# [Trailer] Solomon Kane



## Krug (Sep 12, 2009)

IGN Video: Solomon Kane Movie Trailer - Premiere Trailer

Looking good. Yet to find a US distributor but hope that changes after the Toronto Film Festival.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Sep 12, 2009)

Very cool.  I didn't know it was this ready. For some reason I thought it was getting a late 2010 or 2011 release.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Sep 12, 2009)

I like it, I like it.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 12, 2009)

I'm ready to love this movie.

Could also be called "4E D&D Avenger: The Movie".

Same producer as Brotherhood of the Wolf, one of my favoritest genre films.


----------



## jonesy (Sep 13, 2009)

I like it.

But the way he delivered the 'gladly pay' line was really really bad.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 13, 2009)

jonesy said:


> I like it.
> 
> But the way he delivered the 'gladly pay' line was really really bad.



I dunno, I kinda like it.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 13, 2009)

Klaus said:


> I dunno, I kinda like it.




I agree. I thought it had just the right amount of threatening anger, with just a touch of glee at the thought of getting violent with someone.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 13, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> I agree. I thought it had just the right amount of threatening anger, with just a touch of glee at the thought of getting violent with someone.



Precisely. That was not righteous anger, it was a desire for revenge so great it is worth paying the ultimate price to get.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Sep 13, 2009)

Well they didn't screw that one up. That was 31 flavours of awesome.


----------



## NiTessine (Sep 17, 2009)

I am not saying it will suck, but why are they calling this _Van Helsing_ prelude movie _Solomon Kane_?


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Sep 17, 2009)

Looks like I'll like it, and I'l agree the style looks similar to Van Helsing.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 17, 2009)

NiTessine said:


> I am not saying it will suck, but why are they calling this _Van Helsing_ prelude movie _Solomon Kane_?



Beacuse it looks worlds better than that atrocity called Van Helsing. In fact, the movie Van Helsing stole his look from Kane.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 17, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Beacuse it looks worlds better than that atrocity called Van Helsing. In fact, the movie Van Helsing stole his look from Kane.




Yes. Thank you.

I'm assuming that the prior comments were made in jest, but the first time I find a _genuine_ "They stole that from Van Helsing!" comment online, I'm going to have to climb through my monitor and eat someone's face.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 17, 2009)

A movie that's got principle photography done, by the look of it, a lot of the post production and effects done, and still doesn't have a US distributor or a release date is troubling.  Why doesn't anyone want this?  Is it that big of a turd?


----------



## Krug (Sep 17, 2009)

There's a review of it here. -SPOILERS-

Reviews: TIFF 09: SOLOMON KANE Review


----------



## Klaus (Sep 17, 2009)

Hobo said:


> A movie that's got principle photography done, by the look of it, a lot of the post production and effects done, and still doesn't have a US distributor or a release date is troubling.  Why doesn't anyone want this?  Is it that big of a turd?



Low recognition?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 17, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Low recognition?




This would be my guess. Studios are afraid to take chances these days on movies that they aren't A) _certain_ of success, and B) aren't sure how to market.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Sep 18, 2009)

I'm counting the days till the day the movie industry takes a page from the video game industry and starts cutting out the middle man and goes straight to digital distribution. Enough people have Widescreen HD TV's and Broadband today that they would most likley be sucessfull.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 18, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> This would be my guess. Studios are afraid to take chances these days on movies that they aren't A) _certain_ of success, and B) aren't sure how to market.



I smiled at this quote from the review above:



> Loaded with swordplay, evil creatures and adventure, all of it anchored by the classic antiheroic Kane himself, *Solomon Kane* is a throwback to the pulpy fantasy adventure genre that creator Robert E Howard once ruled. It is the sort of film that *Van Helsing* should have been only bigger, bloodier and burlier.


----------



## NiTessine (Sep 23, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Beacuse it looks worlds better than that atrocity called Van Helsing. In fact, the movie Van Helsing stole his look from Kane.



Indeed, but the trailer reminds me more of _Van Helsing_ than of the Solomon Kane stories, and their main character appears to have more in common with Van Helsing than Solomon Kane.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 23, 2009)

NiTessine said:


> and their main character appears to have more in common with Van Helsing than Solomon Kane.




Interesting. While I only discovered Solomon Kane a couple of years ago, I've read almost every one one the stories, and I have to say that the character looked and acted almost exactly as I've always pictured Kane. I'm curious what you thought was off about him.


----------



## NiTessine (Sep 23, 2009)

The backstory. They're giving him one, and if the review is anything to go by, it has nothing to do with Howard's character (And really, now, a Puritan in a monastery?).

Kane never went "If I kill you, I shall go to Hell. It is a price I'll gladly pay". He went "Men shall die for this". He did not renounce violence, he embraced it. He wasn't conflicted about his soul or seeking redemption. He simply fought evil, because evil should be fought. The fragment "The Hawks of Basti" also suggests he was pretty much always like this.

Kane did what he did and was what he was for the sole reason of being Solomon Kane and it being the right thing to do, and that was the long and short of it. To try and explain where Solomon Kane comes from is to dilute the character and waste screen time that could be used to advance the real story. Really, the main character of _Shoot 'Em Up_ feels closer to Howard's Solomon Kane than this movie's main character.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 23, 2009)

Hmm...

While I agree with you that Howard never gave Kane a backstory, let's be honest. _Few_ pulp characters had anything approaching what modern audiences would call "backstory."

Or "depth," for that matter. And I say that as a fan of Robert Howard, Burroughs, and others.

I agree that the _story_ isn't Howard's. But the _feel_ of the character works for me. It's something that _could_ have made Kane what he is.

I'm not claiming that it's an _exact _fit. I'll be the first to admit that it's not, and if the movie doesn't feel, to me, like Solomon Kane, I'll be the first to say so. But the character, as portrayed, feels like Kane to me so far, especially allowing for the difference in both medium and audience.


----------



## Felon (Sep 24, 2009)

NiTessine said:


> Indeed, but the trailer reminds me more of _Van Helsing_ than of the Solomon Kane stories, and their main character appears to have more in common with Van Helsing than Solomon Kane.




This trailer doesn't evidence any of the glib wisecracking that made Van Helsing feel intentionally campy. It seems very much the stark affair that VH should have been yet wasn't. 

As to having more in common with Van Helsing than Solomon Kane....how so? You mean the big hat, dark cloak, and long hair? You mean the concept of the character being a Christian monster-slayer? The two characters share those traits in common.


----------



## Felon (Sep 24, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Hmm...
> 
> While I agree with you that Howard never gave Kane a backstory, let's be honest. _Few_ pulp characters had anything approaching what modern audiences would call "backstory."
> 
> Or "depth," for that matter. And I say that as a fan of Robert Howard, Burroughs, and others.



Exactly. Pulp characters were not intended to have a dead Uncle Ben to feel angst over. They were resolute he-men lthat readers of the time idealized for their lack of flaws, regrets, and compromises.

Why did Conan leave his people and set off to travel the world in search of fortune? Not because of a melodrama involving family honor and dead loved ones, just plain old wanderlust. Why did Doc Savage and the Shadow fight crime? They just made a rational decision to improve the human condition.  Their stories might be fun to read, but they're two-dimensional characters, and that just doesn't play to the masses anymore. In modern cinema, characters are expected to have a bit of an internal struggle. When you adapt a character for a different time and a different medium, the character has to actually, you know...adapt.

I suspect what we'll see is the story of how Kane transforms into the grim spectre of justice that we know him to be. And a transformational experience makes for much better entertainment than "oh, I was just always like this".


----------



## CCamfield (Sep 24, 2009)

Felon said:


> In modern cinema, characters are expected to have a bit of an internal struggle. When you adapt a character for a different time and a different medium, the character has to actually, you know...adapt.




Yes, but that introduced internal struggle is a bit of a cliche, really.  Look at what they did with The Shadow in the 1990s film.  Almost exactly the same thing as here.  We can't have a hero who isn't conflicted, so we'll give him an EEEEEEEVIL past so his motivation is to redeem himself or whatever.  What they have done here is not original. 

Why not a history in which he didn't act, didn't do the right thing, and someone he cared about suffered for it?  You could use that and have charact development without this hackneyed change to the character.


----------



## NiTessine (Sep 24, 2009)

Felon said:


> This trailer doesn't evidence any of the glib wisecracking that made Van Helsing feel intentionally campy. It seems very much the stark affair that VH should have been yet wasn't.
> 
> As to having more in common with Van Helsing than Solomon Kane....how so? You mean the big hat, dark cloak, and long hair? You mean the concept of the character being a Christian monster-slayer? The two characters share those traits in common.



Well, if we're gonna go there, Purefoy's Solomon Kane _does_ look more like Jackman's Van Helsing than the classic Gary Gianni paintings. More belts and buckles and no white collar.

Neither character seems to have much, if anything, to do with their source material, and were given a contrived internal conflict (although they didn't really do much with it in Van Helsing). It's not depth, it's just a different two-dimensional shape.

I would also argue that Howard's Solomon Kane _had_ depth. He wouldn't be as compelling as he is if he didn't.

I think the concept of Solomon Kane as presented by Robert E. Howard is strong enough to stand on its own. That is why the stories are considered classics. There is a long history of people messing about with classics and creating significantly inferior works. We don't need origin stories for each and every character.

It may be worth noting that _The Dark Knight_ kept the origins of the Joker a secret, and I shouldn't need to tell you the results of that particular storytelling experiment.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 24, 2009)

NiTessine said:


> It may be worth noting that _The Dark Knight_ kept the origins of the Joker a secret, and I shouldn't need to tell you the results of that particular storytelling experiment.




Absolutely. And that was a brilliant decision--for a _villain_. It might even work for a secondary hero.

It does _not_ work for the main character/hero of a piece under most circumstances. In the overwhelming majority of cases, for an audience to truly sympathize and identify with a character, they have to have at least some idea who that character _is_.

Howard's Kane had more depth than most pulp heroes, I'll agree with you that far. Unfortunately, given the average pulp character, that just means he's two-dimensional rather than one-dimensional; he still doesn't remotely approach three. And a lot of who he was had to do with the fact that all his religious and moral reasons for hunting monsters were mere justifications--even in his own mind--to excuse the adventurous urges he felt anyway.

I really don't think that would work for the average audience today, even if you could somehow get it across in the medium of film. (And since it was something even Kane himself didn't realize, and was only in the stories via narrator explanation, I think you'd have to change the character more to express it than you would to give him additional motivations.)

But frankly, when you get down to it, I don't expect--or even necessarily want--fidelity to all the details when it comes to cinematic interpretations of literary works. I want _thematic_ fidelity. I want to watch a movie and say "This _feels_ like Solomon Kane," or "This _feels_ like the Fellowship of the Ring." The _details_ are, to me, far less important than the overall effect--and so far, _from what I've seen_, the overall effect works. (For me, anyway.)

Ultimately, of course, it's all about how the movie as a whole comes together, not the trailer. I think it looks like a reasonable interpretation--not a _perfect_ one, but very much more than "close enough." You, rather obviously, do not. All I can say is, I _hope_ that you're wrong and I'm right.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 24, 2009)

It's also worth noting--on a broader, more general point--that I believe there's absolutely nothing wrong with taking older stories/characters/concepts and adapting them to modern techniques and theories of storytelling. I'm a big fan of a lot of older fantasy/sci-fi/horror, including those from the "pulp" era. But I can be a fan, and still acknowledge that modern conceits of storytelling have strengths and benefits that older methods of writing did not.

Take the notion of realistic dialogue, for instance. The idea that characters in novels should speak as real people do--that dialogue isn't just a place for info-dumping, or making sure the reader knows what the character is thinking--is relatively recent, when measured against how long fiction has existed in our culture and our parent cultures. But I'd argue that it's absolutely an improvement.

Or, to put it in other terms, the fact that something is a classic doesn't mean it cannot be improved on--and indeed, many older works are classics _in spite of_ the storytelling precepts and techniques of the time, not because of them. (And yes, I said "many," not "all." Just to be clear.)

Now, whether any of the above applies to Solomon Kane--either as a character in general or with this movie in particular--is obviously up to personal taste and interpretation, and subject to seeing the movie as a whole. I'm just throwing it out there as a broader theory and belief, since it seems to be relevent to the topic. 

(And yes, just for the record, I preferred the _Lord of the Rings_ movies to the books. I don't think _every_ change was for the better--some were very much not--but I felt they improved more than they weakened. OTOH, I _much_ prefer Howard's Conan stories--or at least most of the ones I've read--to Arnie's movie.)


----------



## Dioltach (Sep 24, 2009)

It's perhaps worthwhile noting that Solomon Kane's background is hinted to be shady, at the least.

For example, in _The Blue Flame of Vengeance_ he says, "Aye. I led a rout of ungodly men, to my shame be it said, though the cause was a just one. In the sack of that town you name, many foul deeds were done under the cloak of the cause and my heart was sickened ... and I have  drowned some red memories in the sea --." In _Hawk of Basti_, Hawk, recalling a time when he and Kane fought together against the Spanish, calls him "my sober cutthroat" and "my melancholy murderer".

I think it's a fair enough change by the movie makers, even disregarding the differences between the two mediums and their audiences. That said, I'd have been perfectly happy _without_ the added backstory. I think it would make him more menacing.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 24, 2009)

Dioltach said:


> It's perhaps worthwhile noting that Solomon Kane's background is hinted to be shady, at the least.
> 
> For example, in _The Blue Flame of Vengeance_ he says, "Aye. I led a rout of ungodly men, to my shame be it said, though the cause was a just one. In the sack of that town you name, many foul deeds were done under the cloak of the cause and my heart was sickened ... and I have  drowned some red memories in the sea --." In _Hawk of Basti_, Hawk, recalling a time when he and Kane fought together against the Spanish, calls him "my sober cutthroat" and "my melancholy murderer".
> 
> I think it's a fair enough change by the movie makers, even disregarding the differences between the two mediums and their audiences. That said, I'd have been perfectly happy _without_ the added backstory. I think it would make him more menacing.



Those two quotes seem to hint at a Privateering background for Kane, where he performed bad deeds for a good cause, and drowned memories in the sea. Not too far from the backstory given him in the movie.

It's a common adaptation technique to take things that are only hinted in novels and expanding them to underline/accentuate the character.


----------



## Rykion (Sep 24, 2009)

I don't mind the added backstory as long as at some point in the movie we get the character of Solomon Kane from the books.  I don't want him spending the whole movie worrying about straying from the path of peace.  I want him destroying evil and knowing he is doing the right thing.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 24, 2009)

Dioltach said:


> It's perhaps worthwhile noting that Solomon Kane's background is hinted to be shady, at the least.




*thud*

I don't know how I forgot about that during this discussion.

I think some rereads are in order.


----------



## Felon (Sep 24, 2009)

CCamfield said:


> Yes, but that introduced internal struggle is a bit of a cliche, really.  Look at what they did with The Shadow in the 1990s film.  Almost exactly the same thing as here.  We can't have a hero who isn't conflicted, so we'll give him an EEEEEEEVIL past so his motivation is to redeem himself or whatever.



True, it's a cliche. Heroic fiction inevitably breaks down into cliches, because audiences don't expect the comfort of familiarity when it comes to do-gooders who solve all problems with violence.



> Why not a history in which he didn't act, didn't do the right thing, and someone he cared about suffered for it?  You could use that and have charact development without this hackneyed change to the character.



Well, that's been done too. Spider-Man springs right to mind.



NiTessine said:


> Well, if we're gonna go there, Purefoy's Solomon Kane _does_ look more like Jackman's Van Helsing than the classic Gary Gianni paintings. More belts and buckles and no white collar.
> 
> Neither character seems to have much, if anything, to do with their source material, and were given a contrived internal conflict (although they didn't really do much with it in Van Helsing). It's not depth, it's just a different two-dimensional shape.
> 
> I would also argue that Howard's Solomon Kane _had_ depth. He wouldn't be as compelling as he is if he didn't.



Still don't see how you can say the guy we saw in the trailer doesn't seem to have much to do with the soruce material. Belts and buckles? Just seems like nitpicking. Then again, the character had no supporting cast, no recurring characters, no base of operations, no special talents, or any other elements that can really said to be character-specific. Take a tall lean man, dress him in black, put a pilgrim hat on his head, a sword in his hand, a flintlock on his belt, and slap a grim coutenance on his face. That's Solomon Kane (I guess you could subtract or add buckles as desired). 



> I think the concept of Solomon Kane as presented by Robert E. Howard is strong enough to stand on its own. That is why the stories are considered classics. There is a long history of people messing about with classics and creating significantly inferior works. We don't need origin stories for each and every character.
> 
> It may be worth noting that _The Dark Knight_ kept the origins of the Joker a secret, and I shouldn't need to tell you the results of that particular storytelling experiment.



People know who the Joker is. Solomon Kane does not enjoy that level of name recognition. Is an origin mandatory? No. Can it help audiences get into the character? Yes. Does providing an oriigin really amount to anything negative? Depends on execution.

The long history you refer to ha less to do with taking liberties as it does with just not giving a damn about quality. Lord of the Rings took liberties for all the right reasons. Catwoman took liberties for all the wrong ones.


----------



## NiTessine (Sep 24, 2009)

Felon said:


> Still don't see how you can say the guy we saw in the trailer doesn't seem to have much to do with the soruce material. Belts and buckles? Just seems like nitpicking. Then again, the character had no supporting cast, no recurring characters, no base of operations, no special talents, or any other elements that can really said to be character-specific. Take a tall lean man, dress him in black, put a pilgrim hat on his head, a sword in his hand, a flintlock on his belt, and slap a grim coutenance on his face. That's Solomon Kane (I guess you could subtract or add buckles as desired).



There is a recurring character in the stories, actually, N'longa, who is in both "Red Shadows" and "The Hills of the Dead". You might also count Sir Richard Grenville, who makes appearance only once but is referred to often. The rest of the content in the trailer just has jack to do with the character. As stated before, Solomon Kane simply never did any of those things, and their explanation for how a Puritan ended up in a monastery must be interesting indeed. I also disagree, by the way, with the decision to bring the Devil into the story, when Howard's stories draw more from Lovecraft's mythology (especially "The Footfalls Within") and have sorcerers, monstrous creatures and undead, but no presence of any supernatural forces from the Christian mythology.

That, incidentally, is what makes Solomon Kane's unswerving faith so remarkable. He has met and fought monsters and fell creatures from before man, and wields a magic staff from the age of Atlantis, but has never seen direct proof that what he believes in is in any way real. In here, the inclusion of this Reaper thing cheapens that aspect of the character - having tangible proof brings hard knowledge, which kills faith, and it's not hard to believe when there's a demon out to drag you to Hell.



> People know who the Joker is. Solomon Kane does not enjoy that level of name recognition. Is an origin mandatory? No. Can it help audiences get into the character? Yes. Does providing an oriigin really amount to anything negative? Depends on execution.
> 
> The long history you refer to ha less to do with taking liberties as it does with just not giving a damn about quality. Lord of the Rings took liberties for all the right reasons. Catwoman took liberties for all the wrong ones.



It isn't a case of whether it helps the audiences get into the character - it's that it's the wrong character.

It is far easier to make a bad movie than a good one. The LotR movies, if you'll note, did take from Tolkien things other than the name. I'm not sure if anything beyond the name, the hat and the sword has survived here. While it's too early to pass final judgment with only a trailer and a pair of reviews to go by (though the mindless gushing on AICN was particularly informative and uncommonly repellent), it does look a lot like they took the name and stuck it on something that may or may not have been written before they picked it (cf. _King Arthur_, _Van Helsing_).

For a movie where the hero's background was never explained, check out _Shoot 'Em Up_. It's pretty far from Solomon Kane in tone, but Clive Owen's character isn't actually very far from what Solomon Kane might be like in the modern day. It works there. Clint Eastwood's Western career has more than one such a character there. It can be made to work, and it is not even difficult if one has the will to do it.


----------



## Felon (Sep 25, 2009)

NiTessine said:


> There is a recurring character in the stories, actually, N'longa, who is in both "Red Shadows" and "The Hills of the Dead". You might also count Sir Richard Grenville, who makes appearance only once but is referred to often. The rest of the content in the trailer just has jack to do with the character. As stated before, Solomon Kane simply never did any of those things, and their explanation for how a Puritan ended up in a monastery must be interesting indeed. I also disagree, by the way, with the decision to bring the Devil into the story, when Howard's stories draw more from Lovecraft's mythology (especially "The Footfalls Within") and have sorcerers, monstrous creatures and undead, but no presence of any supernatural forces from the Christian mythology.
> 
> That, incidentally, is what makes Solomon Kane's unswerving faith so remarkable. He has met and fought monsters and fell creatures from before man, and wields a magic staff from the age of Atlantis, but has never seen direct proof that what he believes in is in any way real. In here, the inclusion of this Reaper thing cheapens that aspect of the character - having tangible proof brings hard knowledge, which kills faith, and it's not hard to believe when there's a demon out to drag you to Hell.



Kane generally referred to most of the supernatural things he was up against as being hellish and Satan-spawned, just like real-world Puritans conflated any form of paganism with devil worship. Puritanism made it simple: if it's not of God, then it's witchcraft.

Our recollections of Howard's depiction differ somewhat, as the most striking detail of Kane was that at his core, he was no true Christian. He was born out of his proper time, a larger-than-life hero in a world where such men had become all but extinct, and Christianity was just an engrained affectation that allowed Kane to come to terms with his nature.



> It isn't a case of whether it helps the audiences get into the character - it's that it's the wrong character.



You seem flatly unappeasable, having reduced this whole thing to a binary equation. Taken to its logical extent, this suggests there's no way to build on Kane's canon--the only option is to simply regurgitate a Howard story word-for-word, detail-for-detail, buckle-for-buckle.


----------



## NiTessine (Sep 25, 2009)

Felon said:


> Kane generally referred to most of the supernatural things he was up against as being hellish and Satan-spawned, just like real-world Puritans conflated any form of paganism with devil worship. Puritanism made it simple: if it's not of God, then it's witchcraft.



And yet, in "The Footfalls Within", he realises that there exist creatures and things outside this frame of reference, such as the Horror, or, I think, the Staff of Solomon.

There's also the fact that Howard (an agnostic, as I recall) chose not to include explicitly Christian supernatural elements in the stories, opting for black magic and hints of something vaguely Lovecraftian, despite his main character being a Puritan and repeatedly mentioned to be such. To the reader, an outside observer, there is no proof that what he believes is in any way real, and there are in fact hints to the contrary (For one thing, I'd consider the monotheistic Christian view and Cthulhu Mythos mutually exclusive as true in the same diegetic frame - the first one kinda defines its god as the only god and the second one hinges on the assumption that there are many gods and none of them are what you'd call nice - of course, this is all in how great conclusions one is willing to draw from "The Footfalls Within", Howard's agnosticism and ties to the greater body of his work. I think much could be written about this.).



> Our recollections of Howard's depiction differ somewhat, as the most striking detail of Kane was that at his core, he was no true Christian. He was born out of his proper time, a larger-than-life hero in a world where such men had become all but extinct, and Christianity was just an engrained affectation that allowed Kane to come to terms with his nature.



I'd rather not enter a debate as to what constitutes a true Christian, especially on these forums. The history of Europe runs red with such debates. Yes, Solomon Kane was a bit of a throwback to the age of Conan, but he had faith and he kept it, even if what actually kept him going was a superhuman willpower and physique and an atavistic urge to stuff someone's own kidneys down their throat.



> You seem flatly unappeasable, having reduced this whole thing to a binary equation. Taken to its logical extent, this suggests there's no way to build on Kane's canon--the only option is to simply regurgitate a Howard story word-for-word, detail-for-detail, buckle-for-buckle.



Well, that is, in a way, true. The core of the Solomon Kane canon has been written and cannot be added to, seeing as Robert E. Howard has lain in his grave these past 70 years or so. Whatever anyone else does with his characters will be by definition a derivative, lesser work (a great deal lesser, in many cases).

However, there are still derivative works that I can approve of, and I tend to rate these in terms of faithfulness to the source material and quality. Arnie's first Conan film qualifies despite diverging occasionally from the stories and yoinking a villain from a Kull story because it is a very good film. The second one doesn't, because it sucks. Red Sonja can burn, though the character is so very far removed from Howard's work that no meaningful comparisons can any longer be drawn and she fails entirely on her own lack of merit.

I have, for the most part, refrained from commenting on the story itself, not only because it's still for the most part unknown but also because the episodic nature of the pulp heroes lends itself well to the adding of new tales, and there is nothing wrong with it - as long as it is done well. What we know of the character, though, leads me to believe that Bassett's _Solomon Kane_ has no more to do with Howard's Puritan swordsman than Sommers' _Van Helsing_ had. There's more to Howard's character than the hat, and especially the AICN review contains details that run directly contrary to the character. So, it can still be a good fantasy action movie, but it doesn't look like much of a Solomon Kane film.

It all just leads me to wonder why take the name if you won't use the character, especially when the character is so little known that you can't really sell the movie with it, or even the author's name, and will only end up pissing off the hardcore fans.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Sep 29, 2009)

Did Captain Jack Sparrow have a backstory? Internal motivation?

Not much, and what little backstory was added in the later movies detracted rather than added to the character. Memorable characters aren't made memorable by their origin story.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Sep 29, 2009)

Kunimatyu said:


> Not much, and what little backstory was added in the later movies detracted rather than added to the character.




It did? I thought that the movies were 45 mins too long and crowded with usesless double-crosses detracted from the movie. Jack's background and motivations were just fine with me.



Kunimatyu said:


> Memorable characters aren't made memorable by their origin story.




Tell that to Spider-Man or Batman.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Sep 30, 2009)

I feel about this trailer the same contempt I do for the Sherlock Holmes trailer.  It's about the amount of faith to the character (read: name and look only) and changes just about every other detail in such a drastic, and bad, way as to make me vehementy reject the possibility of even daring to watch the films.

It's one thing to change a story completely and talk about it as a different vision of a character--like the various Batman movies have done.  It's another thing completely to create a de facto "official" film interpretation of a character and to stray so far from the source material.  The addition of a demon trailing Kane and the implied "deal with a devil" are story elements that belong in Spawn, not Solomon Kane.

For what it's worth, backstory for backstory's sake pisses me off just by existing.  There's no backstory for Indiana Jones until the third movie, but does that make the other two (well, Raiders, anyway) less enjoyable?  Is there any doubt about what Indiana Jones is?  Personally, I thought the introduction of a back story actually made me like Indy less, and was a serious let-down.  But then, I appear to be the only person in existence who would rather watch Temple of Doom a thousand more times than Last Crusade even once more.

I do not intend to support this movie in any direct fashion.  Maybe when it comes out on DVD and Netflix has it I might deign to watch it.  I think this looks like the exact analogy of Arnie's Conan is to Howard's Conan as Purefoy's Kane is to Howard's Cane.  The only difference is the production value of the film, which isn't enough to sell it to me.

In short, not interested.  Or rather, interested but only in the rubbernecking-as-you-drive-by-a-car-wreck interested.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 30, 2009)

"A price I'll gadly pay" = "Men shall die for this"

Just read Red Shadows, and found nothing there that is contradicted by the trailer. Zombies, explosions, primal powers of the world, forgotten gods...

As for selling the soul, 



Spoiler



from what I heard someone else sold Kane's soul to the Devil


 .


----------



## Kunimatyu (Oct 2, 2009)

Darth Shoju said:


> Tell that to Spider-Man or Batman.




Both of those characters are cool because they're cool, not because their origin story is cool. Batman's origin story is painfully cliche but we don't care, because Batman is an awesome character who's fun to watch. Ditto for Spidey.

Another example: Han Solo. His backstory is pretty much "smuggler in a shady bar" and that certainly doesn't hurt the character.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Oct 3, 2009)

Kunimatyu said:


> Both of those characters are cool because they're cool, not because their origin story is cool. Batman's origin story is painfully cliche but we don't care, because Batman is an awesome character who's fun to watch. Ditto for Spidey.
> 
> Another example: Han Solo. His backstory is pretty much "smuggler in a shady bar" and that certainly doesn't hurt the character.




Both Spider-Man and Batman's origin stories are integral to their character. They would be shadows of the characters they are without them. Without the death of his parents as the motivator for his war on crime, Batman would be but a mysterious vigilante. Without the death of his Uncle Ben, Spidey wouldn't have learned that "with great power comes great responsibility", and would just be a wise-cracking superhero. Would they both be somewhat cool without their backstories? Sure, but they wouldn't be anywhere near as great as they are now.

And sure, Han Solo is awesome. But how much more awesome could he be with a bit of well-done backstory?


----------



## Klaus (Oct 3, 2009)

Darth Shoju said:


> Both Spider-Man and Batman's origin stories are integral to their character. They would be shadows of the characters they are without them. Without the death of his parents as the motivator for his war on crime, Batman would be but a mysterious vigilante. Without the death of his Uncle Ben, Spidey wouldn't have learned that "with great power comes great responsibility", and would just be a wise-cracking superhero. Would they both be somewhat cool without their backstories? Sure, but they wouldn't be anywhere near as great as they are now.
> 
> And sure, Han Solo is awesome. But how much more awesome could he be with a bit of well-done backstory?



Like, say, the fact that Han Solo was an Imperial cadet when he confronted a superior officer about the mistreatment of wookiee slaves, and ended up helping a wookiee slave named Chewbacca escape, fled the Imperial Academy and took up smuggling in the Outer RIm to stay out of "imperial entanglements", eventually winning the fastest ship in the galaxy from a friend in a game of sabbacc.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 4, 2009)

NiTessine said:


> However, there are still derivative works that I can approve of, and I tend to rate these in terms of faithfulness to the source material and quality. Arnie's first Conan film qualifies despite diverging occasionally from the stories




"Diverging occasionally from the stories"? I thought that Arnies first Conan film got the whole origin of Conan so incredibly badly wrong that it wrecked the whole thing, personally. The actual origin of Conan is a thousand times better than the limp, stupid story they cooked up for the film.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Oct 4, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Like, say, the fact that Han Solo was an Imperial cadet when he confronted a superior officer about the mistreatment of wookiee slaves, and ended up helping a wookiee slave named Chewbacca escape, fled the Imperial Academy and took up smuggling in the Outer RIm to stay out of "imperial entanglements", eventually winning the fastest ship in the galaxy from a friend in a game of sabbacc.




Yeah, I don't think that would have added anything to the character. We learned all we needed to when he shot Greedo, tossed some credits at the barkeep, and said "Sorry about the mess".

A good movie character needs a signature scene, but it doesn't have to be backstory.


----------



## Krug (Oct 12, 2009)

Variety's review isn't too laudatory: (SPOILERS)
Solomon Kane Review - Read Variety's Analysis Of The Movie Solomon Kane


----------



## Darth Shoju (Oct 12, 2009)

Kunimatyu said:


> Yeah, I don't think that would have added anything to the character. We learned all we needed to when he shot Greedo, tossed some credits at the barkeep, and said "Sorry about the mess".
> 
> A good movie character needs a signature scene, but it doesn't have to be backstory.




Actually it clearly does add something to the character. Whether it is interesting to you is obviously your call.

In a movie, a good _supporting _character needs a signature scene instead of backstory. Han Solo is a supporting character. In this movie, Kane is the protagonist, like Luke. Should Luke have not had any backstory presented in Star Wars?


----------



## Klaus (Oct 12, 2009)

Krug said:


> Variety's review isn't too laudatory: (SPOILERS)
> Solomon Kane Review - Read Variety's Analysis Of The Movie Solomon Kane



I quite liked that review. It expects the movie to do really well in ancillary releases (read: DVD). The biggest criticisms it gives are that the lead has to wear too much clothing (unlike Conan) and that it has a lot of Christian themes (surprise, surprise), but trades "Love Thy Neighboor" for "kick their asses" (which is, IMHO, awesome!).


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 13, 2009)

NiTessine said:


> Well, that is, in a way, true. The core of the Solomon Kane canon has been written and cannot be added to, seeing as Robert E. Howard has lain in his grave these past 70 years or so. Whatever anyone else does with his characters will be by definition a derivative, lesser work (a great deal lesser, in many cases).



No.  It's by definiton a derivative work, it's not by definition lesser.

After reading several of these posts I finally get where you're coming from; you're elevating Howard's original corpus to some kind of canon of holy writ status and judging anything that follows by one and _only_ one criteria: is it exactly the same as the scripture that Howard originallly wrote?

Well, you're more than welcome to do that, I suppose, but don't expect that that point of view has a lot of relevence with other people who only care if it's a good movie that has a similar feel to the original stories or not.


----------



## NiTessine (Oct 16, 2009)

Hobo said:


> After reading several of these posts I finally get where you're coming from



No, you don't.

I would elaborate if I still thought it would accomplish something at this point.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 16, 2009)

NiTessine said:


> No, you don't.
> 
> I would elaborate if I still thought it would accomplish something at this point.



I don't know how I don't; you've said as much in almost those same words even.

Not to mention your frankly kinda absurd implication that any derivative work is by definition lesser.  That's not true at all.


----------



## Rykion (Oct 16, 2009)

*SPOILERS*
Having read the reviews, the added backstory as described doesn't fit the character of Solomon Kane.  In the stories, it is mentioned that Kane has always been the kind of person to protect or avenge those that have been wronged.  It's a fundemental part of his character.  He spends *years* of his life chasing down bandits and their leader just because he found a dying girl that was their victim.  To change that character into 



Spoiler



a blood thirsty pirate that changes his ways because he's being chased by demons


 fundamentally changes the character.  It also introduces enemies that were never part of Howard's original stories.  It makes as much sense as having Batman kill his parents and then go on to fight mutants from another dimension.

That said, I still like the look of the movie.  I will probably enjoy it as long as I do not connect it to the original stories.  Kind of like Starship Troopers.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 21, 2009)

Rykion said:


> It makes as much sense as having Batman kill his parents and then go on to fight mutants from another dimension.




Me likey!

(in fact I like it enough that it's going in my .sig for a while!)


----------



## Rykion (Oct 21, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> Me likey!
> 
> (in fact I like it enough that it's going in my .sig for a while!)



Thanks! I've never been in someone's sig before.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 21, 2010)

I've watched the movie.

And it's awesome. It's closer to the source material than the first Conan.

The movie serves as a "prequel" to the Howard stories, and does so well. The only "un-Howardian" elements were the BBEG and his lieutenant, who looked like they came out of Diablo II or some Robb Ruphel or Brom painting. Even so, they are to modern sensibilities what giant snakes and gorillas in cloaks were to REH's.

The movie is serious. There's pretty much no levity in it. The mood is desolate, barren, gray and brutal. The fight scenes are well-done and more believable than the usual adventure-movie fare ( 



Spoiler



In a scene Solomon beheads an opponent by hacking at his neck three times!


 ). There's no gore (just some spraying blood), but it feels more violent than that would indicate.

James Purefoy is perfect in the title role, and you see the despair in his eyes when he sees what path the Lord has reserved him in life (with the wonderful line 



Spoiler



"Is this all I am to you?"


 ).

I rank this movie higher than The 13th Warrior in my "favorite D&D movies" list. Easily a 9 out of 10.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Jun 22, 2010)

I really like it

I enjoyed it at the cinema, and own it on DVD. I also play the SK rpg, but havent read any novels

I think the production team earn kudos for managing to make a film where it constantly looked like it was pouring with rain or snowing and everyone is just covered in dirt and leading a grim n miserable life (kinda like what whfrp should be without all the silly names and daft looking races)

as you hang around on these boards, it is the sort of film that should appeal to a gamer, so at least rent it on dvd.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 22, 2010)

TheNovaLord said:


> I enjoyed it at the cinema, and own it on DVD. I also play the SK rpg, but havent read any novels




I highly recommend you read the SK stories. (They're all short stories; no full-length novels.) Some of Robert Howard's best work, IMO. I actually prefer the SK stories to his Conan work. (Though I admit that his actual prose is stronger in some of the Conan stories, since it's later in his career.)


----------



## NiTessine (Jun 23, 2010)

Saw it. Standing by original assessment. Boring and predictable. Were someone to actually make a film about Solomon Kane, James Purefoy would be quite a good choice. Screenwriter should reconsider career.


----------

