the youth frighten me.

reply

[–] nfaust1 13 years ago

Reading these messages quite a while after they were written - because I've just seen the film - I'm compelled to say something about your post, amtico1. Your point about the film does not take into account the film itself, which, to my mind, justified the rarified way it illustrates its world. Your point seems to be that, rarified or not, the film did not embrace YOUR feeling concerning religion. In other words, you view the movie from a point of view that does not take into account the film's deliberately drawn and justified stylistic inventions; you want the film to be accurate and will not accept its vision, no matter how carefully its been built and played. When you bring in the way "religion is portrayed" as criteria for criticism, I am automatically going to suspect your overall intention. You want to debate dogma and not film. I say to you, a tragedy by Shakespeare, with characters drawn from Holinshed, among others, takes great liberties with history. If, for instance, you judged RICHARD III, or MACBETH merely by their historical accuracy, your review for both would no doubt be less than positive. Shakespeare, though, was not writing history, he was writing drama, and within the conditions of the dramas he wrote, the worlds he created and the actions he assigned to characters were, within his vision, justified.

Who in hell watches this film and wonders if its some sort of tract for religious propaganda, unless, of course, you enter the film looking for it? More to the point, the film explores a particular expression of the conflict between Good and Evil; in doing so, the film also implies, as Shakespeare does in MACBETH, that these two opposites are not so clearly defined.

If you have some sort of ax to grind about Religion in films, please, just come out and say it. On the other hand, if you feel the way religion here is depicted somehow damages the film, tell us, first of all, why it does, and, second of all, give examples in the film to make your point, so we can better understand it.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hooper-xxx 15 years ago

[quote]Some of us enjoy the more darker aspects of fantasy that authors like Howard and H.P. Lovecraft provided in the turn of the last century than any of the PC dribble that now passes as fantasy/horror literature.{/quote]

Get off your high horse. You're reading childish pap and crowing about it like it's Proust.

reply

[–] Padwanna 15 years ago

@ Snakeprophet

Very well said, sir!

I agree wholeheartedly!

Padwanna!

---
The internet has the ability to turn sane people into ranting fools!

reply

[–] Balthlazar 15 years ago

*beep* yeah buddy!

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 15 years ago

Solomon Kane didn't start out in comic books, Am. He came from Robert Howard's pulp-fiction stories from the late 1920s and early 1930s. At best, Howard was an agnostic who often expressed views at odds with Christian moralism. Thus, I highly doubt he intended Solomon Kane to be a form of religious propaganda. Incidentally I just saw the trailer for this film although I've not seen the film itself yet. The trailer was beautiful, but the movie's about as much Solomon Kane as the Teletubbies are.

reply

[–] Otaku-sempai 15 years ago

I'm sorry, but like 99% of the people, I haven't read the comic book. I´m
not criticizing Solomon Kane, I'm criticizing the movie and how it portrays
religion.

Kane isn't a comic-book character (although there have been Solomon Kane comics, just as Conan the Cimmerian has been in comics). He first appeared in the pulp magazine Weird Tales. I can't comment about the movie since it has yet to be released in the U.S.; all I've seen of it is the trailer. Kane's backstory in the movie doesn't really seem very authentic to the original version of the character, though.

"You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." — Harlan Ellison

reply

[–] Wonderboy2402 14 years ago

There were short stories. Not comics.

reply

[–] brendanfoy 14 years ago

If you have a problem with Christianity or religion in general, stay away from films that deal with it. The 1600s, just like every century in European history, was full of political and cultural conflict. The Crusades, as violent as they were, were a response to Muslim aggression centuries earlier (ever think why the campaign was about "taking back" the Holy Land?).

As for the Spanish Inquisition, innocent blood was spilled and atrocities were committed, but it was yet another response to Muslim encroachment on Christian lands and was lead not by the church but by the Spanish Monarchs who wanted their people united under one Catholic orthodoxy thus making their subjects easier to control. It is also said the Inquisition was a response to a 5th column conspiring to overthrow the monarchy. Whatever the reason, the Spanish Inquisition was about political power and did not take place in the time of Solomon Kane.

The Roman Inquisition did take place around his time and was a response to the spread of Protestantism throughout Europe. The Church saw it's influence threatened and went after the Protestants who openly challenged them. See a pattern here? These wars are no different than any other war and the Bible in no way endorses these actions.

War and the quest for power is not condoned by Chrisitanity or Judaism or any moralistic religion I can think of. I am unsure what the Holy Qur'an says on this subject but blaming religion or Chrisitanity specifically for the faults of men is a common mistake. Man will go to war, religion or no religion and sometimes his reasons for doing so are just, sometimes they are not. I hardly see how this film is religous propaganda and I am glad when a movie stays true to the source material - as it should.

Oh, and Solomon Kane is anything but religous propaganda and judging by the ticket sales of The Passion of the Christ, I'd say that type of film reaches plenty wide of an audience.

reply

[–] Taranaichsaurus 14 years ago

Whatever the reason, the Spanish Inquisition was about political power and did not take place in the time of Solomon Kane.

The Inquisition lasted well into the 19th Century. True, it wasn't as powerful then as it was during its heyday, but the height of the Inquisition's political influence was at least up to the start of the 18th Century. Solomon Kane lived right in the middle, in the 1600s.

I hardly see how this film is religous propaganda and I am glad when a movie stays true to the source material - as it should.

Even disregarding the film's massive divergences from the original Solomon Kane stories, the film has a very loose grasp of Christian denominational differences, especially in its treatment of Puritanism.

reply

[–] ozymandias312 15 years ago

I think the bulk of the Kane stories are set in the latter 1500s, rather than the 1600s, though they may just barely stray into the very early 1600s.

It is true that Europe in the 1500s AND 1600s was torn by religious (mainly Catholic versus Protestant) conflict. Kane was most definitely a Protestant. I mean he was not only not a Catholic, he was WAY not a Catholic. He evidently fought as a volunteer on the Huguenot (Protestant) side in the French Wars of Religion in the 1570s. (Montaigne lived through that period and wrote a little about it.) In Kane's youth his radical Protestant/"Dissenter" co-religionists and family had been persecuted by, first, the Catholic Queen Mary, and later by the Protestant Queen Elizabeth.

The English Civil War/English Revolution (1641-1651), and the Thirty Years War in Europe (1618-1648) were at least partly about religion, as was the Glorious Revolution in England of the late 1680s. (Of course all that was long after Kane's time.)

In any case, as Otaku pointed out, the character of Solomon Kane is not new, but was created in the late 1920s, by Robert E. Howard. I can't pretend to know much about Howard's specific religious beliefs or attitudes, except to note that he doesn't seem to have spent a lot of time in church, and he seemed to believe in reincarnation, and he did die by his own hand at the age of 30. Even as Howard originally conceived him, Kane was a unique (even eccentric) and complex character.

From "Moon of Skulls," one of the original stories:

"He [Kane] never sought to analyse his motives and he never wavered once his mind was made up. Though he always acted on impulse, he firmly believed that all his actions were governed by cold and logical reasonings.

He was a man born out of his time -- a strange blending of Puritan and Cavalier, *with a touch of the ancient philosopher, and more than a touch of the pagan*, though the last assertion would have shocked him unspeakably. An atavist of the days of blind chivalry he was, a knight errant in the sombre garb of a fanatic.

A hunger in his soul drove him on and on, an urge to right all wrongs, protect all weaker things, avenge all crimes against right and justice. Wayward and restless as the wind, he was consistent in only one respect -- he was true to his ideals of justice and right. Such was Solomon Kane."

"Arthur" (or whoever) of Arthur's Classic Novels has done us all a great service by transcibing and posting many of the original Kane stories (even if there are some transcribal errors, which the alert and astute reader may be able to read around or correct for).

Ozy

And I stood where I did be; for there was no more use to run; And again I lookt with my hope gone.

reply

[–] Taranaichsaurus 15 years ago

So we have a new heroe

Who first appeared in print in 1928.

who wants to fight evil because (as he says) in the 1600´s nobody cared to fight it. Evil pagans ruled the world.

Does the film really say that? I don't think even Bassett would be that stupid.

Mmmm, a little problem here. In the 1600's there were a lot of wars among Christians, they were killing each other because they thought the others were evil. Chrisitians ruled Europe and Christians were killing innoncent people. Not only that, we had the Inquisition killing more innocent people. We had a lot of saviours helped by God (or so they thought).

Can't comment on the film, but I know that in the original stories, Kane was saying much the same thing. Why? Because he knew that the wars among Christians, the Inquisition and the witchhunt craze were under the guise of "fighting evil," and he knew that this whole thing was false. He knew every witch that was lynched wasn't a real witch, because real witches wouldn't suffer a bunch of hicks to kill them.

I'm sorry, but like 99% of the people, I haven't read the comic book.

For the week of November 7th, "The Best of Robert E. Howard Volume 1: The Shadow Kingdom" was the second-highest selling fantasy book on Amazon, beating the last Robert Jordan novel and the latest Twilight. It held on in the second week, and slipped to number 4 the week after. Not bad for an author dead 70 years. Said collection includes three Solomon Kane stories, "Red Shadows," "Skulls in the Stars," and "Rattle of Bones."

While the overall percentage of people might not read books at all, it's nowhere near "99%," otherwise who was ordering all those books in November?

Do I have to read the books to understand Solomon? Then, I suppose I have to read ALL the books (have you done that?).

There are no Solomon Kane "books," so to speak. There are short stories, that fit into one handy collection, in Del Rey's "The Savage Tales of Solomon Kane." If you don't want to part with your cash, a large number of stories are on wikisource or Project Gutenberg. I recommend you give them a read: far from being religious propaganda, you might be surprised at the ambiguity and complete absence of God manifesting in any concrete form.

Howard was a great admirer of Shakespeare, and there a number of Shakespearean allusions in his stories. One story even (subtly) suggests Kane might've met the bard himself. Not sure about Austen though.

Oh, and by the way, Howard's work is represented in both the Library of America and Penguin Classics. The Library of America's mission statement is "dedicated to publishing, and keeping in print, authoritative editions of America's best and most significant writing." Penguin Classics is a world famous series which "consists of over 1,200 titles ranging from The Epic of Gilgamesh to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. And it is still just as committed to making the widest range of the best books from around the world available to millions, in editions that are up to date, authoritative and readable – and constantly redefining the idea of what makes a 'classic'."

Evidently, the LoA and Penguin consider Howard's work as worthy to be counted alongside the likes of Shakespeare and Austen, and I think they know something about literature.

reply

[–] fudgenuts101 15 years ago

I am an agnostic myself and hate religious propaganda but I don't think this film is propaganda, it merely is using religious theory to drive an explosive action flick, like Constantine did, which I thought wasn't really biased concerning religion, it just used it as a backdrop for action. You could say Legion is religious propaganda by your logic, even though it's characters are fighting god.

reply

[–] ozymandias312 15 years ago

Taranaichsaurus truly said:

"... a large number of stories are on wikisource or Project Gutenberg. I recommend you give them a read: *far from being religious propaganda, you might be surprised at the ambiguity and complete absence of God manifesting in any concrete form*.

Hear, hear! I might even add, "Amen!" You said it, brother, and I thank you and congratulate you for it. ;o)

"Your speech is wild and godless, but I begin to like you." -- Solomon Kane

Cheers,

Ozymandias312

And I stood where I did be; for there was no more use to run; And again I lookt with my hope gone.

reply

[–] mstheroff 15 years ago

"Yes, an alternative world created by someone very religious who wants to make us think that religion solves everything. Well, he must look back at history"

Yeah, check your history. Solomon Kane was created by a guy who wasn't religious at all. The only propaganda I've seen related to the character is your post. It's like saying the Dolph Lundgren version of the Punisher is a religious film because he talks to God when he's not killing criminals.

reply

[–] Tarthra 15 years ago

And, in addition, what is the back-drop to 'clash of the titans' - the Greek gods and yet no-one is complaining about religious propaganda.....

And townsfolk wonder why I sleep in on Sundays

reply

[–] tstraton 15 years ago

It's just a friggin' movie for gosh sakes!! Why should anyone bother getting their knickers up in a twist??!!

reply

[–] theyellowsign 15 years ago

I'm about as atheist as a man can be, and I didn't have a problem with this. It's a fantasy film, and as such, you need to accept certain aspects of the fantasy. I don't believe in magic or orks, but I still liked the Lord of the Rings films. I don't believe in giant, green, four armed Martians, but I'm still looking forward to the upcoming John Carter of Mars film. I don't believe in true love, but I still enjoy The Princess Bride.

It seems like someone's got a stick somewhere that needs removing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sgOJTA8ndI

reply

[–] Tarthra 15 years ago

@ theyellowsign:
Oh very well said sir. I couldn't agree more!

And townsfolk wonder why I sleep in on Sundays

reply

[–] CoCaTropper 15 years ago

If your mind is that weak that you will be pursuaded to religion by a film, then you do not deserve a life. Just enjoy the focking film.

reply

[–] pitchwhiteawi 15 years ago

Jesus Christ, quit whining

reply