# Where are all the fantasy movies?



## buzz (May 23, 2005)

With the massive success of Jackson's LOTR films (and, heck, even Harry Potter), I had assumed that we'd start seeing more fantasy films get produced. But all I'm seeing is a lot of "sprawling ancvient/medieval battle" pics: _King Arthur_, _Troy_, _Alexander_, _Kingdom of Heaven_... Why is Hollywood picking up on the big-arse battle thing, but not the sorcery and elves thing? Where's _Elric_? _Swords of Lankhmar_? Heck, even _Eye of the World_?

I know WETA is working on a Narnia film, but... what's the deal?


----------



## KenM (May 23, 2005)

Well, Dungeons and Dragons 2, the elemental might was shown at cannes I belive. The Narinia movies comes out in December. Remember, these things if done right take time to do. I belive they filmed LOTR starting in 1999, the first film did not come out until 2001.


----------



## mmadsen (May 23, 2005)

From Greg's Previews of upcoming movies in the fantasy genre: •	Alice
•	Asterix and Obelix: Mission Cleopatra
•	Beowulf
•	Bewitched
•	The Brothers Grimm
•	Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
•	The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
•	Dr. Strange
•	Elric of Melnibone
•	Enchanted
•	Gateway to the Gods
•	George and the Dragon
•	Good Omens
•	Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
•	Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
•	His Dark Materials
•	The Hobbit
•	Howl's Moving Castle
•	If Only
•	King Conan: Crown of Iron
•	Knight's Castle
•	Lady in the Water
•	Mage
•	Millions
•	MirrorMask
•	The New Adventures of Pinocchio
•	The Santa Clause 3
•	Shazam!
•	Solomon Grundy
•	Tim Burton's Corpse Bride
•	Valiant
•	Where the Wild Things Are
•	Wonder Woman
•	Xena: Warrior Princess
•	Zathura​


----------



## Arrellion (May 23, 2005)

Don't forget:

The Dark Crystal 2


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 23, 2005)

Xena: Warrior Princess is being moviefied?

And Asterix & Obelix: Mission Cleopatra is, like, three years old by now.


----------



## Darrin Drader (May 23, 2005)

I thought Conan was nixed and the Hobbit was speculative at best.


----------



## Krug (May 23, 2005)

I guess we're talking more about the Sword & Sorcery kinda fantasy, rather than just fantasy in general.



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> From Greg's Previews of upcoming movies in the fantasy genre: •	Alice
> •	Asterix and Obelix: Mission Cleopatra
> •	Beowulf
> •	Bewitched
> ...


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (May 24, 2005)

While not elves and wizards fantasy, ERB's _A Princess of Mars_ is in the works, isn't it? Probably the strongest influence for Dark Sun.


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 24, 2005)

Krug said:
			
		

> I guess we're talking more about the Sword & Sorcery kinda fantasy, rather than just fantasy in general.





When was the last time a big budget Sword and Sorcery movie came out?


----------



## buzz (May 24, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> When was the last time a big budget Sword and Sorcery movie came out?



Well, does LOTR count? 

Otherwise, not in recent memory. The D&D movie, I suppose. Which I guess answers my question...


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 24, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> Well, does LOTR count?
> 
> Otherwise, not in recent memory. The D&D movie, I suppose. Which I guess answers my question...





LOTR is about as far from S&S as you can get.


----------



## trancejeremy (May 24, 2005)

Well, I think the trouble is, when it comes to Sword & Sorcery, what else is there that is big besides Lord of the Rings?

I mean, Led Zeppelin wrote at least 2 songs about it.  AFAIK, how many Led Zeppelin songs does any other fantasy series have? None!

Okay, that's a silly way to gauge popularity, but really, what else is popular? Mostly it's niche. I can't imagine them making a movie based on Jordan's stuff.  Elric is hardly a household name - Chaosium had to change the name of their "Elric!" game back to Stormbringer because they found no one had actually heard of "Elric" (but his sword is more famous)

We might have seen a series based on the Scorpion King, but that sorta flopped, I think. (Though I liked it.).  

Dungeons & Dragons probably has the best "brand" recognition, but the movie itself doesn't seem to have had much to do with the game, or be very good. I'm shocked there's a sequel (even more shocked that the guy with lipstick is in the sequel, apparently).


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 24, 2005)

I don't think Sword and Sorcery stuff sells as much.  D&D is still a nerd's trade, afterall.


----------



## Vigilance (May 24, 2005)

From what I have read the effect of the LOTR movies on Hollywood seems to have been that they think sweeping epic dramas with great special effects might be the next place to look for Franchises, as opposed to sci-fi epics with great FX.

I heard this on the commentary for the Master and Commander movie, in which the director or producer (I forget) mentioned that M&C got greenlighted in the wake of LOTR because of its similarities (ie drama, sweeping epic, FX and franchise potential).

Chuck


----------



## Knightfall (May 24, 2005)

Okay, I went through the list mmadsen posted and organized it based on release date. Plus, several of these movies don't really qualify as "Sword & Sorcery" fantasy movies, as per Krug's post. Those marked with an asterisk (*) are listed as being a Fantasy genre movie on IMDB, but not all of them qualify as "Sword & Sorcery" Fantasy. I've also provided links, if the movie is listed on IMDb. I've added quite a few, as well. - KF72

*Pre-2005*
•	Enchanted (1998)
•	The New Adventures of Pinocchio (1999) *
•	Asterix and Obelix: Mission Cleopatra (2002)
•	George and the Dragon (2004)
•	Howl's Moving Castle/Hauru no ugoku shiro (2004) *
•	If Only (2004)
•	Millions (2004)​
*2005*
•	A Sound of Thunder *
•	Apocalypse and the Beauty Queen *
•	Batman Begins *
•	Beowulf & Grendel *
•	Bewitched *
•	Bloodrayne *
•	Cerebral Print: The Secret Files *
•	Charlie and the Chocolate Factory *
•	Corpse Bride *
•	Delgo *
•	Dungeons & Dragons 2: The Elemental Might *
•	D-War *
•	Fantastic Four *
•	Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire *
•	Herbie: Fully Loaded *
•	Journey to the Center of the Earth *
•	King Kong *
•	Living Neon Dreams *
•	MirrorMask *
•	Mortal Kombat: Devastation *
•	Paheli *
•	Pan's Labyrinth *
•	Shadowland: The Legend *
•	Sidekick *
•	Slipdream *
•	The Big Spook War/Yôkai daisensô *
•	The Brothers Grimm *
•	The Chosen One *
•	The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe *
•	The Crow: Wicked Prayer *
•	The Fraud Prince *
•	The Gamers: Dorkness Rising *
•	The Green Faerie *
•	The Shaggy Dog *
•	Underworld: Evolution *
•	Valiant
•	Veritas, Prince of Truth *
•	Where the Wild Things Are *
•	Zathura *​
*2006*
•	2176 *
•	A Spell for Chameleon *
•	Books of Magic *
•	Bras and Broomsticks *
•	Charlotte's Web *
•	Click *
•	Cowboys and Aliens *
•	Daylight's End *
•	Eragon *
•	Ghost Rider *
•	Gnomeo and Juliet *
•	He-Man *
•	I Dream of Jeannie *
•	John Carter of Mars *
•	Kiki's Delivery Service *
•	Lady in the Water *
•	Life of Pi *
•	Luke Cage *
•	Madness in the First Degree *
•	Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium *
•	Pattern Recognition *
•	Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest *
•	Shazam! *
•	Superman Returns *
•	Tekken *
•	The Black Widow *
•	The Evil Dead (Remake) *
•	The Flash *
•	The Illusionist *
•	The Last Unicorn *
•	The Mermaids Singing *
•	The Santa Clause 3
•	The Secret Life of Superfans (Documentary) *
•	The Spiderwick Chronicles *
•	The Tale of Despereaux *
•	The Treehouse *
•	The Watchmen *
•	Snow and the Seven *
•	Widow's Broom *
•	Wonder Woman *
•	Zoom *​
*2007*
•	Beowulf *
•	Danielle's Revenge *
•	DragonBall Z *
•	Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix *
•	His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass *
•	Iron Man *
•	Spider-Man 3 *
•	Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Immortal *
•	The Lions of Al-Rassan *
•	The Runelords *
•	Toy Story 3 *​
*2008*
•	Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince *
•	Puss in Boots *​
*Not Found on IMDb*
•	Alice [in Wonderland?]
•	Dr. Strange [cool]
•	Elric of Melnibone [first I've heard of this]
•	Gateway to the Gods [???]
•	Good Omens [???]
•	The Hobbit [likely]
•	King Conan: Crown of Iron [The script is being redone and won't likely have Arnold in it.]
•	Knight's Castle [???]
•	Mage [based on comic book?]
•	Solomon Grundy [???]​
*Only Found the TV Show*
•	Xena: Warrior Princess​


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 24, 2005)

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> Okay, I went through the list mmadsen posted and organized it based on release date. Plus, several of these movies don't really qualify as "Sword & Sorcery" fantasy movies, as per Krug's post. Those marked with an asterisk (*) are listed as being a Fantasy genre movie on IMDB, but not all of them qualify as "Sword & Sorcery" Fantasy. I've also provided links, if the movie is listed on IMDb. I've added quite a few, as well. - KF72



Good work there!  You should've used an asterisk to mark those _not_ listed as Fantasy...


----------



## Knightfall (May 24, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Good work there!  You should've used an asterisk to mark those _not_ listed as Fantasy...




Yeah, I thought about that after the fact. I hadn't realized how many other movies I'd end up adding.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 24, 2005)

Supposedly the rights to make a series of books on a series of books called "The Runelords" has been purchased.  I've seen the books in the stores, but never read them.

Also, apparently someone purchased the rights to make the Eye of the World, the first in the Wheel of Time novels, into a movie.

I suspect that many companies are seeking novels etc. to make movies upon, but that many of these won't really go anywhere.

One series I'm surprised not to have seen anyone purchase, given the popularity of Tolkien, C.S. Lewis etc. is the "Dark is Rising" series.  I remember they were a pretty good fantasy series I read in my early teens.

Oh, the rights to make a movie about the book I'm currently reading, "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell" have also been purchased.

Banshee


----------



## Swoop109 (May 24, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I thought Conan was nixed ....



Currently the rumour mill has it that after he gets done doing the sequels to _Sin City_, Robert Rodriguez will be doing a movie based on REH's Conan.
It is known that Milius was asked to leave the Warner Brothers studios. In a recent interview given to G4 he did state that his plans for a third Conan film were terminated.

In other areas, Karl Wagner's character Kane has been optioned for a movie based on the stories in the collection, _The Midnight Sun_.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 24, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I suspect that many companies are seeking novels etc. to make movies upon, but that many of these won't really go anywhere.



Films based on novels are not uncommon. Films based on fantasy literature are uncommon.


----------



## Desdichado (May 24, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> When was the last time a big budget Sword and Sorcery movie came out?



Scorpion King, I think.


----------



## Mystery Man (May 24, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Supposedly the rights to make a series of books on a series of books called "The Runelords" has been purchased. I've seen the books in the stores, but never read them.




Tried to read those, couldn't get into them.


----------



## buzz (May 24, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> LOTR is about as far from S&S as you can get.



For the purposes of this discussion, it is S&S, if only to distinguish it from "fantasy" like Harry Potter and Bewitched. I.e., swords, elves, magic, dragons, etc.


----------



## buzz (May 24, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> From what I have read the effect of the LOTR movies on Hollywood seems to have been that they think sweeping epic dramas with great special effects might be the next place to look for Franchises, as opposed to sci-fi epics with great FX.



This makes sense, and is what seems to be happening. 

Granted, I think this is misguided. I'm not sure why any kid (or nerd) all fired up about seeing LOTR would then bug their parents (or spouse) to see, say, _Troy_. I know I've had zero interest in these films (save for M&C, but I didn't see it as part of the trend).


----------



## buzz (May 24, 2005)

Well, out of Kingihtfall's awesome list, these are the ones that even vaguely seem relevant to me. Including _The Gamers_ is even a bit of a stretch.



			
				Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> •	Beowulf & Grendel *
> •	Dungeons & Dragons 2: The Elemental Might *
> •	The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe *
> •	The Gamers: Dorkness Rising *
> ...




Now look at the list and think about how many are "announced" or "in pre-production", and how many films ever make it past that stage. E.g., _Watchmen_ was on the original list, and it's been "in production" since about 1989.

It's weird. Hollywood certianly got the clue with superheroes. I mean, _Ghost Rider_ gets a movie, but Fafhrd doesn't?


----------



## Bonzi (May 24, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> Well, out of Kingihtfall's awesome list, these are the ones that even vaguely seem relevant to me. Including _The Gamers_ is even a bit of a stretch.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Why didn't you include "Herbie: Fully Loaded"?


----------



## buzz (May 24, 2005)

Bonzi said:
			
		

> Why didn't you include "Herbie: Fully Loaded"?



Films with Lindsay Lohan involve a different kind of "fantasy" for me...


----------



## Banshee16 (May 24, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Films based on novels are not uncommon. Films based on fantasy literature are uncommon.




My apologies for not being clear.  I *meant* that I think many companies are looking for good *fantasy* novels to base films on.

Hadn't someone even purchased rights for a Dragonlance, or Dark Elf trilogy movie?  And I've heard that even Jack Chalker's Well World novels were even optioned.  I think most of those expired though.

There's lots of good fantasy, and even more bad fantasy, to base movies on.  Hopefully a few of these are based on good ones   I suspect that those who purchase film rights etc. are looking for something which is *not* Tolkien derived, in order to avoid mimmicking the LOTR films too closely...but that does limit the range of choices to a degree.

Banshee


----------



## Knightfall (May 24, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Also, apparently someone purchased the rights to make the Eye of the World, the first in the Wheel of Time novels, into a movie.




I believe the rights are being used to make a TV Mini-Series, but I could be wrong. Anyone know exactly what the scoop is on WoT?



> Oh, the rights to make a movie about the book I'm currently reading, "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell" have also been purchased.




Looking forward to this one!


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 24, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> Well, out of Kingihtfall's awesome list, these are the ones that even vaguely seem relevant to me. Including _The Gamers_ is even a bit of a stretch.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Because probably a ton more people know who Ghost Rider is than who Fafhrd is. Just in the nerd circles I know people are a lot clearer on comic book heroes than iconic fantasy stuff. Even the kids who play DnD.


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 24, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> For the purposes of this discussion, it is S&S, if only to distinguish it from "fantasy" like Harry Potter and Bewitched. I.e., swords, elves, magic, dragons, etc.





I still can't buy that. S&S has lots of connotations that go with it about feel and scope that just don't fit LOTR at all. The Scorpion King is a much better description of a S&S film like Joshua mentioned.


----------



## buzz (May 24, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> I still can't buy that. S&S has lots of connotations that go with it about feel and scope that just don't fit LOTR at all. The Scorpion King is a much better description of a S&S film like Joshua mentioned.



Then replace "S&S" with another term that connotates "fantasy in vaguely medieval settings with elves and magic swords" as opposed to "speculative stories about weird, magical things happening in modern-day settings". That's all I'm trying to convey. Sheesh.


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 24, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> Then replace "S&S" with another term that connotates "fantasy in vaguely medieval settings with elves and magic swords" as opposed to "speculative stories about weird, magical things happening in modern-day settings". That's all I'm trying to convey. Sheesh.




Or you could just use the term fantasy. I'm big on that one.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 25, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Hadn't someone even purchased rights for a Dragonlance, or Dark Elf trilogy movie?



From what I hear, the deal fell apart. So the film options for those two are still in the market.


----------



## buzz (May 25, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Or you could just use the term fantasy. I'm big on that one.



I did, and it got me "Bewitched".


----------



## Felon (May 25, 2005)

Solomon Grundy gets his own movie? That warrants a big honkin' "*WTF???*"



			
				Swoop109 said:
			
		

> In other areas, Karl Wagner's character Kane has been optioned for a movie based on the stories in the collection, _The Midnight Sun_.




Where'd you hear this? Kane's long been overdue for some serious licensing attention. Then again, since he's a villain (even the term "antihero" is probably too mild), we're talking huge potential to muck it up. 

Now, _Midnight Sun_ is the pastiche that takes place in modern times, isn't it? Those are mostly psychodramas, with little action, as Kane commans some pretty far-out forces by this point. And it's completely incomprehensible without the S&S stories to back them up.


----------



## David Howery (May 25, 2005)

OK, let's hijack this thread a little, and ask another question.... what fantasy novels do you think would make a good S&S movie?  I think the first half of the "Doomfarers of Coramonde" would make a good movie (where else would you see an APC fight a dragon or battle in Hell?).  How about some of the Solomon Kane stories?


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 25, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> OK, let's hijack this thread a little, and ask another question.... what fantasy novels do you think would make a good S&S movie?  I think the first half of the "Doomfarers of Coramonde" would make a good movie (where else would you see an APC fight a dragon or battle in Hell?).  How about some of the Solomon Kane stories?




To paraphrase someone from the S&S fiction thread, is there a such thing as a good S&S movie?

Anyway. I'm not sure, I haven't really read much S&S and what I have read I don't think I'd enjoy anymore on the big screen than I did reading it. Soloman Kane maybe, but I'm not sure how you'd do it as all the stories I've read are pretty short. Plus I'm not sure how well received a dark fantasy story set in the Puritan age would be. But who knows?


----------



## Swoop109 (May 25, 2005)

Hells, I'd be happy with just one well done film based on a Robert E. Howard character. I don't care which.

BTW, the Del Rey tradepaper version of Bran Mac Morn hits the shelves at the end of the month.   It contains some material that did not make it into the Wandering Star edition.


----------



## diaglo (May 25, 2005)

i thought a recent Beowulf came out a couple years ago with Chris Lambert


----------



## Swoop109 (May 25, 2005)

Felon said:
			
		

> Where'd you hear this? Kane's long been overdue for some serious licensing attention. Then again, since he's a villain (even the term "antihero" is probably too mild), we're talking huge potential to muck it up.



Found the site that mentions Kane.

http://www.reeltonicfilms.com

Click on the "Projects" line and you'll see some of the films that they have in development. Hit the Kane image and you'll get all the current info.


----------



## Swoop109 (May 25, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i thought a recent Beowulf came out a couple years ago with Chris Lambert



Other then the name that film had *NOTHING* to do with Beowulf.


----------



## nikolai (May 25, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> With the massive success of Jackson's LOTR films (and, heck, even Harry Potter), I had assumed that we'd start seeing more fantasy films get produced. But all I'm seeing is a lot of "sprawling ancvient/medieval battle" pics: _King Arthur_, _Troy_, _Alexander_, _Kingdom of Heaven_...
> 
> Where's _Elric_? _Swords of Lankhmar_? Heck, even _Eye of the World_?




I think some of it may be due to a delay in writing, commissioning and making films. The "sprawling ancvient/medieval battle" pics we're seeing now aren't a result of LOTR, they're a result of Gladiator. That gives us some idea of the delay. I also think there's a lot of kids "fantasy" films coming out - Narnia and HDM particularly - that's the Harry Potter effect. The last big S&S films (strict definition) were the Scorpion King and Dungeons & Dragons, I think we had more S&S in the '80s boom than we do now.

Hopefully things will change though. I don't think we'll see _Swords of Lankhmar_, those of us who love it really love it, but it's a minority taste - that's why we're getting _Eragon_. _Conan_ is being worked on and _Elric_, and there may also be more low budget S&S - stuff like D&D II and III. So something is happening...

Elric Link:

http://www.multiverse.org/postt1751.html


----------



## diaglo (May 25, 2005)

Swoop109 said:
			
		

> Other then the name that film had *NOTHING* to do with Beowulf.




i say the same thing about the LotR.


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 25, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i say the same thing about the LotR.




Except Peter Jackson didn't do LotR in space.


----------



## sniffles (May 25, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> My apologies for not being clear. I *meant* that I think many companies are looking for good *fantasy* novels to base films on.
> 
> Hadn't someone even purchased rights for a Dragonlance, or Dark Elf trilogy movie? And I've heard that even Jack Chalker's Well World novels were even optioned. I think most of those expired though.
> 
> ...




A good many books are optioned for film rights but never make it beyond that stage.  I wonder how many of the items on that list are in "development hell"?

I think another drawback to many fantasy novels is that they are part of series.  Yes, LOTR is a series too, but Peter Jackson got very, very lucky in finding a studio executive who was willing to green-light multiple films.  That isn't likely to happen again.  How many readers would be happy with a filmization of Robert Jordan's never-ending series that only included material from the first book, or tried to squash *all* the books into one two-hour film?

BTW, to whomever stated that LOTR isn't S&S - erm... elves, dwarves, orcs, wizards, magic, big battles - if that ain't S&S, I don't know what is.


----------



## buzz (May 25, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> BTW, to whomever stated that LOTR isn't S&S - erm... elves, dwarves, orcs, wizards, magic, big battles - if that ain't S&S, I don't know what is.



Careful! You'll incur the wrath of Captain Tagon.


----------



## buzz (May 25, 2005)

nikolai said:
			
		

> I think some of it may be due to a delay in writing, commissioning and making films. The "sprawling ancvient/medieval battle" pics we're seeing now aren't a result of LOTR, they're a result of Gladiator. That gives us some idea of the delay.



This seems a valid point. Still, seeing as FotR came out four years ago, I figured we'd be seeing more knock-offs by now. I mean, the original _Star Wars_ films all came out within three years of each other, and there were countless movies and TV shows trying to cash in almost immediately.

Granted, SW is a special case. It's just weird. Hollywood seems to have gotten the point with superhero films; there's hardly a comic title that hasn't been optioned for an upcoming film.


----------



## buzz (May 25, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> I think another drawback to many fantasy novels is that they are part of series.



I dunno. I'd think your average exec would be glad to know that there's built-in sequel potential. 30+ years of backstory didn't put anyone off doing _Spider-Man_ or _X-men_.


----------



## Desdichado (May 25, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> BTW, to whomever stated that LOTR isn't S&S - erm... elves, dwarves, orcs, wizards, magic, big battles - if that ain't S&S, I don't know what is.



You're right!  You don't know what sword and sorcery is!


----------



## Guillaume (May 25, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> You're right!  You don't know what sword and sorcery is!




Can you define it? That would be more helpfull, as I seem to be ignorant as well as to what sword and sorcery is.  To me it, it has always been a mix of a pseudo-medieval setting, fantastic elements such as magical races and wielders of magic.  If that is not it, I would very much like to know what sword and sorcery is.


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 25, 2005)

> Sword and Sorcery, a term usually ascribed to Fritz Leiber who first used the phrase in 1960, refers to a sub-genre of fantasy which deals with the swashbuckling exploits of violent, amoral swordsmen and their (often) bloody confrontations with agents of evil in imaginary lands. Whereas heroic fantasy emphasizes the valiant struggle of the hero to overcome these supernatural forces, Sword-and-Sorcery focuses on the darker, more sinister and often brutal nature of that struggle. The emphasis is almost always on the might of the sword as contrasted with the power of magic





Full article can be found at http://www.towson.edu/~flynn/swordsor.html


----------



## Desdichado (May 25, 2005)

Cpt. Tagon beat me too it!  I was going to point to that very website, having just googled it on request.  

The other article on heroic fantasy is good too, so the two modes can be compared and contrasted.


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 25, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Cpt. Tagon beat me too it!  I was going to point to that very website, having just googled it on request.




Well that's how I found it too.


----------



## Tamlyn (May 26, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> OK, let's hijack this thread a little, and ask another question.... what fantasy novels do you think would make a good S&S movie?  QUOTE]
> 
> The Eyes of the Dragon by Steven King wouldn't make a bad flick. Plus it's got some mainstream pull to help promote it. The Shanarra series is a possibility (I'd rather watch those than read them anyway). I would love to see A Song of Ice and Fire done, but there's no way they would do justice to the level of intrigue in the books.
> 
> ~Tam


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 26, 2005)

The Shanarra books could be fun. But that'd be a pretty obvious clone of LotR. Plus you'd have to decide which of the books to make into movies. But I'd go see it.


----------



## buzz (May 26, 2005)

I think that Feist's _Magician_ could work. It's another Tolkien rip-off of sorts, but it's also different enough in many ways. Probably would work best as a mini-series, though.

Wouldn't mind seeing a good writer/director take a crack at Amber, either...


----------



## Desdichado (May 26, 2005)

I think of series of Lankhmar movies would most verily rock.  May have to do a bit of clever screenwriting to hash together some of the stories into something that worked as a movie screenplay, but maybe not.

I'm still surprised none of the D&D settings has had any movies done, though.  We get a D&D movie finally, and it's just some schmuck's homebrew.  What a wasted opportunity to really build some brand identity.


----------



## David Howery (May 26, 2005)

not to get too nitpicky here, but howinhell can LOTR not be considered S&S?  It has a medieval setting with magic and warriors.  Isn't S&S pretty much the same as what we call fantasy?  If not, just what's the difference (it'd have to be a really fine line...)...


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 26, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> not to get too nitpicky here, but howinhell can LOTR not be considered S&S?  It has a medieval setting with magic and warriors.  Isn't S&S pretty much the same as what we call fantasy?  If not, just what's the difference (it'd have to be a really fine line...)...





It is a difference mainly in tone. Check the link I listed above.

But in S&S there are certain tropes that LotR doesn't fit as it is instead high fantasy.

Swashbuckling heroes? Not really. 
Test of might versus magic? Again, not really.
Dark and gritty tone? Not at all.
Magic in the hands of only the bad guys? Nope, not here.


----------



## David Howery (May 26, 2005)

OK, read the link.  I suppose there is a fine difference between the two, but it's a pretty fine line.  For the purpose of this thread, there's not much point in distinguishing between fantasy and S&S for future possible movies...


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 26, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> OK, read the link.  I suppose there is a fine difference between the two, but it's a pretty fine line.  For the purpose of this thread, there's not much point in distinguishing between fantasy and S&S for future possible movies...




There is for those of us who view S&S as a very bad term. Especially since watching the two _feels_ very different. Compare LotR with the Scorpion King or the Conan movies.


----------



## David Howery (May 26, 2005)

true enough, but there are so few of either fantasy or S&S movies (although maybe not the books to base further movies on) that splitting them up is rather pointless.  For purposes of this discussion, you might as well include both....


----------



## Jhamin (May 26, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> When was the last time a big budget Sword and Sorcery movie came out?




How about The Chronicles of Riddick?

AKA Warhammer 40,000: the movie.  Certainly a genre-bender, but it meets all the tropes.

-Muscle bound, anti-social protagonist?  Check
-No white-knights, only shades of bad that make our guy look less vile?  Check
-Strength and Steel triumphing against learning and magic? Check
-Vile, cartoonishly evil villian with magical powers? Check

Replace the space ships and guns with horses and bows.  Everything else works.


----------



## nikolai (May 26, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> not to get too nitpicky here, but howinhell can LOTR not be considered S&S?  It has a medieval setting with magic and warriors.  Isn't S&S pretty much the same as what we call fantasy?  If not, just what's the difference (it'd have to be a really fine line...)...




This is the fatal mistake of assuming that if something has (a) swords and (b) sorcery, then it is Swords & Sorcery. If only it were that simple! To use an analogy, saying that LOTR is S&S is like saying that if things in England from 500BC-400BC were pretty dark, then it must be part of the Dark Ages. Just having swords and sorcery aren't diagnostic for something to be S&S. 

S&S was coined to describe a certain style of medieval fantasy found in pulp magazines. It differs from LOTR in style and tone, is more action orientated and (classically) has a muscled swordsman as the hero pitted against a sorcerer. Pinning it down further is difficult, the best way is to read Howard, Leiber and Moorcock - and then you'll know S&S when you see it.

In defence of the people getting bashed by the S&S pedants, outside of the sort of people that post here, S&S is used really broadly to include any medieval fantasy. The LOTR movies were called S&S everywhere - this is probably correct - even if the books aren't S&S. S&S stories and films did had a huge influence on the LOTR films, there are all sorts of places in the story where Tolkien goes tone and atmosphere and Jackson opts for a big fight.

This is what the OED has to say about S&S:

http://www.jessesword.com/sf/view/235

And here is a brief history which includes the classic line "traditional S&S very often begins with a fight and doesn’t stop until the bad guys are lying in a heap of their own entrails."

http://kingsofthenight0.tripod.com/guide.htm


----------



## Gentlegamer (May 26, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Full article can be found at http://www.towson.edu/~flynn/swordsor.html



Do you know where I can find an online copy of Lin Carter's essay on the definition of the "well-wrought tale" . . . ?


----------



## Rackhir (May 26, 2005)

Having a book being "optioned" means exactly NOTHING in Hollywood. Pretty much every concievable story/source material is under option by someone at some point. If you have heard of something, it's probably optioned by someone. All that means is that someone has paid someone for the _possibility_ of doing something with the material. The only thing that means less in the realm of Hollywood is if there is a "Script" for something. Since that doesn't necessarily even mean that some money has beenexchanged.  

Only, IF there is an actual production underway is there anything to speculate about. Otherwise it's about as meaningful as speculating about what it would be like if Tolkien was writing a Conan the Barbarian story.


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 26, 2005)

Jhamin said:
			
		

> How about The Chronicles of Riddick?
> 
> AKA Warhammer 40,000: the movie.  Certainly a genre-bender, but it meets all the tropes.
> 
> ...





I missed that one. I really enjoyed Pitch Black though and I keep meaning to see Chronicles. Was it any good?


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 26, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Do you know where I can find an online copy of Lin Carter's essay on the definition of the "well-wrought tale" . . . ?





I googled it but mainly just found links to book reviews or to message boards. Interestingly enough, the first link to pop up on google is a link to an EN World thread discussing Blue Rose.


----------



## Rackhir (May 26, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> I missed that one. I really enjoyed Pitch Black though and I keep meaning to see Chronicles. Was it any good?




The set design and costuming was absolutely gorgeous. The best I've seen since Dune. The rest of it is a very enjoyable action flick. Well worth a watch.


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 26, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> The set design and costuming was absolutely gorgeous. The best I've seen since Dune. The rest of it is a very enjoyable action flick. Well worth a watch.





Good deal. I'll throw that in my Netflix Queue for once I finish up watching Alias and Babylon 5.


----------



## Desdichado (May 26, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> I missed that one. I really enjoyed Pitch Black though and I keep meaning to see Chronicles. Was it any good?



Not bad, especially if your expectations around it are low.

It got a lot worse word of mouth than was deserved, though.  As a straight-up S&S but set in space flick, I can see how that works.


----------



## Gentlegamer (May 26, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> I googled it but mainly just found links to book reviews or to message boards. Interestingly enough, the first link to pop up on google is a link to an EN World thread discussing Blue Rose.



That EN World thread is where I brought up the "well-wrought tale" . . .


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 26, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> That EN World thread is where I brought up the "well-wrought tale" . . .





Well your posting ability has mystified my google-fu. I bow to you.


----------



## Warrior Poet (May 26, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> I missed that one. I really enjoyed Pitch Black though and I keep meaning to see Chronicles. Was it any good?



My experience on leaving the theater was, "That was kind of fun, but I don't need to see any more movies related to this franchise."

Warrior Poet


----------



## Warrior Poet (May 26, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I think of series of Lankhmar movies would most verily rock.



Agreed.  I'd get some unknown actors ('course, that's what I always say) and really do it up right:  Sheelba, Ningauble, sinking lands, Gods of Lankhmar, Issek, cold women, tower of thieves, the works.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> I think that Feist's Magician could work.



I'm not a fan of Feist's writing, so my opinion isn't very kind, but those books read like a recap of the previous week's D&D game in someone's homebrew.  There are top-quality story hours on these boards written better than those books.  But, maybe they'd make decent movies.  :\ 



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> It's another Tolkien rip-off of sorts, but it's also different enough in many ways. Probably would work best as a mini-series, though.



Or as coasters.

Warrior Poet


----------



## Jhamin (May 26, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> I missed that one. I really enjoyed Pitch Black though and I keep meaning to see Chronicles. Was it any good?




The main thing is that it _wasn't_ Pitch Black 2.  I saw Pitch Black as a character drama with a disaster setting.  CoRiddick did not have alot of these elements.

Chronicles of Riddick was a S&S/Barbiarian flick set in outer space.  On that level, I enjoyed it quite a bit.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (May 26, 2005)

It sounds like Swords & Sorcery can be defined as "bad fantasy."

It's not a definition that I can agree with, but it seems the popular choice.  For my money LoTR is certainly S&S, though of a high level of quailty.

On another note, I think Lankhmar would work awesomely as a HBO or Showtime series.  That gives you the chance to build the characters, and to have some of the R-rated elements necessary to do the stories justice.  But that comes from the guy who thought the only way to do LoTR was as a big-budget mini-series...


----------



## Desdichado (May 26, 2005)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> It sounds like Swords & Sorcery can be defined as "bad fantasy."



 Huh?  What sounds like that?  How are you basing that?


			
				Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> It's not a definition that I can agree with, but it seems the popular choice.  For my money LoTR is certainly S&S, though of a high level of quailty.



LotR lacks the essential elements that define S&S as separate from Heroic Fantasy, so it could never be S&S.


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 26, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Huh?  What sounds like that?  How are you basing that?




That's probably all from me as the biggest and most famous S&S is Conan and I really don't like Conan at all so there is something of a bias there when I talk about S&S.


----------



## Desdichado (May 26, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> That's probably all from me as the biggest and most famous S&S is Conan and I really don't like Conan at all so there is something of a bias there when I talk about S&S.



Conan the movie, or Conan at all?  I don't think the movie is any good at all.  But I like most of the REH stories to a greater or lesser degree.


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 26, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Conan the movie, or Conan at all?  I don't think the movie is any good at all.  But I like most of the REH stories to a greater or lesser degree.





I've never actually seen a whole one of the movies. I just don't like the fiction. Extremely heavy handed moralism with a just too super main character. It reads like Howard's wish of what he was plain and simple.


----------



## Warrior Poet (May 27, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Extremely heavy handed moralism . . .



Interesting.

I never saw that in the books.  I think Howard was trying to write Conan's life as somewhat enviable (in a way), something people aspire to, with the freedom, and the adventure, and answering to no one, (and the lusty women, especially as painted by Frank Frazetta . . . ahem), but I also think he was just trying to write some fun adventure.

Can you talk a little about what you see as the heavy-handed moralism, and examples of good fantasy (of the Sword and Sorcery model) that doesn't have that element?

As an aside, I also recommend the Larry Niven Sword and Sorcery stories like "What Good is a Glass Dagger?" and _The Magic Goes Away_.  Niven's magic and the power behind it is cool, the world (ours, essentially) is really intersting, and he does a great job of creating memorable characters, from warlocks (The Warlock, really) to werewolves to sword-wielders and giants.

For pure over-the-top bulging muscles and sinister sorcery Sword and Sorcery, try James Silke's Death Dealer series, based on Frazetta's legendary paintings of the awesome axe-wielder.  So bad it's good.  Very much fun.  Huge battles, dark magic, sultry sex, hostile jungles, invading hordes, prehistoric monsters, heavy drinking, gruff barbarians.  Great fun.

Warrior Poet


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 27, 2005)

The problem is I haven't really read much like Swords and Sorcery fantasy outside of Conan and Soloman Kane. And that which I have, some of the DnD fiction, has the same problem. Maybe moralism isn't quite the right term. Just a lot of the little turns of phrase that Howard uses telling the tale from Conan's point of view are a bit, well disturbing. His near epic love of violence as the means to get whatever he wants and the constant bashing of anything resembling structured society are a bit much.

Looking back on it, it might not be so much Howard's intent. However, simply the character of Conan is someone I don't like because of these traits. And as most of the internal parts of the stories takes place in his head, it makes, what is for me, quite and unpleasant read.


----------



## Desdichado (May 27, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> The problem is I haven't really read much like Swords and Sorcery fantasy outside of Conan and Soloman Kane. And that which I have, some of the DnD fiction, has the same problem. Maybe moralism isn't quite the right term. Just a lot of the little turns of phrase that Howard uses telling the tale from Conan's point of view are a bit, well disturbing. His near epic love of violence as the means to get whatever he wants and the constant bashing of anything resembling structured society are a bit much.
> 
> Looking back on it, it might not be so much Howard's intent. However, simply the character of Conan is someone I don't like because of these traits. And as most of the internal parts of the stories takes place in his head, it makes, what is for me, quite and unpleasant read.



Actually, that was a strange philosophical belief of Howard's himself.  You really should try some Fritz Leiber, though -- although I really like Conan, I think most of the Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories are better written.


----------



## Warrior Poet (May 27, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Just a lot of the little turns of phrase that Howard uses telling the tale from Conan's point of view are a bit, well disturbing. His near epic love of violence as the means to get whatever he wants and the constant bashing of anything resembling structured society are a bit much.



Fair enough.  Conan is definitely an anti-establishment character, and I think Howard distinctly wrote him to be a kind of celebration, not of anarchy, necessarily, but of the kind of freedom to choose one's own destiny outside the constraints of rules and rulers.  Sort of an early Marlboro Man, or free-range cowboy, or pioneer.

Actually, in many ways, I think that's very much what Sword & Sorcery literature is about.  You might take a look at the Niven that I mentioned.  He's got some different takes on things, and in particular, the character of Orolandes in _The Magic Goes Away_ is a character with a conscience that tries to do the right thing, and is sometimes wrong in trying to do the right thing (I'm not explaining this very well).

Though I should make the point that I don't think Conan revels in doing the wrong thing.  I think he definitely has a conscience.  Toward the end of the "The People of the Black Circle" (for example) he jumps into a massive fight to side with the Afghuli tribesmen that are headed for slaughter, knowing the odds are against them, and they'll probably all die, but Conan knows where his loyalties lie, and he believes in supporting his men.  So he joins them, despite the apparent doom upon them.  Of course, he's also been a thief, and a kidnapper, and he does solve many of his problems with his knife.  I think that is why he's a great character, in many ways (and why I was disappointed in his portrayal in the movie), because there's a lot of complexity to him and the circumstances he's in.  He's described by Howard as a man of "great joy, and great melancholy" or something similar (maybe Conan was bi-polar) and I think that's what Howard tries to celebrate in those stories.

There's a movie (and a pretty good one) that's a fictional account of Howard in Texas in the 30s, called _The Whole Wide World_.  It stars Renee Zellwiger (or however her name is spelled) and it's not a bad film.  It deals alot with Howard's personality and what he was trying to write about.  You might check it out.  It's by no means totally authentic, nor does it rest heavily on historical accuracy for some things, I'm sure, but I think there are several moments where Howard's "inner workings," so to speak, are revealed when it comes to writing.

What are some of the books you think arey excellent examples of what you'd like to see transferred to the screen?

Warrior Poet


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 27, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Actually, that was a strange philosophical belief of Howard's himself.  You really should try some Fritz Leiber, though -- although I really like Conan, I think most of the Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories are better written.





Good deal. I'll do that once I get around to reading all the unread books I have now and rereading the ones I remember as being really good. 

Most of it is a personal preferance thing. I'm not very big on Howard's writing itself which in turn makes what I dislike about the character and the philosophy behind him that much more apparent.


----------



## Warrior Poet (May 27, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> You really should try some Fritz Leiber, though -- although I really like Conan, I think most of the Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories are better written.



I'll second Joshua Dyal's recommendation.  Leiber is excellent, not only from a storytelling standpoint, but also as a wordsmith.  His stories are fascinating (and his characters are definitely torn between many different allegiances and motivations) and the world of Lankhmar is one that really _feels_ magical, not in a D&D sense where it's constant and common, but in a sort of wondrous, mysterious way.  He wrote two of the coolest, strangest wizards I've ever read in books, and Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are rich, awesome characters.

Warrior Poet


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 27, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> What are some of the books you think arey excellent examples of what you'd like to see transferred to the screen?
> 
> Warrior Poet






Hmm. That's a tough one. Especially right now as I'm kind of burned out on fantasy in general. I enjoyed the DragonLance Chronicles series and unlike many enjoyed a lot of the other DragonLance books as well. Those to me are fun, non-serious fantasy romps that could make fun little fantasy/action films without much serious philosophical thought behind them. I've liked the Wheel of Time stuff so far but it is something I really wouldn't want to see on the big screen. Maybe as a TV series like Babylon 5 or something. I'm really looking forward to the Narnia films. As I mentioned earlier in this thread I thought that some of Terry Brooks' work could make good and entertaining cinema. Now that I think about it his "Magic King for Sale" series could be extremely entertaining if done well on film. I also really enjoyed the new fantasy trilogy by Michael Stackpole, don't remember any of the titles off hand but it dealt with super power dragons being in hiding and a giant war between an evil ice queen and a confederation of southern kingdoms.


----------



## Warrior Poet (May 27, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Hmm. That's a tough one. Especially right now as I'm kind of burned out on fantasy in general.



I'm not familiar with many of those you mentioned (I read Terry Brooks, but stopped after _Wishsong of Shannara_, and I read the first couple of Dragonlance books).  I understand the _Wheel of Time_ covers a ton of books.  Are the suggestions you mentioned the kind that would be accessible to those who haven't read them?  I thought the LoTR movies and _Hellboy_ did a good job of making movies that the fans would appreciate and that many people who hadn't read the books would also enjoy.

Of course, I guess that depends on the script and director, in many ways, and not so much the story, really.

Warrior Poet


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 27, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> I'm not familiar with many of those you mentioned (I read Terry Brooks, but stopped after _Wishsong of Shannara_, and I read the first couple of Dragonlance books).  I understand the _Wheel of Time_ covers a ton of books.  Are the suggestions you mentioned the kind that would be accessible to those who haven't read them?  I thought the LoTR movies and _Hellboy_ did a good job of making movies that the fans would appreciate and that many people who hadn't read the books would also enjoy.
> 
> Of course, I guess that depends on the script and director, in many ways, and not so much the story, really.
> 
> Warrior Poet





Very true. Most of them probably would be fairly accessable if done well and starting with the first part of the series. Much like many such things though, if you missed the first one I'm not sure how well the others would hold up. But again, I am still burned out on fantasy. Hard to get all inspired about heroics and romance when you realize none of the characters have probably bathed in like a year.


----------



## sniffles (May 27, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Very true. Most of them probably would be fairly accessable if done well and starting with the first part of the series. Much like many such things though, if you missed the first one I'm not sure how well the others would hold up. But again, I am still burned out on fantasy. Hard to get all inspired about heroics and romance when you realize none of the characters have probably bathed in like a year.




What, you can't be heroic if you're not all clean and shiny?   

I understand what you mean about Conan.  I don't find Howard's writing style particularly fun to read.  

I think the general limitation on fantasy films is due to a strange audience perception.  The average citizen just can't take magic and pseudo-medieval derring-do seriously unless it's presented in a "for kids" form like Harry Potter.  For some reason people have no trouble accepting superheroes, perhaps because they generally live in the present day and are otherwise just like you and me.  But non-fantasy genre fans have a hard time relating to a bunch of people who live without electricity or mass transportation.  Some films are able to transcend this, but it's rare.  

I offer as an example when I went to see "House of Flying Daggers".  It's not a fantasy film per se, but it has elements that relate it to fantasy.  There were a couple of young men sitting next to me who spent the whole movie giggling at all the wuxia action.  Those same young men probably saw "Spider-Man 2" and didn't have a second thought about believing a guy can shoot spiderwebs out of his wrists, but they just couldn't take flying leaps or super-accurate archery seriously.


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 27, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> What, you can't be heroic if you're not all clean and shiny?




Exactly.





> I offer as an example when I went to see "House of Flying Daggers".  It's not a fantasy film per se, but it has elements that relate it to fantasy.  There were a couple of young men sitting next to me who spent the whole movie giggling at all the wuxia action.  Those same young men probably saw "Spider-Man 2" and didn't have a second thought about believing a guy can shoot spiderwebs out of his wrists, but they just couldn't take flying leaps or super-accurate archery seriously.





Oddly enough that is probably my favorite movie that I've seen in theatres this year.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (May 27, 2005)

If anything by Feist is going to be made into a movie that doesn't look like a LOTR clone, it will be the Empire series (Servant of the Empire/Daughter of the Empire/Mistress of the Empire).  Not S&S by the strictest definition, but definitely different.

I would also like to see Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker series (maybe as a miniseries rather than film).  I also can't believe there isn't already a Dragonriders of Pern in production somewhere.

Actually, the closest thing to S&S that I wouldn't mind seeing as a movie or miniseries would be King's Dark Tower series.  Would that be Guns and Sorcery?


----------



## David Howery (May 28, 2005)

I find Howard's tales to be a mixed bag.  His bad stories are really bad, his good ones are pretty good, and he wrote a number of stark scenes that are classic in the genre.... Conan's crucifixion and killing of a vulture with his bare teeth is probably the most widely known fantasy scene around.  But one of the things that bothers me the most about REH is the blatant racism in some of his stories... it's simply appalling at times...


----------



## barsoomcore (May 30, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> LOTR is about as far from S&S as you can get.



Assuming we exclude virtually every film ever made.

I would say, for example, that _The Breakfast Club_ was further from S&S than LotR.

Or _My Dinner With Andre_. Or _Hiroshima Mon Amour_. Or _Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle_.

I mean, come on.

A question: how many of the people who are saying they don't like Howard have read the "Howard-only" tales, as opposed to the "edited" pastiches that are far more common? Because I certainly DON'T find Conan (as actually written by Howard, as opposed to "interpreted" by various editors and "post-humous collaborators") to be an unproblematic celebration of violence and strength. I do find the racism strong at times, especially in the Solomon Kane stories (which I find much inferior to Conan generally), but I guess I just shrug and put that aside. By no means do I find it a central theme to the stories, it just seems to be a basic assumption that Howard has in his head. What bugs me about the Kane stories is that at times (at the end of the Moon of Skulls, for example) the racist agenda gets pushed forward more and it's harder to ignore. 

But the Conan stories I've read (especially the better ones) do not celebrate violence or racism or pure brute strength. They do often suggest that civilization produces "distractions" that weaken a person's ability to do the right thing, but that's fair enough, says I.

As for now finding his style "fun" to read, for me, his style is practically the very definition of fun to read. Fast-paced, gripping, memorable descriptions and great galloping whacks of narrative. Just how I like it.

But I HATE Dragonlance novels, Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks with a deep and abiding passion, so it's not surprising that we disagree.


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 30, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> But I HATE Dragonlance novels, Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks with a deep and abiding passion, so it's not surprising that we disagree.





And differences in taste is what makes the world so fun. Imagine how boring it would be if we all liked the same thing.

EDIT: And as an aside, the only Conan stuff I've read is the Howard only stuff from those new collections that have been coming out over the past year or so. Never even finished the first book as after just a few of the stories it just bored me.


----------



## barsoomcore (May 30, 2005)

Swoop109 said:
			
		

> BTW, the Del Rey tradepaper version of Bran Mac Morn hits the shelves at the end of the month.   It contains some material that did not make it into the Wandering Star edition.



My copy shipped from Amazon today.



For someone so late to the party, I've turned into a real Howard fiend. I keep rereading those stories and marvelling at how good he can be. Damn.


----------



## Swoop109 (May 30, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> There's a movie (and a pretty good one) that's a fictional account of Howard in Texas in the 30s, called _The Whole Wide World_.  It stars Renee Zellwiger (or however her name is spelled) and it's not a bad film.  It deals alot with Howard's personality and what he was trying to write about.  You might check it out.  It's by no means totally authentic, nor does it rest heavily on historical accuracy for some things, I'm sure, but I think there are several moments where Howard's "inner workings," so to speak, are revealed when it comes to writing.
> Warrior Poet



That movie is based on the Howard bio, _One Who Walked Alone_, written by Novalyn Price-Ellis. so far it remains the only bio of Howard written by someone who actually had first hand contact with Howard. Mrs. Price-Ellis and Howard dated, off and on, for a couple of years. Warrior Poet is correct in that the movie does take a few liberities with the actual material and compresses some events down.
Anyone interested in getting a good recounting of the type of individual that REH was should do themselves the favour of getting this book. It was recently reprinted  and can still be found on amazon.com and through most bookstores.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 31, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> But I HATE Dragonlance novels, Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks with a deep and abiding passion, so it's not surprising that we disagree.



Meh. If you had loved them, I'd be mandated to hate them. So it all worked out in the end.


----------



## sniffles (May 31, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> But I HATE Dragonlance novels, Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks with a deep and abiding passion, so it's not surprising that we disagree.




I don't hate them, but fantasy films based on any of these sources would have to look pretty spectacular to persuade me to part with my hard-earned cash to see them.

In fact, I can't think of many fantasy novels I've read that I'd really like to see on film.  I think the LOTR films were just an incredible fluke of good timing.  Lightning doesn't strike twice in the film industry, IMHO.


----------



## Tonguez (May 31, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I mean, come on.
> 
> A question: how many of the people who are saying they don't like Howard have read the "Howard-only" tales, as opposed to the "edited" pastiches that are far more common? Because I certainly DON'T find Conan (as actually written by Howard, as opposed to "interpreted" by various editors and "post-humous collaborators") to be an unproblematic celebration of violence and strength. I do find the racism strong at times, especially in the Solomon Kane stories (which I find much inferior to Conan generally), but I guess I just shrug and put that aside.
> But the Conan stories I've read (especially the better ones) do not celebrate violence or racism or pure brute strength. They do often suggest that civilization produces "distractions" that weaken a person's ability to do the right thing, but that's fair enough,




I'm intrigued I too agree that Conana is definately not about celebrating violence and the Conana I know is an intelligent and vigorous character who acts because action is better than the inaction which civilisation imposes upon us. Its pretty much exactly the same theme as ERBs Tarzan novels (which are my personal favourites) and ERB is far more marked with racist commentary than Howards writings ever were (like you I just shake my head and dismay and carry on)

But what interest me is your opinion of Solomon Kane, personally I always found Kane a more engaging and entertaining chracter than Conan and even the racism is more inline with the character and his times. So why do you find Kane stories inferior to those of Conan?


----------



## Storm Raven (May 31, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> It stars Renee Zellwiger (or however her name is spelled)




C-H-E-S-N-E-Y


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 1, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> In fact, I can't think of many fantasy novels I've read that I'd really like to see on film. I think the LOTR films were just an incredible fluke of good timing. Lightning doesn't strike twice in the film industry, IMHO.



The biggest problem with fantasy novels is the scale. Really, does everything *have* to be
six volume epics? It makes them unfilmable without the same level of commitment that LotR 
got and I think LotR was the only one that had enough name recognition for that.

We need to hunt down standalones or sequal series to pitch to producers.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 1, 2005)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> The biggest problem with fantasy novels is the scale. Really, does everything *have* to be
> six volume epics? It makes them unfilmable without the same level of commitment that LotR
> got and I think LotR was the only one that had enough name recognition for that.
> 
> We need to hunt down standalones or sequal series to pitch to producers.



You're kidding me, right? I used to collect novelizations of movies and they're less than half the size of one typical fantasy novel.

IOW, you will always get an abridged version on the theatrical version of the same story, and rarely do such version go over 2-hours running time.

As for multi-volume epics, the author makes their living that way and his or her fans want more stories about the same characters in the first story. You think he's ambitious to want to turn his works into film in the near/far future? He should be more concerned about where or when his next paycheck is coming in.


----------



## David Howery (Jun 1, 2005)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> Its pretty much exactly the same theme as ERBs Tarzan novels (which are my personal favourites) and ERB is far more marked with racist commentary than Howards writings ever were (like you I just shake my head and dismay and carry on)
> ?



I've always found ERB's racism to be less vicious than REH's.  ERB was definitely given to stereotypes, but he didn't really seem to hate other races.. and he actually admired native Americans.  Also, ERB had several admirable black characters, such as the Waziri.  REH, though... when you read such stories as 'Black Canaan', you know he really disliked blacks.  REH's blacks were always prone to violence and superstition, the orientals were always sinister, etc... the only non-white race he seemed to like were Afghans.  I should note that the Conan stories are mainly free of such nonsense, but his horror short stories are full of it...


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 1, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Compare LotR with the Scorpion King or the Conan movies.



If you compare the first Conan movie, _Conan the Barbarian_, to the second, _Conan the Destroyer_, you'll see that they have very little in common.  The sequel is _awful_.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 1, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> A question: how many of the people who are saying they don't like Howard have read the "Howard-only" tales, as opposed to the "edited" pastiches that are far more common? Because I certainly DON'T find Conan (as actually written by Howard, as opposed to "interpreted" by various editors and "post-humous collaborators") to be an unproblematic celebration of violence and strength.
> [...]
> But the Conan stories I've read (especially the better ones) do not celebrate violence or racism or pure brute strength. They do often suggest that civilization produces "distractions" that weaken a person's ability to do the right thing, but that's fair enough, says I.
> 
> As for now finding his style "fun" to read, for me, his style is practically the very definition of fun to read. Fast-paced, gripping, memorable descriptions and great galloping whacks of narrative. Just how I like it.



I have to agree.  Robert E. Howard's style is practically the very definition of fun to read.


----------



## buzz (Jun 2, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> IOW, you will always get an abridged version on the theatrical version of the same story, and rarely do such version go over 2-hours running time.



I also don't think that there is anything that necessarily precludes an abridged-for-film version of a work from being a good film. Sure, you can lose points on being a pure adaptation, but a good film is a good film.

You could also make a decent argument that most of the real classics are not the bloated multi-volume series we see so commonly today. But that treads into dangerous waters...


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 2, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> But I HATE Dragonlance novels, Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks with a deep and abiding passion, so it's not surprising that we disagree.



For some reason, I feel compelled to offer up my meaningless opinion on Dragonlance, Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks...   why can I not stop myself?    

I think the original Dragonlance trilogy was OK.  The characters were horribly cliched, but a few of them were likeable.  Tanis's struggle with his identity was reasonably well described, and Laurana was exactly the kind of heroine I prefer; naive and cheeky with a nice (rather than beeyotchy) princess complex, yet even after facing the stark harshness of the world, and maturing because of it, her essential personality wasn't overwhelmed by grim and grittiness.

The plot itself was kinda confused, especially near the end.  Certainly, they didn't inspire me to delve further into Dragonlanciana, but I still don't mind the first trilogy too much.  Possibly a cheesy yet moderately successful movie could be gleaned from here.

Robert Jordan is perhaps the biggest disappointment of recent years.  He started off doing so much right; the setting is intrigueing, the backstory, history and societies, the way magic works, etc. the intrigue and hidden threats; is all really well done.  His characters start off likeable and relatable.  Then he unveils his monumental failings as a writer; he can't do action scenes at all, his characters numbskullness starts to get grating and tedious, he repeats himself over and over, he doesn't advance the plot at all and endlessly spins his wheels in ridiculous character studies that accomplish nothing.  He seems to have completely lost control of his own creation.  Either that, or he's not really a very good writer, and without a good editor he's just hopelessly lost.  I can't imagine how any movie could be made from this without taking just a few highlights from the series and stringing them together in an almost all-new plot.

Terry Brooks is almost as astonishingly poor a writer as David Eddings; I read _The Sword of Shannara_ in high school, marvelled at how blatantly it ripped off _Lord of the Rings_, read a few pages of the next book (whatever it was called) and then dropped him like a wet taco and never looked back.  Because Hollywood is also fairly derivative, this is probably movie minable, but I'd almost prefer that it wasn't.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Jun 2, 2005)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> The biggest problem with fantasy novels is the scale. Really, does everything *have* to be
> six volume epics? . . . We need to hunt down standalones or sequal series to pitch to producers.



I think that is an excellent observation.

I propose a movie version of _City of Bones_ by Martha Wells.  One novel (a very good one), no sequel, no recurring characters, no follow ups, no epilogues, no prequels.  One nice, tight package that tells a terrific story with excellent characters.

Now, to win the Big Game lottery . . . 

Warrior Poet

P.S.  What's sad, is that even after winning, it would probably take all the Big Game money just to make the film


----------



## Warrior Poet (Jun 2, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> I should note that the Conan stories are mainly free of such nonsense, but his horror short stories are full of it...



Howard was a close correspondent of Lovecraft, who, though an excellent pulp horror writer, was not noted for his tolerance.  Nor was, it can be said, much of the country at that time.

Warrior Poet


----------



## Warrior Poet (Jun 2, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I think the original Dragonlance trilogy was OK.



Read them when I was 12, and thought they were fine, and had some interesting moments.  Years later, flipped through the first couple of chapters and thought, "Yep, glad I read 'em at 12.  They're best left there."



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Robert Jordan is perhaps the biggest disappointment of recent years.



Never read him, and from your report, and what I've heard, I'm glad I haven't.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Terry Brooks is almost as astonishingly poor a writer as David Eddings; I read _The Sword of Shannara_ in high school, marvelled at how blatantly it ripped off _Lord of the Rings_, read a few pages of the next book (whatever it was called) and then dropped him like a wet taco and never looked back.  Because Hollywood is also fairly derivative, this is probably movie minable, but I'd almost prefer that it wasn't.



I agree with you on the first one.  The second actually started to break from that rip-off a bit, but wasn't necessarily any kind of redemption.  The third was interesting from the standpoint of some of the characters.  O.K., one character.  He wrote a "Weapons Master" character named Garret Jax who was really cool.  By the end of the book I kept thinking, Dude, THIS guy's stories were the ones you should have been telling all these years.  But wasn't to be.  I haven't looked at Brooks since I was 14, I think.

Warrior Poet


----------



## Klaus (Jun 2, 2005)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> The biggest problem with fantasy novels is the scale. Really, does everything *have* to be
> six volume epics? It makes them unfilmable without the same level of commitment that LotR
> got and I think LotR was the only one that had enough name recognition for that.
> 
> We need to hunt down standalones or sequal series to pitch to producers.



 VB, I agree with you on that one!

This is why I liked Three Hearts & Three Lions a lot. One book. End of story.

FWIW, Eberron's City of Towers, although first in a trilogy, does offer a self-contained story, while leaving a few hooks for the sequels. From reading it, I thought it'd make a very cool action/noir movie in a fantasy setting (as opposed to an EPIC movie). Closer to Leiber in that it's rather "low" fantasy (focused on the little people trying to get by, not on the grand scheme of things).


----------



## buzz (Jun 2, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> ...almost as astonishingly poor a writer as David Eddings...



So glad someone else said this. I read the Belgariad (all six flipping books!) at the behest of a (then) girlfriend. Utterly boggles my mind that Eddings has had so much success.

If only I'd had this version back then: http://rinkworks.com/bookaminute/b/eddings.belgariad.shtml

I managed to get through the first two Shannara books, but it was rough going. The first had some appeal to me, but the second... ugh.

But, we digress...


----------



## Krug (Jun 2, 2005)

If you don't mind your sword and sorcery in russian....

Looks fun, but the 



Spoiler



last shot would probably generate only giggles


...


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 2, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> So glad someone else said this. I read the Belgariad (all six flipping books!) at the behest of a (then) girlfriend. Utterly boggles my mind that Eddings has had so much success.



Yeah, you're busy hating Larry Elmore.  I'll take up the slack and be the official David Eddings hatah.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jun 2, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Yeah, you're busy hating Larry Elmore.  I'll take up the slack and be the official David Eddings hatah.




Maybe we can form a support group.  I got so much crap from my gaming buddies for my hat of Eddings.


----------



## buzz (Jun 2, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Yeah, you're busy hating Larry Elmore.



True, that takes up most of my time.   



			
				Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Maybe we can form a support group. I got so much crap from my gaming buddies for my hat of Eddings.



Try being a SW-prequel-disliker and SW-Expanded-Universe-ignorer in my group sometime.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Jun 2, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Larry Elmore



The artist Larry Elmore?  Or did he have something to do with the writing of the books (haven't read 'em)?

Warrior Poet


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 2, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> Try being a SW-prequel-disliker and SW-Expanded-Universe-ignorer in my group sometime.



Weird.  Our whole group is to some extent or another (ranging from mildly disappointed to raging hatred) SW-prequel dislikers and EU ignorers.


			
				Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> The artist Larry Elmore? Or did he have something to do with the writing of the books (haven't read 'em)?



The artist.  But you'll have to let buzz explain his hatred on his own.  I'm not openin' that can o' worms here!


----------



## Warrior Poet (Jun 2, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> The artist.  But you'll have to let buzz explain his hatred on his own.  I'm not openin' that can o' worms here!



Fair enough.  I'll leave it alone, unless buzz would like to point me to a thread where he elaborates.  Don't want to derail this one!   

Warrior Poet


----------



## buzz (Jun 2, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  I'll leave it alone, unless buzz would like to point me to a thread where he elaborates.  Don't want to derail this one!



http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=79130&highlight=Elmore
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=57943&highlight=Elmore
and this one, sorta: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=43757&highlight=Elmore

But, yes, no sense in draggin' this thread down.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 2, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=79130&highlight=Elmore
> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=57943&highlight=Elmore
> and this one, sorta: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=43757&highlight=Elmore
> 
> But, yes, no sense in draggin' this thread down.



Fun times!  I had forgotten about Jody Butt!


----------



## buzz (Jun 2, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Fun times!  I had forgotten about Jody Butt!



I'm glad he's a happy memory for you.


----------



## Hopping Vampire (Jun 2, 2005)

The Crow (Ed Furlong as the Crow)
Mortal Kombat
Underworld 2

3 SURE signs of the Apocalypse. the end is near.

end transmission


----------



## Warrior Poet (Jun 3, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> posted urls



Thanks.  Interesting reading.   



			
				hopping vampire said:
			
		

> The Crow (Ed Furlong as the Crow)
> Mortal Kombat
> Underworld 2
> 
> 3 SURE signs of the Apocalypse. the end is near.




Didn't they already make a Mortal Kombat movie?  I know there's already been a Crow movie (several, in fact, though the only one I liked was the first one and I didn't see any others after the second).  Furlong, from the second _Terminator_?  Man, I am so out of touch with pop culture.

I kinda liked _Underworld._ Not great, but it was fun, and Bill Nighy is always good for his performances (he was the really, really, really old vampire, as I recall).

Warrior Poet


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 3, 2005)

Hopping Vampire said:
			
		

> The Crow (Ed Furlong as the Crow)
> Mortal Kombat
> Underworld 2
> 
> 3 SURE signs of the Apocalypse. the end is near.



Maybe I've just missed something, but wasn't Brandon Lee the Crow?  And Mortal Kombat was made close to ten years ago, and it actually wasn't bad in a cheesy B-movie kinda way.  Speaking of which, Underworld 2 can't possibly be as bad as Mortal Kombat 2.  Or American Ninja 4 -- after even Michael Dudikoff stopped making them.

If bad sequels to mediocre or worse movies is a sign of the apocalypse, we've been having that sign for years.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 3, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> Read them when I was 12, and thought they were fine, and had some interesting moments.  Years later, flipped through the first couple of chapters and thought, "Yep, glad I read 'em at 12.  They're best left there."



Not to me, it doesn't. I can still read them through.

HOWEVER, when re-reading _LOTR_ and _Hobbits,_ I find myself skipping forward a lot of the more boring chapters.


----------



## Hopping Vampire (Jun 3, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Maybe I've just missed something, but wasn't Brandon Lee the Crow?  And Mortal Kombat was made close to ten years ago, and it actually wasn't bad in a cheesy B-movie kinda way.  Speaking of which, Underworld 2 can't possibly be as bad as Mortal Kombat 2.  Or American Ninja 4 -- after even Michael Dudikoff stopped making them.
> 
> If bad sequels to mediocre or worse movies is a sign of the apocalypse, we've been having that sign for years.




Yes The ORIGINAL Crow and the 1st MK were campy fun. But the second MK disgraced the series, and me not liking UW is just personal preference. Ed Furlong as the Crow? last i checked this guy is my age ans still hasnt reached pueberty (nothing against him). Put it this way: its the end of y world as i know it.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Jun 3, 2005)

Hopping Vampire said:
			
		

> Yes The ORIGINAL Crow and the 1st MK were campy fun. But the second MK disgraced the series, and me not liking UW is just personal preference. Ed Furlong as the Crow? last i checked this guy is my age ans still hasnt reached pueberty (nothing against him). Put it this way: its the end of y world as i know it.



Sorry, I'm still confused.  There's a new Crow moving coming out with Ed Furlong, or they already made it a while ago and released it and everything?  I'm not interested in seeing it, just trying to get the situation clarified.  Are there more MK and Crow movies on the way as part of an increase in fantasy films?



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> American Ninja 4



You are a brave, brave man.  I saw the first one a very long time ago, and I can't imagine they got better (though  I remember the first one being fun, and I was certainly at an age where I aspired to be a ninja myself.  Thank goodness that never happened.  I would have made a lousy ninja  ).

Warrior Poet


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 3, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> I would have made a lousy ninja



Quite likely, I'd have made Chris Farley in _Beverly Hills Ninja_ look like a real master.

Well, maybe not that bad -- I'm still in quite a bit better shape than him...


----------



## Warrior Poet (Jun 3, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'd have made Chris Farley in _Beverly Hills Ninja_ look like a real master.
> 
> Well, maybe not that bad -- I'm still in quite a bit better shape than him...



I can't even sneak up on inanimate objects.

Warrior Poet


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 3, 2005)

Well, I need to issue a formal correction: American Ninja 3 is where Michael Dudikoff didnt' come back, and they had a new character take the lead played by David Bradley.  Oddly, for American Ninja 4; both Dudikoff and Bradley played co-leads.  Of course, by then, both actor's careers would have had them making pornos in Tijuana otherwise just to have work.

And Bradley even came back later for American Ninja 5 -- I didn't even know there was such a thing, and I consider myself a bit of a B-movie buff...


----------



## Warrior Poet (Jun 3, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Well, I need to issue a formal correction: American Ninja 3 . . .



Duly noted.  Let the record show an amendment to the initial claim of cessation of Michael Dudikoff activity vis-a-vis the _American Ninja_ film franchise (such as it is).

Also let the record show the development of a nauseated feeling at the mere suggestion of an _American Ninja 5_.

Can I get a "Why, God, why?"   

Warrior Poet


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 4, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> Can I get a "Why, God, why?"



"American" and "Ninja," doesn't go well as Kobe and Shaq.


----------



## Brakkart (Jun 5, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Quite likely, I'd have made Chris Farley in _Beverly Hills Ninja_ look like a real master.
> 
> Well, maybe not that bad -- I'm still in quite a bit better shape than him...




I would hope so, he's been dead for a few years now afterall, likely not in very great shape at all by now! You know you're in bad shape when Vecna beats you in a good looks contest!


----------



## Soel (Jun 6, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> Sorry, I'm still confused. There's a new Crow moving coming out with Ed Furlong, or they already made it a while ago and released it and everything? I'm not interested in seeing it, just trying to get the situation clarified. Are there more MK and Crow movies on the way as part of an increase in fantasy films?




This one has been done foe awhile. David Boreanaz and Tara Reid (?) are the villians this time around, with Dennis Hopper and Macy Gray (????) backing them up. I read a review recently that makes this one look horrid. The Crow gets beaten up. A lot. Apparently Furlong plays him sorta whiny as well...Even pt 3 might be better than this one. Yes, this is the fourth Crow film. 

I'm thinking Mark Decascos is really mad somewhere...


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 7, 2005)

Soel said:
			
		

> I'm thinking Mark Decascos is really mad somewhere...



I doubt it. He's better off avoiding the franchise.


----------



## rbingham2000 (Jun 8, 2005)

IMO, if the people in Hollywood are looking to make a King Conan movie, they should seriously consider an adaptation of one of the Howard stories about that phase in Conan's life -- preferably, The Scarlet Citadel or The Hour of the Dragon.

I've only read The Scarlet Citadel so far, and it is kickass, with a storyline that would translate well on the screen, which culminates in one of my favorite epic battles.


----------



## nikolai (Jun 10, 2005)

I've got a new S&S film. Here goes, are you ready: *Thongor and the Wizard of Lemuria*.

http://americanworldpictures.com/projects/thongor.htm

Thongor - created by Lin Carter - was one of the many "_Clonans_" that populated post R. E. Howard Sword & Sorcery.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 31, 2016)

wow is this like the walking dead?


----------

