Or you could say the 80's version trashed the original Conan

Yeah...only recently have I started working through the R. E. Howard "Conan" stories and even after just a few I think I can safely say that the character was ill-served by John Milius and Ah-nult. I still like the movie--it's one of the few really serious fantasy movies from an era that was churning out mostly goofy crap like the the Beastmaster films or Willow--but Howard's Conan is much more interesting than Milius's version.

I ran into this interview with Ron Cobb a while back - he was the production designer, I really like a lot of his artwork - and basically they were trying to do more this concept of what Conan's actual story was and down the ages it got forgotten and reinterpreted until you get Howard's stories. Cobb gave the example of the Atlantean Sword sequence got changed and filtered 'till you have what happens in Howard - where the king rises to terrible unlife to fight Conan. So more of the "feel" of Conan than a literal telling...

I liked Arnie's version. I actually liked the recent Conan a lot more in terms of it having the "feel" of the stories. Both cases have that whole origin thing I'm really kinda burned out on with Hollywood interpretations. I'm a lot more interested in seeing a character in the middle of things - I'm not so interested in learning their origin and having that resolved in a giant final fight with the nemesis who helped make them this awesome dude. I'm a lot more interested in the character showing up and being awesome in some way which doesn't have to resolve his or her entire life story.

My own "well how would you do Conan if it were your movie?" is basically have a little introductory sequence which sets up who Conan is (I'd probably do The Frost Giant's Daughter because it's a really simple little story and gets across the main point that Conan is this not particularly nice badass who lives in a fantasy world which does have big angry giants), and then move into some sort of longer more involved story (probably Red Nails because it's so quintessential and cool). At no point would I feel the need to explain Conan having some sort of giant lifelong quest for revenge beyond oh hey, treasure and getting drunk and laid is pretty awesome.

I ran into this interview with Ron Cobb a while back...and basically they were trying to do more this concept of what Conan's actual story was and down the ages it got forgotten and reinterpreted until you get Howard's stories.

Oh, that's an interesting take. But I do think it ends up making Conan into a more passive figure who tends to blunder into things, get easily surprised, and survive less by wits than by luck. Not that Conan doesn't benefit from a lot of lucky breaks in the stories so far as I've read them but he comes across as a bit more...capable?

I'm a lot more interested in seeing a character in the middle of things...

God, yes! When you look at all the really great adventure films from the '70s and '80s, the ones that made the modern action-adventure genre--Jaws, Star Wars (only the first one--the rest are inferior), Raiders of the Lost Ark--not a one of them drivel on about origins. You get tantalizing hints of backstory but for the most part these are characters in the middle of their lives forced to deal with immediate threats.

Blame Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers, I guess, and blame George Lucas for buying into their "every story is a Hero's Journey(TM)" bullshit.

I don't actually think that's it.

I think people use origin-derived stories as a tidy (complete story arc) and dramatic package (I mean, what could be more dramatic than character wrapping up everything with the villain who set their process in motion?), with the additional explanation of why the character's wandering around with their abilities. But I think that winds up being kinda lazy, and people actually aren't that invested in having an explanation of character origin.

Comic books are my proof. People are constantly becoming comic fans, but most of these people don't need giant origin stories. It's enough to have that little one sentence summary that Spidey got his powers from being bitten by a radioactive spider, or to that the Fantastic Four were in a space accident, or heck, just that Doctor Strange is a master magician (without ever going into a one-sentence summary of how he became a magician as part of a spiritual search after having to give up surgery as a profession). Most people who pick up X-Men and go oh cool! do not know the details about how Professor X and Magneto worked together in Israel, or how Professor X wound up disabled, or how Professor X met Storm as a small homeless kid in Nairobi trying to pick his pocket. Nobody needs that. All they need is that you've got Professor X, Magneto, and Storm and they're awesome. Heck, the extreme example is Wolverine. For years we didn't have Wolvie's origin prior to his implants, and it was more fun to not have a definitive answer. What did Wolvie do during WWII, in the 20s, or in Japan? Fans had the freedom to think up anything, and that was 'way cooler.

That's a convincing Ahnold right there.

Oh, clever. I like.

I saw that as "all basal POLEdancers." I was terribly disappointed that pole dancing wasn't involved.

By his own hand he will become King of Aquilonia® (a trademarked subsidiary of OCP Corporation--all rights reserved)

We're actually watching Running Man right now. I giggled at this. :D

The puns, they hurt? What next? Big Trouble in Little Escape from LA?

We need more art of this. Definitely need to talk.