The Legend of Conan Will Be "Brutal" Says Producer

The Legend of Conan Will Be "Brutal" Says Producer

Producers Chris Morgan and Frederik Malmberg say that The Legend of Conan is getting closer to production and will "live up" to John Milius's 1982 original.

Back in 2012, Arnold Schwarzenegger signed on to star in a new sequel to Conan the Barbarian. It was a move that elicited mixed reactions from fans of the original. While some were looking forward to the prospect of Schwarzenegger returning as an older, wizened version of the character he brought to life back in 1982. Sadly, the intervening years since the original announcement have yielded little in the way of news indicating that the movie, dubbed The Legend of Conan by Universal, is actually moving forward. That being the case, a series of recent interviews with the film's producers would suggest that the film is indeed inching toward production.

According to producer Frederik Malmberg, Universal Studios has begun scouting out filming locations and has visited "versatile landscapes" in Spain and Colombia. He would go on to affirm that the studio's goal is to produce a sequel that feels like an authentic extension of the original, right down to its R-rating. "Our marching orders from the studio were to create a film worthy as a successor to the 1982 film, which was pretty brutal," he said. "To Conan it's not about fancy sword moves; it's about the fastest and most effective way of disposing of your enemy...Conan is beloved because of his political incorrectness. He doesn't think, he just acts. People can relate to the freshness of somebody who doesn't give a damn about civilization."

Legend producer/co-writer Chris Morgan offered up a similar sentiment, describing the original movie's director John Milius as a "visionary" and saying that he hoped to "live up to" the world he created with in Barbarian. "The goal, the dream, is to live up to his world. To make it worthy. And to expand on it in a truthful way that audiences will embrace. We're very lucky that the architects of this new film - the writer, the producers, the studio and most of all, Arnold - who is Conan - are all first-generation fans who either worked on the film or who came along for the ride, cheering from their theater seats opening night." Morgan confirmed that at least three characters from the 1982 film would be returning for Legend..

Offering further commentary himself, Schwarzenegger said that it was "honor" to be asked to return to the franchise and that its backers at Universal have been enthusiastic in their efforts to reinvigorate the franchise. He confirmed that he'll be receiving and reading the "final script" shortly.

Source: Arnold Fans

Permalink

They only released a new Conan in 2011 it was awful and bombed.

If they want to throw away $100 million+ I would be happy to take it rather than see it wasted on this.

Conan! Tell me, what is best in life of Movies?

To crush your good scipts, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of the fanboys!

P-89 Scorpion:
They only released a new Conan in 2011 it was awful and bombed.

If they want to throw away $100 million+ I would be happy to take it rather than see it wasted on this.

I think a lot of that had to do with the 3D conversion, which by all rights was pretty awful and destroyed the visuals of the movie.

I am "lucky" enough to be one of those 25% who can't watch 3D movies without nausea, so my then-girlfriend (now wife) and I went to see the 2D version. And in 2D, it was a really fun, brutal action popcorn movie. And, as a fan of the Robert E. Howard Conan stories, Jason Mamoa WAS playing the literary Conan. It had a couple of flaws (there's this odd fetish the movie has for things being held over people's heads), but it was a great ride.

Destroy the visuals, though, and half of the movie stops working (film is a visual medium, after all). So, I'm not surprised it did poorly. If it had not gone through the conversion, I think it would have been better regarded as a whole.

I very much doubt that this is going to go over well. The only good Conan movie is the first one unfortunately, all subsequent films being completely dull and stupid.

Aiddon:
I very much doubt that this is going to go over well. The only good Conan movie is the first one unfortunately, all subsequent films being completely dull and stupid.

While I have nothing but love for the original Conan I am pretty hard pressed to call it a smart movie.

Robert B. Marks:

P-89 Scorpion:
They only released a new Conan in 2011 it was awful and bombed.

If they want to throw away $100 million+ I would be happy to take it rather than see it wasted on this.

I think a lot of that had to do with the 3D conversion, which by all rights was pretty awful and destroyed the visuals of the movie.

I am "lucky" enough to be one of those 25% who can't watch 3D movies without nausea, so my then-girlfriend (now wife) and I went to see the 2D version. And in 2D, it was a really fun, brutal action popcorn movie. And, as a fan of the Robert E. Howard Conan stories, Jason Mamoa WAS playing the literary Conan. It had a couple of flaws (there's this odd fetish the movie has for things being held over people's heads), but it was a great ride.

Destroy the visuals, though, and half of the movie stops working (film is a visual medium, after all). So, I'm not surprised it did poorly. If it had not gone through the conversion, I think it would have been better regarded as a whole.

Agreed. I dont really know what people were expecting, but I got all the adventure, muscle, bravado and fighting I want. Even some monsters and evil priests and boobs. What more do you need as a Conan fan?

I really enjoyed the original as well: I never understood why the second one was busted down to a pg-13 rating. Talk about missing the point.

It's amazing to see just how far back to formula the studio is willing to go on this: their reboot failed, so now they are going back to the original actor and movie to try and recapture that spirit. I'm kind of impressed.

I feel that a decent well advertised R rated Conan movie could do well.

That said, Arnold needs to do less Old versions of previous characters hes played, even if only cameos.

tzimize:

Aiddon:
I very much doubt that this is going to go over well. The only good Conan movie is the first one unfortunately, all subsequent films being completely dull and stupid.

While I have nothing but love for the original Conan I am pretty hard pressed to call it a smart movie.

I'd actually call it smart. It was a meditation on the meaning of strength, and I thought that came out quite well. It comes out a bit more in the extended cut, though.

Ugh... The fact they're casting Arnie for this basically is a hint as to how much faith they have in their story. I.e Not much. There are plenty of other big beefcakes of minimal acting talent that could fill the role.

I mean the ROck, Batista, any body from the WWF would basically fit the bill for conan. At this point they'll blow half the make-up budget trying to make arnie look convincing.

MonsterCrit:
Ugh... The fact they're casting Arnie for this basically is a hint as to how much faith they have in their story. I.e Not much. There are plenty of other big beefcakes of minimal acting talent that could fill the role.

I mean the ROck, Batista, any body from the WWF would basically fit the bill for conan. At this point they'll blow half the make-up budget trying to make arnie look convincing.

Convincing as what? and old man? as a man that used to be a huge bast man of a barbarian?

FogHornG36:

MonsterCrit:
Ugh... The fact they're casting Arnie for this basically is a hint as to how much faith they have in their story. I.e Not much. There are plenty of other big beefcakes of minimal acting talent that could fill the role.

I mean the ROck, Batista, any body from the WWF would basically fit the bill for conan. At this point they'll blow half the make-up budget trying to make arnie look convincing.

Convincing as what? and old man? as a man that used to be a huge bast man of a barbarian?

They could be going for the "King Conan's Tale" approach, with a narrative driven by "Old-Man-Arnold" Conan remembering his adventures played out by a "Young-Muscle" Conan.

Peregrin130:

FogHornG36:

MonsterCrit:
Ugh... The fact they're casting Arnie for this basically is a hint as to how much faith they have in their story. I.e Not much. There are plenty of other big beefcakes of minimal acting talent that could fill the role.

I mean the ROck, Batista, any body from the WWF would basically fit the bill for conan. At this point they'll blow half the make-up budget trying to make arnie look convincing.

Convincing as what? and old man? as a man that used to be a huge bast man of a barbarian?

They could be going for the "King Conan's Tale" approach, with a narrative driven by "Old-Man-Arnold" Conan remembering his adventures played out by a "Young-Muscle" Conan.

Which basically is shoe-horning in arnie for the sake of arnie. If 80% of your story is taken up by the character remembering a more interesting story...you've made a mess of things.

StewShearer:
Conan is beloved because of his political incorrectness. He doesn't think, he just acts. People can relate to the freshness of somebody who doesn't give a damn about civilization."

Did they even read damn books?! This phrase indicates that even if they did, they don't care. Just like Millius. What a shame :(

MonsterCrit:
Which basically is shoe-horning in arnie for the sake of arnie. If 80% of your story is taken up by the character remembering a more interesting story...you've made a mess of things.

Or it is shoe-horning Arnie in for the sake of continuity... who knows?
Your made up number doesn't help you either. A frame narrative is a legitimate technique. Results may vary but concluding that the movie will suck just because of it is premature at best.

I think this news is rather clever. The recent Mad Max and the longer past John Wick kind of demonstrated that there is indeed still a market for R rated action movies within certain budget bracket.
So better prime the target audience...

I certainly have nothing against a throwback to the very first movie.

Ishigami:

MonsterCrit:
Which basically is shoe-horning in arnie for the sake of arnie. If 80% of your story is taken up by the character remembering a more interesting story...you've made a mess of things.

Or it is shoe-horning Arnie in for the sake of continuity... who knows?
Your made up number doesn't help you either. A frame narrative is a legitimate technique. Results may vary but concluding that the movie will suck just because of it is premature at best.

I think this news is rather clever. The recent Mad Max and the longer past John Wick kind of demonstrated that there is indeed still a market for R rated action movies within certain budget bracket.
So better prime the target audience...

I certainly have nothing against a throwback to the very first movie.

You do remember that the first movie.. even by the standards of the time it came out, wasn't a very good movie right? The sequel whic starred arnie when he could still actually pull off the look sands make up and camera trickery, wasn't very good either. Oh they were fun and entertaining but no one could seriously call them good films.

Was Arnie really necessary? No... heck the only reason he got the part was because he was cheaper than Stallone. SO let's face it.. the bar's not raised very high here. Now honestly, I have nothing against Arnie but shoe horning him in just means they have little to no actual substance to the rest of the film. Considering we're not exactly talking about a deep and complex character here. COnan . Swing sword, bed wenches... that's pretty much the character. Anyone of the WWFF Wanna be actors could pull off the role and could probably do a lot better.

As for using it as a framing narrative... if point of your story is your character telling another more interesting story that pretty much means you goofed especially since it invariably ruins the suspense factor. If the character is telling the story of their younger days then you know they survive whatever to grow old.

"People can relate to the freshness of somebody who doesn't give a damn about civilization."

I assume he managed to say this with a straight face. Impressive.

Robert B. Marks:

P-89 Scorpion:
They only released a new Conan in 2011 it was awful and bombed.

If they want to throw away $100 million+ I would be happy to take it rather than see it wasted on this.

I think a lot of that had to do with the 3D conversion, which by all rights was pretty awful and destroyed the visuals of the movie.

I am "lucky" enough to be one of those 25% who can't watch 3D movies without nausea, so my then-girlfriend (now wife) and I went to see the 2D version. And in 2D, it was a really fun, brutal action popcorn movie. And, as a fan of the Robert E. Howard Conan stories, Jason Mamoa WAS playing the literary Conan. It had a couple of flaws (there's this odd fetish the movie has for things being held over people's heads), but it was a great ride.

Destroy the visuals, though, and half of the movie stops working (film is a visual medium, after all). So, I'm not surprised it did poorly. If it had not gone through the conversion, I think it would have been better regarded as a whole.

I feel much the same. 2011's Conan was a lot of fun, full of blood and swords, old gods, evil sorceresses, some humour. Mamoa's Conan was definitely much closer to the Conan of the books than Arnie's ever was. I don't know what people were expecting.

infohippie:

Robert B. Marks:

P-89 Scorpion:
They only released a new Conan in 2011 it was awful and bombed.

If they want to throw away $100 million+ I would be happy to take it rather than see it wasted on this.

I think a lot of that had to do with the 3D conversion, which by all rights was pretty awful and destroyed the visuals of the movie.

I am "lucky" enough to be one of those 25% who can't watch 3D movies without nausea, so my then-girlfriend (now wife) and I went to see the 2D version. And in 2D, it was a really fun, brutal action popcorn movie. And, as a fan of the Robert E. Howard Conan stories, Jason Mamoa WAS playing the literary Conan. It had a couple of flaws (there's this odd fetish the movie has for things being held over people's heads), but it was a great ride.

Destroy the visuals, though, and half of the movie stops working (film is a visual medium, after all). So, I'm not surprised it did poorly. If it had not gone through the conversion, I think it would have been better regarded as a whole.

I feel much the same. 2011's Conan was a lot of fun, full of blood and swords, old gods, evil sorceresses, some humour. Mamoa's Conan was definitely much closer to the Conan of the books than Arnie's ever was. I don't know what people were expecting.

I also liked the 2011 Conan and felt it didn't get enough credit. It was dumb as hell, but it was also a lot of fun and, as others have said, Mamoa was a fantastic Conan.

2011 conan was terrible but there was one great part. In the beginning where "young conan" killed the tribesmen that attacked him. The guy playing him embodied conan way better than Mamoa ever did. Conan doesn't smile, his life is hardship and brutality in a brutal world. That first fight scene and the kid himself had the essence of Conan. The rest of the movie was garbage

I really hope they won't fuck this up. Looking forward to it.

MonsterCrit:

Which basically is shoe-horning in arnie for the sake of arnie. If 80% of your story is taken up by the character remembering a more interesting story...you've made a mess of things.

It is possible to do an older Conan; heck, he becomes king of a nation and when he reaches his sixties he abdicates the throne to his son and sails into the West with volunteers in order to find America. You can do Conan with Arnie, but you just can't do 1982 Conan again.

infohippie:
I feel much the same. 2011's Conan was a lot of fun, full of blood and swords, old gods, evil sorceresses, some humour. Mamoa's Conan was definitely much closer to the Conan of the books than Arnie's ever was. I don't know what people were expecting.

Well, at least for me I love the original Conan mostly for the sheer cheese factor, and that's what Arnie offered. The feeling I got from the trailer was anything but the feeling the original movie gave me. Gone was the low-poly grossness, embodied well in Conan himself; what made Arnie as Conan so awesome to me is that the movie never really showed him off as such.

Conan wasn't cool, Conan was brutal, a crude and quiet man. But the 2011 version is all swanky fighting moves, CGI enemies and slow motion look-at-how-cool-this-is-ness. And that ain't what I love in Conan the Barbarian, I love it for its crudeness. The whole movie felt like that, it all felt decaying and crude yet hedonistic.

Or to put it visually, it's the difference between this:

image

and this:

image

To put it audibly, the difference between this:

and this:

It might be a subtle thing in the music perhaps, but in a way I do believe that there's something there. I think it's the spirit of the times, I'm not sure you could even make a Conan movie these days that could recapture that feeling we had in the old one.

Then again, Mad Max: Fury Road came along and look at how well that did. But that had the original visionary behind the wheel (hah).

 

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.