What are your thoughts on the previous Conan films? What did you like or dislike?

The original “Conan” movie was written by two master storytellers, Oliver Stone and John Milius, giving us a tough act to follow! Their movie also features the best beheading ever in a major motion picture. Besides, perhaps “Let the Right One In”, which is another perfect example of creativity over special effects.
Like all movies they have to be understood in the context of the time they were produced. Our collective consciousness changes every generation, though and we can’t step into the same river twice. “Conan the Barbarian” was initially released in the disco era, on the heels of “Star Wars” and “The Empire Strikes Back”. The original film must have hit people like a freight train upon its release. Today is a different time entirely. As a society, we are more cynical in times of depression. We have been overfed with high gloss and contrived CG imagery and seek something we can grasp. As our consciousness has shifted, so will the image of Conan.

What guidelines for the actor who portrays Conan would you give to your casting director?

We’re not interested in doing an Arnold look-alike contest!

What are your thoughts on the REH themes (“barbarism vs civilization” and “existentialism”)

As I already said, we are all getting a little fed up with our own civilization. I’m guilty of several remakes, but am fully aware that a remake of great material does not automatically equal success. A movie like this needs to hit the zeitgeist.
In all of my movies, I am drawn to tribal behavior since I grow easily bored with the antiseptic world in which we live. I like to give people a second hand idea of what its like to have dirt under your fingernails. Most of all, I like getting dirt under my nails making it! I want to create a cathartic experience!

New Look At Conan In Action

With the Bulgarian shoot now wrapped on Marcus Nispel's Conan, we've had our first look at Conan at rest, taking a no-doubt well-earned break from his pitiless quest for vengeance against the men who killed his dad.

And - lo! - here he is back in action, a bloodied Jason Momoa wielding the sword against one of the Hyborian age's legion of badasses, mustering enough steel-eyed intensity in the process to keep the Conan purist happy.

He'll need it. The new Conan is all-action and the barbarian's quest puts him up against Stephen Lang's Khalar Zym, a man unencumbered by boring stuff like conscience or morals. He is, as Lang says, "a mother****er". Says Lang: "Conan is 28 years younger than me and a big dude, so I have to depend upon my wolf-like wiles to defeat this young bull."

http://www.empireonline.com/images/u...onanaction.jpg

The first draft I wrote, I always undertook it as one of twelve. I always thought there would be twelve movies! But, unfortunately, I feel the producers of the movie misunderstood the real gold and they sold it short. Arnold [Schwarzenegger] should have come back every year or two years like James Bond, and done one.

Conan is the classical story by excellence. I much liked the idea that he had been a slave, had suffered and managed to rise. What is great in the Howard's novels is that Conan passes from the stage of peasant to that of a king. A young peasant gains his royalty through a series of tests and marry with one of the most beautiful society women. In my script, which concentrates several stories of Howard, Conan saves the life of one princess to whom one stole his kingdom. At the end of the film, after having reconquered her throne thanks to his assistance, she offers her hand in marriage to him so that he becomes king. But Conan refuses this honor. He indeed considers not to have still traversed sufficient way to reach such a load. He tells her: "I can't be a king this way, as your husband. I can't inherit the throne. I will earn my throne." So, he leaves her, like Charles Bronson or Clint Eastwood at the end of their westerns, with the sunset in the background. And he goes riding off to the second adventure, which was supposed to be the follow-up sequel. If they'd done it my way, they would have had a Bond-type series, 12-13 pictures, which is what I had wanted to do. It really was a formidable story, very mythical, the one of a young foreigner who makes the Good and who gets to the top of the pyramid.

I could not have made CONAN: it was a too big, much debated and very politicized project. At the time, the average budget of a movie in Hollywood was $8 million and I was more confortable with working on lower budgets.

I do not like the studios policy. They try to say to you what you must do, they do not pay attention to what you want to make. My problem is that I write ambitious scripts that require big budgets to be filmed. And, for CONAN, I had let myself be carried away.

My original draft was a $40 million movie. It dealt with the takeover of the planet and the forces of life being threatened by the forces of darkness. The mutant armies were taking over, and Conan was the lonely pagan - as opposed to Christian - hero; he was Roland at the pass, he was Tarzan, he was a mythic figure.