I'm a fan of Robert E. Howard and the original Conan stories, so it was with great trepidation that I received the news of a new Conan movie. The other day I picked up the novelization of the movie, by Michael Stackpole, because I wanted to see how true it stayed to Howard's vision of the character. I knew Stackpole was a fan of Robert E. Howard as well, so I thought maybe there was a chance. It's hit and miss, though frankly more miss than hit. Stackpole is constrained by the screenplay, I suppose, and he does try to capture some of the Conan of the original stories, but in the end Conan still comes across as too "civilized," too thoughtful in his approach. Conan is not stupid in the original stories by any means. He's cunning. But his circumspection and wisdom come at a later age. In this book, Conan is too little the barbarian early on, though there are certainly flashes of it here and there (presumably Stackpole doing what he can with the story). Anyone else read it? Anyone going to go see the film?
I might go see the film, but only because (I think) Conan is being played by the guy who played Drogo.
I think he does a good job as Drogo. But I am hesitant to picture him as Conan. I don't know if it is because he doesn't look musclely enough or maybe I'm just used to the Governator's physical portrayal of Conan. Either way, no matter how good/bad the movie may be, it's got Ron Perlman in it as Conan's dad. It will at least be entertaining while he is alive.
I hear you, Ellipse. Honestly, I felt Arnold was a big too massive for the Conan in the stories. Conan is a big, powerful guy, but I also pictured him as bit more lean and athletic than the body-builder physique. I'll go see the movie, so I guess I'll find out how it goes then. But the original Conan was...I don't know, somehow more animalistic than what is in the novelization.
