0
I'm a fan of Conan, usually don't mind a bit of the old Schwarzenneger, and love fantasy: but I think the original Conan sucks. The only thing I liked about it was Thulsa Doom's personality and how he was a charismatic leader rather than an outright tyrannical warlock.
A problem with translating Conan into Hollywood-style film is that Conan is not a typical Hollywood character (vague statement, I know) and doesn't even have a character arc. In the books, Conan doesn't need a reason to go around laying down his brutal, animal justice on the foul creatures and powers of the world: he's a barbarian, he's a fighter, he's a thief, and he does whatever the hell he wants. The whole deal with "Conan's village gets slaughtered (laughable; Cimmerians don't take **** from nobody), Conan spends a decade turning some wheel, Conan has a tacky training montage in an attempt to persuade you that he's capable of undertaking the task ahead despite the fact he just spent a decade turning some wheel," just annoyed me.
I understand that films aren't books and that the structure is different, but ultimately, why copy a book to film if you're going to make it stupid? For money, that's why, and that's a frustrating reason in itself.
And I thought Schwarzenneger was stupid in it.
I know that renewing old franchises with brand new "origins" stories is overdone, but I feel like Conan needs it.
/rant
I read a while ago in Empire magazine that the production crew are planning to try and retain the spirit of the book and avoid trying to give Conan a character arc.
Hopefully it'll turn out well.
@jrs
tl;dr
:P