Battle of the Barbarians: Which Conan Script is the Victor?

Written by: Big Ross, CC2K Staff Writer

Round 4: Respect for the Character

There's no denying that Arnold did for Conan what James Whale's horror classic Frankenstein did for that character.  In Mary Shelly's novel the monster is agile, intelligent, and even eloquent.  Yet when most people think of the monster (besides incorrectly bestowing him with his creator's name) they think of the lumbering, moaning, brute of Whale's famous 1933 film.  Though we see in Barbarian that Conan was taught to read, write, and appreciate literature as well as fight, not to mention that in Howard's stories Conan is a character of cunning and intelligence, most of us think of Conan as a muscled meat head thanks to Arnold.  That's a shame, but at least Milius attempts to rectify this in King Conan.  In his script Conan is indeed wiser as well as older, and it shows.  He has an extensive amount of dialogue and recites poetry and philosophy.  This would indeed be a challenge for Arnold to pull off, but if he's going to have any kind of a career as an actor in his twilight years he needs to show he can do more than his early days of simply kicking ass.  With proper direction, I for one think he could rise to the challenge.   

Yet even though Conan assumes a more regal role in this script, do not for a second think that this is some kind of "passing of the torch" from Conan to the character of Kon, or that Conan is left with little to do while we follow the adventures of his son.  Typically in Howard's original stories even as a king Conan must often resort to his violent, barbaric ways to find a solution to his problems.  King Conan is no exception to this, and as such maintains the spirit of the character.

All that is not to say that Conan fails the character.  Certainly in terms of his physical appearance the screenwriters have taken pains to preserve Howard's original vision for Conan, which really doesn't match Arnold (of course, it remains to be seen if casting in this regard will be successful).  Also, Conan makes an effort to showcase the Cimmerian's almost "Jack of all trades" nature, giving us glimpses of Conan as a thief and pirate as well as warrior.  But there's one aspect of Conan's character that this remake leaves out.  Again, I'm no expert, and I'm unsure if this was originally included by Howard, or was added as part of Milius's interpretation, but the Conan of Donnelly & Oppenheimer's script seems to lack his characteristic faith in Crom. The god's name alone makes up roughly half of Arnold's dialogue in the first film, and we also get the great scene before the battle of the mounds where he also prays to him. I couldn't find the video, but here's the audio of Conan's prayer, as delivered by Arnold:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWEQiW2TYAM

Even with that thick accent and little acting ability, Arnold manages to pull this off in just the right way.  He's reverent, intense, and dismissive in all the right places.  In short, he prays as you'd expect the barbarian to pray.  By contrast, in Conan by my count Crom is spoken by the Cimmerian a total of three times, and near the end of the script we have this exchange:

TAMARA

I am afraid. I feel myself changing, and
it frightens me. I don't know what the
gods want of me.

CONAN

To damnation with the gods. We make our
own destiny, and when we see it, we grab
hold without hesitation.

You might think that Conan's dismissal here is no different from the ending of his prayer with "to hell with you" in Barbarian, but I'd argue that they're not on the same level, if for no other reason (and I admit it's a weak one) that it feels different in Conan.  Whereas Milius develops and explores Conan's faith in Crom even further in King Conan, I find its absence in Conan disappointing.

Decision: King Conan

Round 5: Respect for Story

We can argue all day about how "true" these scripts are to Howard's stories and character, whether they include too many special effects or not enough, but at the end of the day the thing that should trump everything else is fairly simple: which tells the better story? Here again the edge goes to King Conan. Milius has written a story that is more natural and more organic. By that I mean that it is more believable.

Okay, time out. I know you're thinking I'm crazy for saying that. We're talking about stories written in a fictional age of civilization before recorded history full of monsters and magic. What I mean is, if you remove the fantastic element form Milius's story, what remains is a tale of war, empire building, political intrigue, and royal assassinations that could have been lifted straight out of a history textbook.  By contrast, it is clear Conan suffers from the plague afflicting most action films coming out these days.  Instead of simply exploring the revenge story of Conan the Barbarian, or adapting any of Howard's original stories (where Conan was rarely if ever out to save the world) this script includes a big, overly convoluted, and ultimately dumb plot with the fate of the world hanging in the balance that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny (nor likely repeated viewings).

Decision: King Conan

Final Decision

For this fan at least, Donnelly and Oppenheimer's effort (though admirable and not altogether bad) can't compete with the tale weaved by Milius in King Conan.  In all probability we'll never see Arnold return to the role of Conan, nor Milius's script turned into a movie.  Nor are we likely to ever get to see what Milius had planned when ended his script for King Conan with the following:

But there is more–Conan, Kon, Aeldra, and Diera must find their destiny in the great struggle to come.  This too will be told in "Beneath My Sandaled Feet", the final installment of R.E. Howard's "Conan".

By Crom, I don't know about you, but I'd like to hear that tale.