Conan's master let him go. Why? - Conan the Barbarian (1982) Discussion

[–] Navaros 10 years ago

This is a major plot hole in the film and one of its main flaws. The film gives no reason for why his master/owner should have let him go - that's straight up bad storytelling, period.

They should have had Conan assassinate his master/owner, and then escape. That would have made a lot more sense.

reply

[–] MarxNSparks 9 years ago

The novelization of the film explains how Conan got his freedom. It's not like it happens in the film, I'll say that much.

reply

[–] nicolas28 9 years ago

The movie works in allegories.

His master is not a guy who owes him in reality. The scene represents Conan gain strenght and knowledge to start his path to true freedom.

Later that scene, after he lost "all he has learned or had" and about to die eaten by wolves (fear), he is only saved by gaining new ancient knowledge carved in the old atlantean sword (nicely put by Conan taping his head with it)

The movie is not about Conan, but Conan represents humanity and his path to enlightment.

reply

[–] ncsr11 9 years ago

Self-explanatory in the narration.

reply

[–] contreraschz 9 years ago

I listened to a Roy Thomas interview where he says there was supposed to be a scene where an earthquake frees Conan from his cage and he escapes. The scene was never done for budget reasons so the master is supposed to be drunk and releases him by accident. I guess they added the narration so it made more sense.

reply

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

I guess they added the narration so it made more sense.

...except that the added narration doesn't make sense. It doesn't say anything about his master being drunk. The master does kind of look drunk, but that alone is done too subtly to be sure of whether he is drunk or not. And even if he was drunk, then that still doesn't explain why he'd let Conan go. Drunk people only do things that they want to do while sober but are too chicken to do. So even with the drunk angle, the film would still need to explain the master's motivation for wanting to let Conan go, which it doesn't.

An earthquake freeing Conan would be equally stupid as is the master freeing him for no reason in the film as it is given. Conan should have taken his own freedom.

reply

[–] super-joey 8 years ago

The timing of the scene is curious... Coming right on the heels of the "To crush your enemies..." line. They cut to the red head man after Conan says that famous line. The next thing ya know, he's setting Conan free and even looks on the verge of tears as he does so. Is it pride in Conan? Or shame that he knows he "ruined" this once innocent kid?

It's kind of interesting to speculate.

reply

[–] NotoriousRio 8 years ago

Why did his master take him to Khitai (China) which must have been expensive, then educate him only to let him go? I think it was cause he was drunk or a thank you for making him so rich.

reply

[–] ryto_69 8 years ago

This is a good question, I don't think he let Conan go out of fear, because Conan was treated like a prized pet in my opinion, he had reading and writing material, good quality food, women, all his comforts taken care of and he loved the arena as we were told by the narrator/chronicler.. personally, I think the Red-haired Man was fond of and proud of Conan and wanted to set him free to live a life according to Conan's own will, do deeds only Conan and those nearby will witness, not just the deeds they command Conan to do in the arena to entertain and win gold and otherwise.. I actually think the Red-haired Man was a bit of a romantic (not the lovey dovey kind) in that he had a way of looking at things, a gleam in his eye, just something I picked up on from the actor.. and maybe one drunken night he acted upon some idealised view of Conan going off to live "days of high adventure" and stumbled out into the night to break Conan's chains.. maybe he regreted it in the morning though.

reply

[–] rateater (10246) a year ago

must have been some offscreen angst

reply