On the plus side...

Well, just as I thought I was out, they drag me back in.  Actually, no, I have no-one to blame but myself for going back to the Conan Movie Blog: after all, this whole thing is my fault.



I'm officially not allowed to complain about The Legend of Conan any more.




So, though I promised I wouldn't create any more 20,000 word dissertations, I somehow managed to cough up a 5,000 word return post. Yet even writing it, I felt I was just repeating the same points I'd been making about the 2011 film for years, only with stuff I've been saying about the 1982 film for years being thrown in too.

That said, my job's going to be far easier this time around. With the 2011 film, it was meant to be a reboot: people were being assured this was getting back to REH, if not in story, then in spirit: it was imperative that there exist at least one website that didn't view the new film as just a remake, and properly contextualise it as such. Here, though? It's a sequel to the 1982 film. Unless they actually try adapting a Howard story, it has nothing to do with the author beyond basic lip service - so there's no point criticizing it for being inaccurate, because so was the 1982 film.

I keep trying to think of analogies to this situation, but none are really appropriate. The closest I can think of is the many variations of Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, Tarzan or James Bond: there are a wide variety of cinematic interpretations, and some of them are so different as to be their own independent characters. Therefore, if someone announced a sequel to one of those films, then there wouldn't be much point bringing up the fact that it isn't like the source material. It's like, no kidding. I mean, who in their right mind would criticize the details in a sequel to Without a Clue because they contradict Arthur Conan Doyle's stories? Why on earth would your first thought reading a synopsis of Blacula 3 be "wait a minute, I don't remember Bram Stoker setting the story in modern-day Los Angeles!" Likewise, when Fredrik Malmberg says this:

It’s that Nordic Viking mythic guy who has played the role of king, warrior, soldier and mercenary, and who has bedded more women than anyone, nearing the last cycle of his life. He knows he’ll be going to Valhalla, and wants to go out with a good battle.

Why do so very many people respond with "but Conan wasn't Nordic, he was Celtic, and he didn't believe in Valhalla"? It's just so bloody redundant. I'm also somewhat amazed by the number of people who are talking about Arnold's Conan not believing in Valhalla.  Uhm, guys, you did watch the 1982 film, right?