# Whatever happened to Sword & Sorcery Cinema?



## nikolai (Dec 15, 2005)

I've just seen Narnia, with fantastic special effects used in a totally bloodless battle. We've also had a great dragon in Harry Potter, disposed of in a equally bloodless way. Why aren't they making S&S films anymore? I know making a film for kids maximises box office. But is wrong to want to see a seven-foot tall barbarian evicerate a monster? There were loads of S&S films during the 1980s, all with dodgy special effects. Why - just when the technology is there - have these films stopped being made? Does this strike anyone else as an absolute tragedy?


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 15, 2005)

Well, there are rumors that Robert Rodriguez (of *Sin City* fame) is going to direct a new Conan movie, so perhaps there is some hope for sword & sorcery genre on the big screen.


----------



## sniffles (Dec 15, 2005)

nikolai said:
			
		

> I've just seen Narnia, with fantastic special effects used in a totally bloodless battle. We've also had a great dragon in Harry Potter, disposed of in a equally bloodless way. Why aren't they making S&S films anymore? I know making a film for kids maximises box office. But is wrong to want to see a seven-foot tall barbarian evicerate a monster? There were loads of S&S films during the 1980s, all with dodgy special effects. Why - just when the technology is there - have these films stopped being made? Does this strike anyone else as an absolute tragedy?



I don't think it's a tragedy, but it is too bad there aren't more fantastic films being specifically made for adult audiences. 

The tragedy is that they're spending so much money on people like Tom Cruise and remaking old movies when they could be doing lots of medium-budget, good quality fun films.


----------



## Swoop109 (Dec 15, 2005)

nikolai said:
			
		

> I've just seen Narnia, with fantastic special effects used in a totally bloodless battle. We've also had a great dragon in Harry Potter, disposed of in a equally bloodless way. Why aren't they making S&S films anymore? I know making a film for kids maximises box office. But is wrong to want to see a seven-foot tall barbarian evicerate a monster? There were loads of S&S films during the 1980s, all with dodgy special effects. Why - just when the technology is there - have these films stopped being made? Does this strike anyone else as an absolute tragedy?




I do know that there is talk of a new Conan film coming out within the next couple of years.
One without the hand of Milius spoilling the character.

In addition a film company is currently in pre-production to bring Howard's Bran Mak Morn to the screen. 
Another company has optioned the rights to Karl Wagner's Kane. 
While not S&S, Paramont currently has a John Carter of Mars film in production.
So I think that we just have to wait a couple more years to see good sword and sorcery brought back.

I'm hopig that with the release of the new Kong film other studios will start to look at bringing back some of the old pulp action back to films.


----------



## Green Knight (Dec 15, 2005)

> One without the hand of Milius spoilling the character.




Wow. First time I've ever encountered anybody who DIDN'T like Conan the Barbarian.  I can understand not liking Conan the Destroyer, but then again, Milius didn't work on that one.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 15, 2005)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Wow. First time I've ever encountered anybody who DIDN'T like Conan the Barbarian.  I can understand not liking Conan the Destroyer, but then again, Milius didn't work on that one.



 Count me in as somebody who thought that *Conan the Barbarian* was a great movie.  It's one of the most-watched DVDs in my collection.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 15, 2005)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Wow. First time I've ever encountered anybody who DIDN'T like Conan the Barbarian.  I can understand not liking Conan the Destroyer, but then again, Milius didn't work on that one.



Here's a second one for you.  I thought the first movie was only OK at best--a B-movie that got a bit more buzz than normal, and I was annoyed that it had so little to do with REH's character other than the name.  I'm not much of a fan.


----------



## Swoop109 (Dec 15, 2005)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Wow. First time I've ever encountered anybody who DIDN'T like Conan the Barbarian.  I can understand not liking Conan the Destroyer, but then again, Milius didn't work on that one.



Don't get me wrong. I think CtB is The best sword and sorcery film made in the 80's. I just happen to think that it is a badly done Conan film.
The entire character background was re-written and Arnold and Milius failed to capture any of the granduer of the original materiaal.
They could have changed the name of the title character to Ator and it would not have affected the film one bit.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Dec 15, 2005)

Swoop109 said:
			
		

> In addition a film company is currently in pre-production to bring Howard's Bran Mak Morn to the screen.
> Another company has optioned the rights to Karl Wagner's Kane.
> While not S&S, Paramont currently has a John Carter of Mars film in production.
> So I think that we just have to wait a couple more years to see good sword and sorcery brought back.



There's also the persistant rumor that Elric of Melnibone will see the silver screen someday...


----------



## Zarithar Savageclaw (Dec 15, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Here's a second one for you.  I thought the first movie was only OK at best--a B-movie that got a bit more buzz than normal, and I was annoyed that it had so little to do with REH's character other than the name.  I'm not much of a fan.




Actually compared to Conan the Destroyer (which sucked monkey balls), the first film had quite a bit to do with the original character. Many of the Hyperborean countries and kingdoms were represented, and the arms and armor worn by the characters were believable and not ridiculous as was the case with the second film.

The rumors of a new Conan film are actually MORE than rumors at this point...

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808503058

Anyway, I'm hoping they opt for the "serious" treatment of the 3rd Conan movie as opposed to the ultra-cheesy style of the 2nd. I also have to disagree about a "bloodless" Harry Potter. Watch the films again, particularly the 3rd and 4th. Yes the use of blood is restrained, but it is there. I am more of a fan of a happy medium between blood and gore and a sanitized version.


----------



## Zarithar Savageclaw (Dec 15, 2005)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> There's also the persistant rumor that Elric of Melnibone will see the silver screen someday...




Now that... would quite simply rock!


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 15, 2005)

Swoop109 said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong. I think CtB is The best sword and sorcery film made in the 80's. I just happen to think that it is a badly done Conan film.
> The entire character background was re-written and Arnold and Milius failed to capture any of the granduer of the original materiaal.
> They could have changed the name of the title character to Ator and it would not have affected the film one bit.



 I'm a big fan of Robert E. Howard's Conan stories (I read them all on a yearly basis, sometimes more often in the case of my favorite few tales such as *The People of the Black Circle* or *The Hour of the Dragon*), but I still loved Milius' film despite the many differences from the stories.  I actually approved of the changes that Milius made to Conan's background, because in the original stories Conan's past was never really examined in depth (basically, he was a young barbarian who wandered into Zamora and became a thief).  Milius' film had an interesting progression from orphaned slave, to champion gladiator, to thief and adventurer.  True to the stories?  Not really, but it was cool as part of a seperate Conan continuity.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 15, 2005)

Zarithar Savageclaw said:
			
		

> Actually compared to Conan the Destroyer (which sucked monkey balls), the first film had quite a bit to do with the original character. Many of the Hyperborean countries and kingdoms were represented, and the arms and armor worn by the characters were believable and not ridiculous as was the case with the second film.



No, it had *nothing* to do with the character of Conan himself IMO, or even the character of the Hyborian setting, really, other tossing in a few Hyborian names.  And it's only the names, too, I might add.  The character of Conan is completely rewritten from REH and has very little in common with Conan, other than the name and the fact that he's a "barbarian" from the northish country.  And as to how "believable" the arms and armor are, that's certainly relative--I didn't find them particularly believable.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Dec 15, 2005)

Swoop109 said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong. I think CtB is The best sword and sorcery film made in the 80's. I just happen to think that it is a badly done Conan film.



Yes, this.

I enjoy the movie, it's fun (the DVD commentary is comedy gold), but it's not Conan, or at least, not what I think of when I think of Howard's Cimmerrian.  Everytime I see the film I just think of it as the barbarian movie Arnold was in.

Warrior Poet


----------



## Warrior Poet (Dec 15, 2005)

Zarithar Savageclaw said:
			
		

> and the arms and armor worn by the characters were believable and not ridiculous as was the case with the second film.



Like that one snake trainer's hammer?   



			
				Zarithar Savageclaw said:
			
		

> Now that...would quite simply rock!



I have my doubts about an Elric movie.  How do you capture all that narrative, all the weird chaos and happenings, in a film?  Seems to me a project beyond the scope of film.  I've been plenty wrong about film adaptations of fantasy material before, but Elric seems particularly resistant to translation, I think, or perhaps that it feels like it would be more in danger of falling on its face really, really badly.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> No, it had nothing to do with the character of Conan himself IMO, or even the character of the Hyborian setting, really, other tossing in a few Hyborian names. And it's only the names, too, I might add. The character of Conan is completely rewritten from REH and has very little in common with Conan, other than the name and the fact that he's a "barbarian" from the northish country. And as to how "believable" the arms and armor are, that's certainly relative--I didn't find them particularly believable.




[Belloq] "Once again, Dr. Poet, we see there is nothing you cannot express which I cannot summarize better.  You could warn them . . . if only you spoke Jovitos."[/Belloq]

In other words, what Joshua said (by the way, haven't had a chance to check out the new chapters yet, but it's a project for when I'm on vacation over the holidays).

Warrior Poet


----------



## Zarithar Savageclaw (Dec 15, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> No, it had *nothing* to do with the character of Conan himself IMO, or even the character of the Hyborian setting, really, other tossing in a few Hyborian names.  And it's only the names, too, I might add.  The character of Conan is completely rewritten from REH and has very little in common with Conan, other than the name and the fact that he's a "barbarian" from the northish country.  And as to how "believable" the arms and armor are, that's certainly relative--I didn't find them particularly believable.




Well, we will have to agree to disagree I guess on much of this... and granted, the Conan in the movie was different than the Conan of the books... but there were far more similarities found in Conan the Barbarian, which was a more serious take on the story, than Conan the Destroyer. It wasn't perfect... that's true, but it wasn't bad. Again, all of this is subject to personal taste in the end.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 15, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> If only you spoke Jovitos.



That line is great.  There are so many places in life where you could use it.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Dec 15, 2005)

Zarithar Savageclaw said:
			
		

> Conan the Barbarian, which was a more serious take on the story, than Conan the Destroyer.



True.  And in a just world, _Conan the Destroyer_ would be dragged out to the woods and mercifully euthanized along with the second _Highlander_ movie, if such an abomination were to actually exist, which it doesn't, thankfully, and now we shall never speak of this again.

Warrior Poet


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 15, 2005)

Conan in some ways is still my favorite fantasy movie of all time.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Dec 15, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That line is great.  There are so many places in life where you could use it.



That movie is a wellspring of great lines that have application in multiple areas of life:

"I don't know, I'm making this up as I go along."

"They have not one brain among them."

"You're appearance is exactly as I imagined!"

"Here! . . . Here . . . this isn't too bad."   

"How hard were you trying?"

"He was good.  He was very, very good."

"Señor, no one has ever come out of there alive!"

"No time to argue!"

"Besides, you know what a cautious guy I am."

"If you're looking for Truth, Professor Moriarty's philosophy class is right down the hall."

"I never meant to hurt you."

"Ha, ha, ha, son of a bitch."

"So, please, eat something."

"Yes, I know you will."

"I'm suprised to find you squeamish.  That is not your reputation."

 

Warrior Poet


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 15, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> True.  And in a just world, _Conan the Destroyer_ would be dragged out to the woods and mercifully euthanized along with the second _Highlander_ movie, if such an abomination were to actually exist, which it doesn't, thankfully, and now we shall never speak of this again.
> 
> Warrior Poet



 Well, at least *Conan the Destroyer* is kinda fun in a silly, campy sort of way.  *Highlander 2* isn't even good as camp.  It just plain sucks.  The only way to make *Highlander 2* watchable would be to have Mike Nelson, Tom Servo, and Crow making fun of it as it was playing.

Yes, I would get a big kick out of watching *Highlander 2* get the Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Dec 15, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Highlander 2*



I have no idea what you're talking about, and anyway, what did I just say about never speaking of this again?   

Warrior Poet


----------



## Zarithar Savageclaw (Dec 15, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> True.  And in a just world, _Conan the Destroyer_ would be dragged out to the woods and mercifully euthanized along with the second _Highlander_ movie, if such an abomination were to actually exist, which it doesn't, thankfully, and now we shall never speak of this again.
> 
> Warrior Poet




No kidding... I actually saw the film which is not to be spoken of at the theater. I hated it so much that I walked out about 20 minutes into it. It remains one of only 3 or 4 films I have actually not sat through after paying to see them at the theater.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 15, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> I have no idea what you're talking about, and anyway, what did I just say about never speaking of this again?
> 
> Warrior Poet



 I hear that if you turn out the lights and say *Highlander 2* three times while looking into a mirror, Connor McLeod will reach through the glass and murder you.


----------



## sniffles (Dec 15, 2005)

Zarithar Savageclaw said:
			
		

> Actually compared to Conan the Destroyer (which sucked monkey balls), the first film had quite a bit to do with the original character. Many of the Hyperborean countries and kingdoms were represented, and the arms and armor worn by the characters were believable and not ridiculous as was the case with the second film.



Actually, I kind of like *Conan the Destroyer*. I admit that the parts of it that I like have nothing to do with Ahnold, or most of the rest of the cast (with the exception of Mako, who rocks at everything he does). But there are things about it that I enjoy.   

I'm not sure I want to see a Conan film that hews closely to the books. I don't know that I'd enjoy that onscreen. The same holds for Elric. Elric is not really an appealing character; it's what happens to him that's interesting, IMHO. It's hard to make a film in which the protagonist is not likeable and has very little in common with the audience.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 15, 2005)

A few days ago I put myself through the process of coming up with the barebones of a doable (i.e. low budget) fantasy movie/miniseries. Wrote the basis in my head in a couple of hours and typed it out in 15 minutes.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 15, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> A few days ago I put myself through the process of coming up with the barebones of a doable (i.e. low budget) fantasy movie/miniseries. Wrote the basis in my head in a couple of hours and typed it out in 15 minutes.




So post that sucker.


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Dec 15, 2005)

I don't understand the complaint.  

There wasn't a good fantasy movie around for many years before _The Fellowship of the Ring_ came out.  The LoTR trilogy was so fantastic that it sparked some really good fantasy-type films (and some not so good ones as well) such as the _Harry Potter_ movies, _Troy_, and now _Narnia_.

I'd rather have movies come out at this frequency and this quality than a whole bunch of crap.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Dec 15, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> It's hard to make a film in which the protagonist is not likeable and has very little in common with the audience.



Really?

_The Bunker
Stalin
Conspiracy
Throne of Blood
Ran
Richard III
Titus
A Simple Plan
Man Bites Dog
Natural Born Killers
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
Apt Pupil
American History X
The Godfather
I'll Sleep When I'm Dead
Get Carter
House of Cards_

The main characters in those films are appalling, or frequently do very appalling things, yet they remain compelling films nonetheless (though I found Branagh's _Frankenstein_ laborious, overwrought, melodramatic, and altogether too self-congratulatory).  Not necessarily pleasant films to sit through, to be sure.

Warrior Poet


----------



## KenM (Dec 15, 2005)

I want a Hawk the Slayer remake.


----------



## Green Knight (Dec 15, 2005)

Anyway, back to the original post, you can't really blame them for not turning Narnia and Goblet of Fire into gorefests. In the past couple of years they've made movies of only three fantasy worlds. And two of them are based off of childrens books. It isn't a matter of making the movies family friendly, so much that the books were family friendly by intent. Written with children in mind. So the lack of gore in Harry Potter or Narnia shouldn't really surprise anyone. Now, if they were to make a bloodless Conan movie, that'd be a whole other thing, but Harry Potter and Peter Pevensie aren't exactly heroes that're supposed to be running around drenched in the entrails of their enemies.


----------



## Krieg (Dec 15, 2005)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> In the past couple of years they've made movies of only three fantasy worlds. And two of them are based off of childrens books.




...and strangely enough all three authors are from the UK.


----------



## sniffles (Dec 16, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> _The Bunker
> Stalin
> ...



Well I didn't say it was impossible, did I?   
Anyway, in the grand scheme of things that's a pretty small list.


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Dec 16, 2005)

KenM said:
			
		

> I want a Hawk the Slayer remake.



LMAO!  I just watched this movie a few weeks ago.  Great pick!


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 16, 2005)

nikolai said:
			
		

> I've just seen Narnia, with fantastic special effects used in a totally bloodless battle. We've also had a great dragon in Harry Potter, disposed of in a equally bloodless way. Why aren't they making S&S films anymore? I know making a film for kids maximises box office. But is wrong to want to see a seven-foot tall barbarian evicerate a monster? There were loads of S&S films during the 1980s, all with dodgy special effects. Why - just when the technology is there - have these films stopped being made? Does this strike anyone else as an absolute tragedy?



"Dodgy"? Is that a new lingo for "mediocre"?

I don't know about S&S -- which Hollywood immediately associate that with any B-type cult films -- but we have seen film companies taking a chance on some of the currently popular or classic archetypal (mostly epic) fantasy literatures and adapted them to films.

So, if Hollywood follow that formula -- albeit not all the time -- what's the next fantasy book to adapt?


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 16, 2005)

krunchyfrogg said:
			
		

> There wasn't a good fantasy movie around for many years before _The Fellowship of the Ring_ came out.  The LoTR trilogy was so fantastic that it sparked some really good fantasy-type films (and some not so good ones as well) such as the _Harry Potter_ movies, _Troy_, and now _Narnia_.



Narnia's the only movie that can claim to have been made because of the success of LotR.  The first Harry Potter actually came out a month _before_ the first LOTR movie, and Troy was clearly made in imitation of Gladiator, not LotR.  The lead time on movies is too long otherwise.


----------



## Rykion (Dec 16, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I hear that if you turn out the lights and say *Highlander 2* three times while looking into a mirror, Connor McLeod will reach through the glass and murder you.



I hear doing that just makes Juan Sánchez Villa-Lobos Ramírez come back to life for no apparent reason.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 16, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I hear that if you turn out the lights and say *Highlander 2* three times while looking into a mirror, Connor McLeod will reach through the glass and murder you.



I have just discovered that the hubby owns a DVD of The Film Which Must Not Be Named...   

In his defense he would like it noted that it is the directors cut, which he was told made more sense. He did not, however, find this to be true.

(he also owns Blues Brothers 2000, but bought it by mistake based on its cover apearance to the original and has never opened it.)


----------



## ssampier (Dec 16, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I hear that if you turn out the lights and say *Highlander 2* three times while looking into a mirror, Connor McLeod will reach through the glass and murder you.




It's true, I heard that it happened to a friend of a friend. The phone rang and he was dead.

Wait, wrong movie.


----------



## replicant2 (Dec 16, 2005)

nikolai said:
			
		

> I've just seen Narnia, with fantastic special effects used in a totally bloodless battle. We've also had a great dragon in Harry Potter, disposed of in a equally bloodless way. Why aren't they making S&S films anymore? I know making a film for kids maximises box office. But is wrong to want to see a seven-foot tall barbarian evicerate a monster? There were loads of S&S films during the 1980s, all with dodgy special effects. Why - just when the technology is there - have these films stopped being made? Does this strike anyone else as an absolute tragedy?




It's a tragedy for those of us who like sword and sorcery yarns, but to defend the film making industry I think the problem is a lot of S&S material doesn't translate well into the kind of films audiences like/are used to seeing.

It's easy to empathize with the characters of Narnia, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. Oftentimes they're flawed. Many of them represent the everyman, like Frodo. They have to overcome not only impossible odds but their own mortality and frailty. It's easy for audiences to identify with these types of characters. They also feature groups of characters working together, allowing for more on-screen interaction and external character development.

Conversely, S&S often features a single, larger-than-life protagonist who overomes all odds through brute force, or ingenuity. S&S is, in its purest form, all plot -- pure story -- with cool worlds to explore, monsters to fight and riches to win, but frankly, without a lot of depth, The characters are quite often static and change little, if at all.

 I love these kinds of stories, but thematically many of them are rather shallow. They'd make for great spectacle, sure, but I think they'd be panned by the critics and their turnout would suffer. It's too great a risk for a multi-million dollar movie production.

Before I get the Howardites jumping down my throat, let me state that I understand there is a lot more going on in the Conan stories than just a brute hacking away with a sword. I think the whole civilization vs. barbarism angle could make for a compelling hook to a film, I'm just not sure of its appeal to a large audience -- or, just as important, a Hollywood exec who has to finance a grim, dark film like "Beyond the Black River," for instance. And I'm not even going to get into Elric.

I also think a secondary factor is that a lot of the S&S films of the 80's were just plain bad, and who wants to take a risk on another Hawk the Slayer or Beastmaster? Again, films you and I and probably a lot of folks on these boards enjoy, but do they truly have a broad appeal?


----------



## Conaill (Dec 16, 2005)

Can't help but think that Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser would make for an excellent "buddy" movie though...


----------



## ssampier (Dec 16, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> Can't help but think that Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser would make for an excellent "buddy" movie though...




I'm not very familiar with Leiber, but this is what I like:

You have the "love" angle of the various women that Fafrd and Grey Mouser bed and fall in love with (T&A for the shallow men, myself included)
Hack-n-slash with beasties/pirates/_other_ things

What book do you think would make the best movie?


----------



## Conaill (Dec 16, 2005)

Heh - it's been ages since I've read them myself, but I found out that Wizards actually has a pretty good writeup of them:

Classics of Fantasy: Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser Series


> Leiber was a major influence on the creation of D&D (he even contributed some pieces to The Dragon), and it's no surprise to find many elements of the series found their way into the game. The D&D magic system may derive from Vance, the player character races and whole concept of an adventuring party (characters with vastly different skills working together as a team) from Tolkien, but what heroes actually DO in a typical D&D game is pure Leiber: fighting, sneaking, purloining, exploring, and trying to get out alive when a plan goes bad. In fact, the closest thing Leiber has to an heir for his literary legacy are the D&D novel lines, who have thoroughly assimilated his influence and carry on the sword and sorcery tradition more closely than anyone else writing today.


----------



## David Howery (Dec 16, 2005)

Why don't they make S&S movies anymore?  Well, the first Conan was the best of them... and that's appalling.  CtB had fairly good action, but Milius went nuts on the whole 'boobs and blood' factor... sure, REH put those in a lot, but Milius still emphasized it too much.  Then there was the whole hippie children of Doom thing, which was just... dumb.  And yet, the story was actually not bad... too bad it wasn't really about REH's Conan.. I just assume it was someone else with the same name.  And that was the best movie in the genre.  The rest?  Deathstalker (1 through... 3? 4?), Red Sonja, The Sword and the Sorcerer, Hawk the Slayer.... with movies like these in the genre, it's not surprising that people stopped making them... they were probably tired of being laughed at...


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 16, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> Why don't they make S&S movies anymore?




Historically, they simply haven't done very well. SF movies have made many millions and continue to be done. I can't think of a sword and sorcery fantasy movie since the first Conan until LOTR that did well financially. There were some good ones, but on the whole they didn't do very well. After _Willow _ flopped, they kinda quit trying.

I was hoping LOTR would change that, but we haven't seen even a bad one attempted yet on the big screen until Narnia. It's been four years since Fellowship was a blockbuster smash. We've seen a spate of weak TV mini-series (Earthsea, Hercules, Mists of Avalon)   but that's been about it. 

It's just one of those things, I guess.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 16, 2005)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Wow. First time I've ever encountered anybody who DIDN'T like Conan the Barbarian.  I can understand not liking Conan the Destroyer, but then again, Milius didn't work on that one.




I _loathed_ the movie. Partly because I apparently read more Howard than the screenwriter.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Conaill (Dec 16, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> After _Willow _ flopped, they kinda quit trying.



It did?

According to imdb, Willow cost $35 million to make, made $8.3 million in its opening weekend, and grossed $57 million in the US.

Conan the Barbarian cost $20 million, made $9.6 million opening weekend, and grossed $40 million in the US. Conan the Destroyer only grossed $31 million (no budget listed), and Red Sonja made less than $7 million on a budget of $18 million.

Seems to me that Willow didn't do too bad. Not a blockbuster, but definitely profitable...


(Edit: In comparison, the first D&D movie also cost about $35 million to make, and only grossed $15 million in the US. Including worldwide revenues and rentals, they barely broke even. And yet they made a second one...)


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 16, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> It did?
> 
> According to imdb, Willow cost $35 million to make, made $8.3 million in its opening weekend, and grossed $57 million in the US.
> 
> ...




I stand corrected; I'd always been told it was a flop thought I think it must be that people were expecting Star Wars box office from it. 

Looking at Box Office Mojo's list of live action fantasy, I see I forgot one that actually did really well, as well: The Scorpion King. At a lifetime box office of $91M, not too bad. I'm not sure the figures in their chart are adjusted for inflation. I, myself, didn't think Dragonheart did that well.


----------



## Conaill (Dec 16, 2005)

Actually, imdb's trivia page for Willow does say: 







> The box office receipts were less than expected, so writer George Lucas continued Willow's story in books rather than in movie sequels.



If anything, I'm guessing this was probably more a case of irrational expectations than anything else. Ron Howard, George Lucas, ILM and an unusually large budget... guess "merely" doubling their money came as a bit of a letdown for Hollywood.  :\


----------



## Green Knight (Dec 16, 2005)

A shame. That redhead was hot. Wouldn't have minded seeing her again.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 16, 2005)

You mean Joanne Whaley (added a -Kilmer soon afterwards, only to remove the -Kilmer soon after THAT?).

As for which Fafhrd & Gray Mouser book would translate best, I'd say Ill Met In Lankhmar. Get Howard Chaykin to adapt.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Dec 16, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> Can't help but think that Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser would make for an excellent "buddy" movie though...



Let's get somebody on this right away.  I think the Fafhrd and Mouser stories would have great potential as a Sword & Sorcery series.

I think they could do a series of movies.  Pick several of the stories, make several movies, DON'T try and cram everything about the two into a single movie.

Warrior Poet


----------



## jasper (Dec 16, 2005)

hmm conan the b, dragonslayer (very cool effects if the thunderstrom outside matched the action in) and what other fantasy movies out there were good.
Hmmm
Hmmm
Hmmm
let see ferrets and loincloth guy got his own series in 90s
let see rocket sword launcher guy the actor got his own series in 80s
williow left me weeping


----------



## Rykion (Dec 16, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> "Dodgy"? Is that a new lingo for "mediocre"?



No it's primarily British slang for uneven or uncertain quality.

Edit:  To be on topic a bit.  I think S&S movies problems were not so much that they flopped as much as they were never major blockbusters.  People in Hollywood seem to look for the next big thing over something that brings in a little bit of money.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 16, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> You mean Joanne Whaley (added a -Kilmer soon afterwards, only to remove the -Kilmer soon after THAT?).



I thought they were actually married for a long time.  Well, by Hollywood standards, anyway.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 16, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> "Dodgy"? Is that a new lingo for "mediocre"?



No, it's not new at all.  And plenty of British slang has been popularized on this side of the Atlantic; especially through the Harry Potter books and movies.  I'm surprised you've not heard dodgy.  I actually use that term quite a bit nowadays.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 17, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'm surprised you've not heard dodgy.  I actually use that term quite a bit nowadays.



I never bothered to ask.

As mentioned before by others, S&S is associated with cult film genre, so they are never taken seriously, especially when you have scantily-clad priestesses.

Gawd, I missed those days.


----------



## Particle_Man (Dec 17, 2005)

*Speaking of REH...*

I would actually like to see Solomon Kane done...maybe with Russell Crowe (he rocked in Gladiator, and would be a good S&S star, now I think on it).


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 17, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> You mean Joanne Whaley (added a -Kilmer soon afterwards, only to remove the -Kilmer soon after THAT?).




According to the IMDB, Joanne Whaley and Val Kilmer were together for 8 years.  They married after meeting on the set of *Willow* back in 1988, and divorced in 1996.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 17, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> I have my doubts about an Elric movie.  How do you capture all that narrative, all the weird chaos and happenings, in a film?  Seems to me a project beyond the scope of film.  I've been plenty wrong about film adaptations of fantasy material before, but Elric seems particularly resistant to translation, I think, or perhaps that it feels like it would be more in danger of falling on its face really, really badly.



I fear they would downplay his reliance on drugs and Stombringer's soulfeading. I'd say there is 70% chance Hollywood would change Elric to *object* to the humans torture & enslavement, rather than his uncaring attitude towards the atrocities.

At least we know hollywood can pull the look off.


----------



## CCamfield (Dec 17, 2005)

Do you guys know about the "Red Nails" animated Conan movie that's going to be made?

http://conanrednails.com/

Ron Perlman (Hellboy, Slade in the Teen Titans animated show, etc) is going to do the voice, which I think is just fantastic.


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 17, 2005)

*Wow, Conan!*



			
				CCamfield said:
			
		

> Do you guys know about the "Red Nails" animated Conan movie that's going to be made?
> 
> http://conanrednails.com/
> 
> Ron Pearlman (Hellboy, Slade in the Teen Titans animated show, etc) is going to do the voice, which I think is just fantastic.




An ACTUAL CONAN STORY being made into a movie!  I'm presuming this is direct to DVD release, but it's refreshing to see a cartoon for adults again along with a classic sword & sorcery story. This project is definately somebody's baby.

Having said that, I have to wonder how cheap it is to make flat animation these days? Is it possible for more movies like this?


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 17, 2005)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> Having said that, I have to wonder how cheap it is to make flat animation these days? Is it possible for more movies like this?



It depends. If we outsource the production to Korea, it's cheap.

I know, "outsourcing" is a terrible economic dirty word in the US.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 18, 2005)

CCamfield said:
			
		

> Do you guys know about the "Red Nails" animated Conan movie that's going to be made?
> 
> http://conanrednails.com/
> 
> Ron Perlman (Hellboy, Slade in the Teen Titans animated show, etc) is going to do the voice, which I think is just fantastic.



 Yep, we know about it.  In fact, there have been a few threads about it in the last few months.


----------



## Templetroll (Dec 18, 2005)

Zarithar Savageclaw said:
			
		

> Actually compared to Conan the Destroyer (which sucked monkey balls), the first film had quite a bit to do with the original character. Many of the Hyperborean countries and kingdoms were represented, and the arms and armor worn by the characters were believable and not ridiculous as was the case with the second film.
> .




_Conan the Destroyer_ was a great D&D _type _ of movie.  

It had a disparate group of characters meeting up under odd circumstances, going to strange places, meeting strange people, killing them and taking their stuff.  THEN, when they get the widget AND the princess back to the city the big ceremony suddenly becomes a backstab, or front stab on the princess and _then _ there is a twist that only the big ol' hero can save the world from!  It's not great REH but it's a fun flick.


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Dec 18, 2005)

I wonder if _The Gamers_ made more money than it cost to make.  

Probably.


----------



## Del (Dec 18, 2005)

To be honest I don't mourn the fact there will be no more Deathstalkers films. Conan the Barbarian always had my vote though. Rumour is Swarzenegger balked at continuing to Conan the King because it was "too white". His father being a lowly cop in Austria is well known and Arnie monitered his role choices thusly, figuring getting pinned as a white supremist would be the death of his career.

Too bad though, he nearly did the role of a renegade SS officer who helps the Jews rebel in a well documented ghetto revolt of WWII. I would have definitly paid to see that.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 18, 2005)

Del said:
			
		

> To be honest I don't mourn the fact there will be no more Deathstalkers films. Conan the Barbarian always had my vote though. Rumour is Swarzenegger balked at continuing to Conan the King because it was "too white". His father being a lowly cop in Austria is well known and Arnie monitered his role choices thusly, figuring getting pinned as a white supremist would be the death of his career.
> 
> Too bad though, he nearly did the role of a renegade SS officer who helps the Jews rebel in a well documented ghetto revolt of WWII. I would have definitly paid to see that.



 Actually, Arnold was fully behind returning to star in *King Conan: Crown of Iron* until he got elected Governer of California.  This resulted in a search for another actor to play Conan, but eventually the project died after spending years in pre-production limbo.


----------



## Del (Dec 18, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Actually, Arnold was fully behind returning to star in *King Conan: Crown of Iron* until he got elected Governer of California.  This resulted in a search for another actor to play Conan, but eventually the project died after spending years in pre-production limbo.




Well he might have changed his mind over some 15-20 years?. I remember "he was returning to do Conan the King" a long long time ago. 

But lets not argue. It's Christmas. Think of the kids


----------



## Tewligan (Dec 19, 2005)

Y'know what I'd like to see as a S&S movie? _Thieves World_. It would be like a fantasy _Sin City_. Awww, yeah.


----------



## Tewligan (Dec 19, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> I have just discovered that the hubby owns a DVD of The Film Which Must Not Be Named...
> 
> In his defense he would like it noted that it is the directors cut, which he was told made more sense. He did not, however, find this to be true.
> 
> (he also owns Blues Brothers 2000, but bought it by mistake based on its cover apearance to the original and has never opened it.)



Legally, you can push your husband down a flight of stairs for owning both of those movies.


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Dec 19, 2005)

Can somebody PM or send me an e-mail as to what "the movie that must not be named" is?


krunchyfrogg

AT

gmailDOTcom

TIA


----------



## Tewligan (Dec 19, 2005)

krunchyfrogg said:
			
		

> Can somebody PM or send me an e-mail as to what "the movie that must not be named" is?



I'm so bold, I'll just tell you here. It's _Highlander 2_. I'd rather be raped by a puma than see that movie again.


----------



## Green Knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Getting raped by a puma isn't really so bad... 

Not that I would know from personal experience, of course. Just repeating what I heard, elsewhere.


----------



## Particle_Man (Dec 19, 2005)

Kahuna Burger(he also owns Blues Brothers 2000 said:
			
		

> As long as you don't think of BB2000 as a movie with, y'know, a plot, but just a collection of songs, then I don't find it so bad.  Like those really lame stage musicals whose paper-thin plot is just there to set up the next cool song.


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Dec 19, 2005)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> I'm so bold, I'll just tell you here. It's _Highlander 2_. I'd rather be raped by a puma than see that movie again.



Ohhh, I thought it was Dungeons & Dragons.

Highlander 2 does suck.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 19, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> As long as you don't think of BB2000 as a movie with, y'know, a plot, but just a collection of songs, then I don't find it so bad.  Like those really lame stage musicals whose paper-thin plot is just there to set up the next cool song.



 I _did_ like the Blues Brothers' rendition of Johnny Cash's *Ghost Riders in the Sky.*


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Dec 19, 2005)

Zarithar Savageclaw said:
			
		

> The rumors of a new Conan film are actually MORE than rumors at this point...
> 
> http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808503058




With no director announced, no actor slated to play Conan (rumors of it being The Rock, Triple H, or Vin Diesel...  but none of them confirmed), I'd say that this project is STILL just a rumor.  Maybe they can get the guy who plays Superman in the new Superman movie?


----------



## Frostmarrow (Dec 19, 2005)

Maybe CGI is still too expensive for smaller outfits? When it becomes cheaper the S&S will return, I wager. Right now I think it would be embarrassing to make a film with low budget special FX. Now with the Lord of the Rings, Narnia, and King Kong people having more time on their hands maybe CGI will become affordable? (I'm just guessing).


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 19, 2005)

Shouldn't be; they use CGI on a lot of small(ish) budget T.V. shows with a sci-fi or fantasy theme.

Of course, it doesn't look as good as a big budget movie would, but it's certainly doable.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 19, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Shouldn't be; they use CGI on a lot of small(ish) budget T.V. shows with a sci-fi or fantasy theme.
> 
> Of course, it doesn't look as good as a big budget movie would, but it's certainly doable.



Well, they try not to use CG effects too much, and if possibe to keep stock footages so it can be re-used in future episodes.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 19, 2005)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Getting raped by a puma isn't really so bad...
> 
> Not that I would know from personal experience, of course. Just repeating what I heard, elsewhere.



Someones been reading Foglio's work...


----------



## Wolv0rine (Dec 20, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> Can't help but think that Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser would make for an excellent "buddy" movie though...



Yeah but what are the odds that it'd be a Ben Stiller/Owen Wilson buddy flick (which, admittedly, I love, but is evil and twisted for a S&S flick)?


----------



## Frostmarrow (Dec 20, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Well, they try not to use CG effects too much, and if possibe to keep stock footages so it can be re-used in future episodes.




But now it ought to be possible to buy the minotaur from the Narnia-library and paste it into just about anything.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 20, 2005)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> But now it ought to be possible to buy the minotaur from the Narnia-library and paste it into just about anything.



Pasting it is one thing. Making it move and interact with the environment is quite another.


----------



## Rykion (Dec 20, 2005)

The minotaur from Narnia was also a combination of CG and a guy in a very well done WETA made suit.  I doubt that could be reproduced inexpensively.  It would also be too reminiscent of the movies that reused the same special effect footage in the 70's and early 80's.


----------



## Larcen (Dec 20, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> I don't think it's a tragedy, but it is too bad there aren't more fantastic films being specifically made for adult audiences.
> 
> The tragedy is that they're spending so much money on people like Tom Cruise and remaking old movies when they could be doing lots of medium-budget, good quality fun films.




Watch Serenity!


----------



## Larcen (Dec 20, 2005)

Zarithar Savageclaw said:
			
		

> ... which was a more serious take on the story, than Conan the Destroyer. ...




You know, Destroyer always gets a bad rap.  I happened to ENJOY it more than the first movie on many levels.  Why?  It is one of the best D&D style storylines ever put to film.  It was basically about a party full of different classes on a quest.  Heck, they even had thieves backstabbing and burley fighters not only making a Bend Bars roll, but a Lift Gates one was well!  Ha.  Bottom line sure it was corny but it was FUN.  The sword fights didn't suck and the characters were interesting.  Oh, and the music rocked.  

BTW, it may be interesting to know that Destroyer's storyline was written by Roy Thomas who penned the excellent run of Savage Sword of Conan comics, and it shows.


----------



## niolo (Dec 20, 2005)

I remember the campy Sword and Socerers tv show that was on in the 80s (I think it was called "Swords and Socerers"). As for upcoming movies, I just read in the LA Times that Beowulf is to be out in 2006...(which I am sure has already been commented upon).


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 20, 2005)

Star Wars and rating system.  Star Wars changed everything, the way people viewed movies, the budgetsspent on movies and the way Hollywood made movies, while on its own this did not hurt S&S Cinema it set the stage for its decline, focus moved, Star Wars became a benchmark standard.   

You also had the changes to the rating system, R and PG movies were made into PG-13 movies, then NC-17, with clearly defined restrictions on violence and sex, up to this time S&S had a good dose of both, then as said it was defined to violence and simulated violence (no blood).


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 20, 2005)

niolo said:
			
		

> I remember the campy Sword and Socerers tv show that was on in the 80s (I think it was called "Swords and Socerers").




_Wizards and Warriors,_ starring that guy from _Taxi _ that never did anything else as far as I can remember.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 20, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> _Wizards and Warriors,_ starring that guy from _Taxi _ that never did anything else as far as I can remember.




Jeff Conaway.

He also appeared in the movie _Grease_, the movie _Pete's Dragon_, the telvision series _Babylon 5_ and a whole pile of B-movies, made for television movies, and lesser television series, including a stint on to soap opera _The Bold and the Beautiful_


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 25, 2005)

Larcen said:
			
		

> You know, Destroyer always gets a bad rap.  I happened to ENJOY it more than the first movie on many levels.  Why?  It is one of the best D&D style storylines ever put to film.  It was basically about a party full of different classes on a quest.  Heck, they even had thieves backstabbing and burley fighters not only making a Bend Bars roll, but a Lift Gates one was well!  Ha.  Bottom line sure it was corny but it was FUN.  The sword fights didn't suck and the characters were interesting.  Oh, and the music rocked.
> 
> BTW, it may be interesting to know that Destroyer's storyline was written by Roy Thomas who penned the excellent run of Savage Sword of Conan comics, and it shows.



WOW!
Someone who knows their movies!

I agree on every point:
Most people completely ignore the great classic storyline that Roy Thomas and partenr actually brought to screen (a Herculean effort even back then).
Come on - a shadow-dragon kidnapping the princess into an ice tower that they climb mammoth ice stairs into a sanctum sanctorum of mirrors that the hero has to figure out the puzzle, classes o-plenty, great fights, a barbarian-woman that's probably the best ever onscreen representation (Grace Jones), a monster-god come to life, etc etc etc.

Man, this thing OOZES classic story elements.  This is _objectively_ cool stuff for geeks, people.

I'm always disappointed when people instead concentrate on dialogue, or casting, or true-to-source-material, etc complaints.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 25, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> the telvision series _Babylon 5_




And as big a Bab5 fan as I am, I forgot him as Zack. *headhang*


----------



## Decado (Dec 25, 2005)

Wow I think I am the only person who liked _The Beastmaster_ movie. That movie along with _Conan the Barbarian _ and _Dragonslayer_ were my favorites as a kid. 

Decado


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 26, 2005)

Decado said:
			
		

> Wow I think I am the only person who liked _The Beastmaster_ movie. That movie along with _Conan the Barbarian _ and _Dragonslayer_ were my favorites as a kid.



I only liked the movie because of Tanya Roberts, though I hated the PG rating.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Dec 26, 2005)

_Conan the Destroyer_ was a fun film and I admit to liking it without even a hint of shame.  If you are some Robert Howard cult follower - ok. But as a movie it worked just fine - and frankly - I don't know why you are talking about it as if it was _Red Sonja_.

To compare it to _Highlander 2_ is nutty. _Conan The Destroyer _ was a box office hit and solidifed Arnold as an A list star. _Highlander 2_ was so disastrously conceived the bond company was called in to finish it.

As for no S&S movies - I do think you are all forgetting the _Scorpion King_ - which was certainly in the genre, made use of CGI effects and is as close as we have got in the 21st century to this tradition. (To say nothing of D&D1 and D&D 2.  As bad as D&D 1 was  - I'd take it over a half-dozen bad 80s S&S films any day.)

_LotR_ as a fantasy genre film series has obviously done phenomenally well - in the Star Wars zone. If anything, the quality of LotR has spoiled us and intimidated would be imitators. _Harry Potter _ remains  a box office machine. _Narnia_ (which I have not seen) is another attempt at making "classical fantasy" to tap into that market success.  Whether it suceeds or not - I have no idea.

You are also all forgetting a slew of fantasy genre TV in the 90s which approximated the 80s S&S: _Hercules_, _Xena_, _Conan_,_ Sinbad_ and _Robin Hood _ have all had their run.


----------



## ssampier (Dec 26, 2005)

Decado said:
			
		

> Wow I think I am the only person who liked _The Beastmaster_ movie. That movie along with _Conan the Barbarian _ and _Dragonslayer_ were my favorites as a kid.
> 
> Decado




_I_ like Beastmaster*, I did not like Beastmaster 2.

heck I like Masters of the Universe in the same vein as "There's-Nothing-Better-On-and-Skeletor-looks-kinda-cool-in-Gold"


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 26, 2005)

ssampier said:
			
		

> _I_ like Beastmaster*, I did not like Beastmaster 2.




Same here. And what happened to Singer between movie 1 and movie 2? Nine years later, it looks like he aged like 20 years.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 26, 2005)

Chalk me up as a fan of Beastmaster 1. Years later, when I first discovered Dark Sun, I got a really athasian vibe from Beastmaster.

Plus how can you go wrong with a black tiger, a brown eagle and two ferrets?


----------

