I really enjoyed this and didn't expect to. I liked the no-nonsense smash n slash mayhem, the ladies were total eye candy and Khalar Zym was excellent. Huge fun.
--------------------
Duty Now For The Future
cheers. I was hoping this could be a springboard into movies closer to the original stories by Howard, but alas it appears the overly zealous nerdboys and the Arnold worshipers feel it necessary to be negative nancies about everything. I will still watch it and enjoy it. I will also still watch the 82 version, I just really love the source material too so I call it BOB the barbarian to get a good chuckle and distance it from Conan.
shareI Agree that this movie was better! 1000% better than the 1980's Arnold films.
This movie presented Conan EXACTLY as I remembered him from my youth (Pre-Arnold). I spent many hours reading and re-reading numerous Robert E. Howard stories and adaptations by Roy Thomas, and L.Sprague De Camp, Lin Carter, etc.. that I could ever count.
The story line and designs looked as though they used any issue of 'The Savage Sword of Conan' as storyboard art.
Regarding Arnold movies, When they came out, it was all we had and I accepted it, hoping it would get better in future films. All the while hating the re-imagining of the characters. Any resemblance Arnold bears to the written descriptions of Conan are limited to his Muscles.
I can only believe that most that did not like the recent Conan movie because their exposure was limited to the 80's films, and even less of the various printed works.
The best Conan stories had the least dialogue from the title character.
'The Devil in Iron' being a perfect example.
This will always be the first attempt to adapt the literature to the movies for me.
I saw the Arnold Conan movies as nothing more than attempts at cashing in on Arnolds growing popularity.
Let's not even discuss 'Red Sonja.
Gotta go, the New Conan Blue-Ray is starting.
You are aware, I hope, this barely resembled the original Howard stories at all.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile.
I'll always miss you.
People are stupid.
I know how you feel about the '82 film.
But in comparison... this movie is nothing close. The '82 movie for all its faults is much closer.
It was NOT a faithful adaptation. AT ALL.
This Conan's look was modeled after the Dark Horse comics, with the scars from that famous Frazetta painting.
And find me ONE story where Conan's dad cuts him out of a womb, and screams a battle-cry for no damn reason.
This movie has nothing to do with the stories it's based on.
The creators CLAIMED it was based on the source material and not a remake of the Arnold films.
But let's look at this:
In the remake we have Conan learn about the Riddle of... *ahem* I mean the MYSTERY of Steel...don't wanna make it too blatant.
Then things start to look very familiar as Conan's village is sacked and burnt to a cinder... just like the '82 movie.
So, yeah the plot of this new film is undeniably a pastiche of the Conan films from ’82 and ’84.
First part, Conan’s blacksmith-warrior father and his village are attacked by the evil villain, a la Conan the Barbarian (1982).
The rest of the movie centers on the villain’s three-part quest for Godhood and world domination, a la Conan the Destroyer. But instead of “find gem, find horn, make sacrifice,” we get “find mask, find chosen one, make sacrifice.”
THIS is Conan:
http://comicattack.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/pic-11.jpg
Looks kinda like THIS:
http://comicattack.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Pic-2.jpg
THIS looks all wrong:
http://comicattack.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Pic-7.jpg
Not.Sure.if.Serious.
shareyou were watching "The Sword and the sorcerer" thats the only thing i can think to say nice ! Roger Waters would agree with me
shareHow do you feel OP that Arnold is back for a sequel to the classic orignal!?!? Ignoring this piece of s hit as though it never happened!! Hahahahahahahahaha!
Go Arnold.
Say 'No' to cartoon monsters as seen in The Thing 2011
"How do you feel OP that Arnold is back for a sequel to the classic orignal!?!? Ignoring this piece of s hit as though it never happened!! Hahahahahahahahaha!"
-------
I think the fact that he's returning says more about his waning career than anything else. lol.
I think the fact that he's returning says more about his waning career than anything else. lol.
I think you mean "credibility", not "creditability". But hey, if you prefer Arnold, more power to you. I preferred the new version, hence this thread.
By the way, I like your sig. The make up effects in 1982's "The Thing" were light years better than the digital crap in the remake.
By the way, I like your sig. The make up effects in 1982's "The Thing" were light years better than the digital crap in the remake.
And 'The Thing' from 1982 was a remake anyway.
P.S. Just watched the 2011 version of Conan. It was S H I T.
Wait... you're serious? Oh my.
shareUm, nope. I'd say it has more to do with everybody hating this one so much, he saw the opportunity to come back and give the fans what they really wanted.
Since you've been living under a rock, I have to tell you that Arnie hasn't exactly been in the acting business for a while. He was a governor of a small tiny state called California. That doesn't leave much time for his acting career, does it?
lol
Do you even think before you hit that "post reply" button?
[deleted]
I agree that you are a person who needed attention.
shareI liked it. Great battle scenes. I used to work for the game development company that created the Age of Conan PC game. I enjoyed that game quite a bit and this movie looked and felt just like that game. Costumes, weapons, etc. Momoa is convincing as Conan IMO.
Just watch it and enjoy it rather than comparing it to the Arnold original.