Conan - Part 1

[Slushy]

This is what happens when you try to replace the classics, especially with an unknown star. I'm so glad this movie flopped hard and rightfully so! t:

 

[rogue trooper]

This is what happens when you try to replace the classics, especially with an unknown star. I'm so glad this movie flopped hard and rightfully so! t:

I guess to you Johny Weismuller will always be the one and only Tarzan, right? How dare anyone try to actually do Burroughs'.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

It's like Nispel himself said, you don't call any new Sherlock Holmes property a remake. He didn't make it as a remake, then it's not a remake. It's as simple as that.

It doesn't matter whether there are similarities or not.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, the unfortunate thing is, that so many ignorant people out there actually THINK Conan originated in the Arnold movies. And while those films certainly deserve credit for making Conan a popular character, that doesn't mean that a new film that features the character is a remake of either of those.

 

[THANOSRULES]

Look , I loved the movie and the crowd that is saying this is a "remake" I can understand..

First the Movie is named the exact same title, "conan the barbarian" Howard used MANY surnames for Conan, and the studio did not HAVE to use that title.

Second, the TITLE Conan the Barbarian is written in a very similiar "Font" as the original.


The Movie also does mix in a FEW homages to the original movie, that Howard never really wrote. The Childhood scene of seeing the scouts and invaders in the woods, and the quasi "riddle of steel" reference.

THe Homages i would have liked to see were aspects of the arnold movie that "could" have worked in a much more howard story, namely the iconic look of the bad guys, better characterization of the bad guys...the superior transition of scenes and passage of time...and the music.

I thought there was also a marked interest in making almost every scene in the arnold movie "artistic" and "iconic"...which is mostly missing.

I can see that with the "heavy mettle" dubbed advertisements, music was more or less an after thought...and it shows.


It saddens me to see people "root" for this movie to fail, even if you don't love it hollywood will blackball barbarian and the sword and sorcery genre.


I don't think this film SHOULD be considered a remake, but I can understand why...my point being the film should have borrwed a little bit more in terms of "style" from CTB 1...while keeping there more Howard tone

 

[Whiskey Tango]

It saddens me to see people "root" for this movie to fail, even if you don't love it hollywood will blackball barbarian and the sword and sorcery genre.

This is a good point. It always irks me when someone says they want a movie to fail, as if they have some sort of personal stake in it, like maybe the director beat them up in high school or something. But when a movie like this tanks, it not only lessens the chances of another Conan movie, but sword & sorcery and fantasy style films as well. Hollywood watches trends and these things have further reaching effects than just the one movie.

 

[terry78]

It's human nature to want to see something you dislike fall on its face, stupid as that mindset is.

 

[C. Lee]

This is what happens when you try to replace the classics, especially with an unknown star. I'm so glad this movie flopped hard and rightfully so! t:

Your previous infractions and warnings for trolling fell on deaf ears huh?

 

[Wolvieboy17]

This wasn't part of our deal, Blackheart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[The Navigator]

This is what happens when you try to replace the classics, especially with an unknown star. I'm so glad this movie flopped hard and rightfully so! t:

Yeah, and I'll bet you prefer The Thing From Another World over John Carpenter's 80s classic, right?

Or the so called original Wizard of Oz, which was in fact one of many entries in a long line of remakes.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I understand why many Arnie fans view this as a remake, because they simply have no other frame of reference for Conan. Doesn't mean it IS a remake, but I can understand why so many people are mistaken.

 

[Secret Fawful]

Yeah, and I'll bet you prefer The Thing From Another World over John Carpenter's 80s classic, right?

Or the so called original Wizard of Oz, which was in fact one of many entries in a long line of remakes.

And what would be wrong with that, other than not falling in line with your personal tastes.

 

[PunisherPoster]

It saddens me to see people "root" for this movie to fail, even if you don't love it hollywood will blackball barbarian and the sword and sorcery genre.

Not only that, but R-rated action films as well. Of course, when a movie like Die Hard 5 is finally released with another PG-13 rating, I'm sure fanboys will go berserk complaining about Hollywood "ruining" the action genre. The truth is, it's been ruined for years- completely overshadowed by superhero flicks and family fare.

I didn't have high expectations for this new Conan, but I could see how much potential there was for a sequel. Unfortunately, most fans today are more interested in trying to send a message to Hollywood than giving anything a chance to develop. So we end up with a decade of failed reboots and movie franchises that are never allowed to go anywhere.

 

[C. Lee]

Yeah, and I'll bet you prefer The Thing From Another World over John Carpenter's 80s classic, right?

Or the so called original Wizard of Oz, which was in fact one of many entries in a long line of remakes.

Personally, I do like the 50's THING over the Carpenter remake....and I think Carpenter's version was great...it's just that I have an affinity for the original.

You see...I believe in the fact that different people have different likes and dislikes. If they dislike a movie I like...no big deal at all. I just don't like the trolls that come in and say they hope a movie fails and the like.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Most definitely agree.

 

[rogue trooper]

Yeah, the unfortunate thing is, that so many ignorant people out there actually THINK Conan originated in the Arnold movies.

....hence, I hope Lionsagate will deliver a dvd/blu-ray of CTB that has some pretty rich features, like a history of the character that covers everything from the 30's pulps, the Gnome book editions from the 50's, the Frazetta covers for the Lancer books from the late 60's, Marvel's adaptations in the 70's, etc... Educate these group of people once and for all about what Conan is, and in the process, make this new film be much more appreciated.

 

[Shon]

Whatever, ya'll can call it a remake if you like. Maybe you can find someone else to argue about it with you.

I am not sure if this was directed to me or not, but I never said it was a remake. My only point is that they should have stayed clear of the 82 classic if they wanted their own identity and not had the similarities they had in the film.

 

[GhostPoet]

This is what happens when you try to replace the classics, especially with an unknown star. I'm so glad this movie flopped hard and rightfully so! t:

you talk like the previous films were amazing. They weren't. At all.

 

[webs]

I quite like the 80's version, and really wanted this version to do well..!! A bit saddened that it did poorly at the BO..!! Guess will wait for the dvd/bluray..

 

[Wolvieboy17]

^^Lol.

"I really wanted this film to do well ...... Oh well, I'M not supporting it"

 

[ChewySoup]

you talk like the previous films were amazing. They weren't. At all.

Nonsense! - The original Arnie Conan is epic. Conan the Destroyer not so much, but Conan the Barbarian = EPIC. Still one of my favorite movies.

 

[webs]

^^Lol.

"I really wanted this film to do well ...... Oh well, I'M not supporting it"

Well I would have been interested in this interpretation doing well.. Thus supporting the Conan character on screen..!! Like ChewySoup said which I agree, original CTB = EPIC and CTD was quite disappointing.. therefore for the character to have been revived with this version would have bode well for more films.. but alas we will have to wait and see..!!

 

[batdude]

Yeah I liked this. Momoa doesn't quite have Arnold's style but who does?

 

[Raiden]

This is what happens when you try to replace the classics, especially with an unknown star. I'm so glad this movie flopped hard and rightfully so! t:

So in your mind, every remake is an attempt to "replace the classics"? Do you know that Conan the Barbarian wasn't originated from Arnold's movies?

Anyway, I'm a bit shocked at the low returns in its first weekend. I know Jason Momoa isn't a huge star yet, but neither was Arnold back when he starred in those Conan movies, and Momoa did get some boost from his appearance as Khal Drogo in the Game of Thrones series. I guess a sequel is out of the question, then.

 

[T'Jai]

Conan Was Horrible a little too much quick cut action, extreme expository scenery chewing, and offensive overuse of the Lion King baby raise shot... I LOVED IT!!!!!!!