Conan - Part 2

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]347560[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]288124[/split]

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Personally, I hate anyone judging anyone by age on these forums. It always ends up being about people trying to gain status or lower someone else's.

No, what i do is judge people on what they say, not what age they are.
If you read what I said you would see i was saying that it ofetn turns out to be the youngsters who hit out with the 'nostalgia' line, which is patronising to us old farts, we do actually know whay we like stuff.

But, of course, what tends to happen on internet boards, and in real life, is that the most smart assian, patronising comments usually come from punks who have never really truly been tested in life yet, whether that is down to their age, or the fact they stay in the house on the computer all day safe in their little coccoon, does not matter, an ignoramous is an ignoramous, I don't give a sh** what age they are, I don't respect them.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Getting tired? You should have a lie down. Maybe think of the good ol' days? :P

 

[rogue trooper]

In Spain, "Conan The Barbarian" was #2 at the box office last weekend. http://boxofficemojo.com/intl/spain/?yr=2011&wk=33&p=.htm

Anyway, here's how the film is doing overseas:


FOREIGN TOTAL $5,500,000

Australia $666,220
Czech Republic $104,290
Estonia $18,017
France $1,270,995
Latvia $9,584
Lithuania $19,190
Romania $97,385
Spain $1,733,218

Worldwide total: $16,506,106

Today it opens on the U.K., and Switzerland(French speaking region). Tomorrow on Greece. Friday on Ireland, and Finalnd. On September it will open on Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Turkey, and Switzerland(German speaking region). We'll see how it goes.

 

[rogue trooper]

According to conan.com poster "Seamvs", in Canada, CTB did a bit better also, being #2 at the b.o:

1. Rise of the Planet of the Apes
2. Conan the Barbarian in RealD 3D
3. Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World in RealD 3D
4. The Smurfs in RealD 3D
5. The Help

 

[bullets]

No, what i do is judge people on what they say, not what age they are.
If you read what I said you would see i was saying that it often turns out to be the youngsters who hit out with the 'nostalgia' line, which is patronising to us old farts, we do actually know whay we like stuff.

But, of course, what tends to happen on internet boards, and in real life, is that the most smart assed, patronising comments usually come from punks who have never really truly been tested in life yet, whether that is down to their age, or the fact they stay in the house on the computer all day safe in their little coccoon, does not matter, an ignoramous is an ignoramous, I don't give a sh** what age they are, I don't respect them.

What's funny is that I saw Conan (1982) for the first time last year. I just never got around to watching it full length. So if the nostalgia line was directed at my comment it shows total ignorance.

 

[PunisherPoster]

...

 

[bullets]

To be fair, "nostalgia" isn't limited to when a person views a film. Ironically, that form of nostalgia often works against an older title: You remember loving something as a kid, only to later discover it no longer holds up. The more powerful form of nostalgia is when it's not a particular title you're drawn to, but the general style or era in which the film was created.

There are plenty of older films that I never saw until recently, yet still fell in love with because of the way in which they were originally made. Many of them were never even considered "good" films- either then or now- but they had a certain charm that appealed to my cinematic tastes.

In the case of the original Conan, I was never that fond of it as a kid. I'm not even sure I ever watched it more than once. Compared to most of Arnold's films, it moved very slowly and didn't have a lot of action. However, once I revisited it much later, I was instantly drawn to the older style of filmmaking: The matte paintings, locations, amazing score, etc. So even though I had no real love for it as a childhood favorite, it still tapped into my great sense of nostalgia for that entire era of blockbusters from the late 1970s and early 1980s.

That makes sense . I'm drawn to Harryhousen films for that reason. I think that person was on the other side of the argument though.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

To be fair, "nostalgia" isn't limited to when a person views a film. Ironically, that form of nostalgia often works against an older title: You remember loving something as a kid, only to later discover it no longer holds up. The more powerful form of nostalgia is when it's not a particular title you're drawn to, but the general style or era in which the film was created.

There are plenty of older films that I never saw until recently, yet still fell in love with because of the way in which they were originally made. Many of them were never even considered "good" films- either then or now- but they had a certain charm that appealed to my cinematic tastes.

In the case of the original Conan, I was never that fond of it as a kid. I'm not even sure I ever watched it more than once. Compared to most of Arnold's films, it moved very slowly and didn't have a lot of action. However, once I revisited it much later, I was instantly drawn to the older style of filmmaking: The matte paintings, locations, amazing score, etc. So even though I had no real love for it as a childhood favorite, it still tapped into my great sense of nostalgia for that entire era of blockbusters from the late 1970s and early 1980s.

What it sounds like though, is that you were used to certain whiz bang types of action movies when you were a kid, but as you got older you mellowed out a bit, stopped sucking down on the sugar sticks and started smoking yr pipe, and tuned into the pace of CtB.

Because the other things you refer to can be construed as aesthetic choices.
Preffering one type of sfx to the other, I would say that didn't have anything to do with 'nostalgia' per se, just personal pref of certain artistic styles.

I mean, go watch that Richard Chamberlain Indy Jones rip off, King Solomon's Mines, and come back and tell me if your 'nostalgia' for that style of filmaking gets you through that boredello.

anyway, I think the poster i was talking to was reffering to the meaning of nostalgia in the meaning it is mostly used for, looking back at a film we have a personal history with through the old smello-vision spectacles.

edit: Actually in regards to Ray Harryhausen, aye, I always like to watch his stop motion models, but most of the time i can't stand watching the rest of the film, like those sinbad flicks, or I get bored by some of Clash of the Titans.

I think it is more down to the artistic choices though, and what aesthetics appeal to you, rather than a time period, because what 'nostalgia' suggests is that your critical faculties take a back seat, as you are blinded by memories, or an attachment to the past.
Whereas, with things like that Rich Chamberlian Indy jones rip off, or a sub-par Harryhausen, my critical faculties are not blinded whatsoever by the fact of the script or acting being terrible, even though there is a old style of filmaking there that I may be attached to.

 

[WormyT]

I enjoyed Conan for the most Part.
I loved the fighting and the sound effects.Nice a brutal. Rose McGowan looked very hot and a lot of the scenery/Sets worked. Loved Ron Pearlman and all the scenes with young Conan.

My biggest Complaint was the lack of a decent enemy for him. I mean an old guy and his daughter vs. a 6 foot 4 Hulk is hardly thrilling. Its actually kind of unfair and I kind of felt bad when she lost her Claw in such a fashion. My girlfriend was really angry that Conan cheated by butting into the girlfight!The Magic snake helmet did NOTHING for Khalar. No extra powers! And that's what he was looking for all this time.
They should have given that giant guy (Akhun)a bigger role and made him more of a Bad A$$. He could have been Khalars Bodyguard instead of a Giant octopus babysitter. Wasted character.
That creature was also kind of lame too. It had no head or even a decently designed mouth. But I appreciate the effort to put in at least ONE monster.
The music was kind of boring too. Especially at the end. ZERO DRAMA and forgetful.
I have the 1980's soundtrack on my itunes and its just so incredible by itself.

I don't know...its just a shame this character can't have an A list budget. But I give them a B+ for effort. They really did try.

 

[PunisherPoster]

...

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Aye, i did understand what you were saying, but my point was that for the most part, when people say they enjoy a film , they mean that they actually enjoy the script, acting and direction, not that they get all misty eyed over the fact the monster was animated in play-doh vision.

and when someone does enjoy a film for the reasons you specified, well, they are not really enjoying the movie, are they? and they should say so, because what you are enjoying is the manner in which the film was made, it's like saying, 'Oh, i liked the type of paint that guy used, but I didn't like his painting, it takes me back to the type of paint i used to sniff as a child.'

Because people in here were saying they actually enjoyed the old Conan film, that is very different from what you are saying, which is, you enjoy watching films that you don't think are good movies, if they are made in a certain way, so you should be specific about that, that you 'didn't actually think it was a good movive, but i enjoyed wathcing it because...'

So, when someone says they enjoy a film, you should take that at face value, that they are talking about enjoying the intended experience, and not come in with the insulting patronising manner of accusing them of putting their critical faculties on the backburner and kidding themselves on that they like it through 'nostalgia'. Because you should grant the person with enough intelligence and integrity to specify that they enjoyed a film only because it was made in play-doh, and that is was in actual fact, a bad film.

edit: unless of course, if you feel the person actually is kidding themselves on because of something they said, you cite that, and then you can challenge their opinion on the film.

 

[PunisherPoster]

...

 

[C. Lee]

Box office intake has never been a way to judge if I like a film or not. There are many box office bonanzas and great critical acclaimed movies that I don't like or haven't even bothered to watch. There a great many box office failures and critically denounced movies that I love.

I've been watching movies for over 45 years. All kinds of movies. All genres and decades made. This week I watched the 1916 silent 20,000 League Under the Sea, the 2011 Conan the Barbarian, and the 1979 Reb Brown Captain America movies.

The point being...I love movies. There are times I study them and ruminate on the cinematography and what the director really meant when he had the shadow fall across the lead actors face in that one crucial scene....and sometimes I just want to be entertained. And if that means watching a badly dubbed Italian/German/Greece co-production of a Hercules Vs Mongols movie....I don't care.

 

[Shawn Wayne]

There's been a lot of debate over this film about how they got it right or how they totally screwed it up. But what I am not hearing is perhaps the most important thing: What did everyone think of Will Ferrell's uncredited performance as Conan's father???

 

[bullets]

Box office intake has never been a way to judge if I like a film or not. There are many box office bonanzas and great critical acclaimed movies that I don't like or haven't even bothered to watch. There a great many box office failures and critically denounced movies that I love.

That's how I am. I have to be interested in the premise. There's several Oscar winning films I haven't bothered to watch. I don't think it's a matter of bad taste , it's just different interests. Also like you said I don't need every film to be a life altering experience. Sometime I just want to see people kicking ass and so I'll pop in an action movie. It doesn't mean I won't appreciate the subtlety of a Terrence Malick film.

 

[EML420]

I saw the movie sunday and never got around to posting in here I didnt think it was that bad to be honest.

I enjoyed for what it was an action movie my taste in movies is weird I guess I love mindless action movies and love stuff like the Godfather.

But on Conan I have never seen Arnolds but while I was watching it Conan it had a few similarties to the Scorpion king.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

You're upset because someone suggested CtB owes its reputation to nostalgia, which in a backhanded way, implies it is not a great film. However, consider what happened earlier in this very thread: Howard Hawks' The Thing From Another World is not only a great film, but a masterpiece of its particular genre and era. It's every bit as significant to 1950s science fiction as CtB is to 1980s sword and sorcery, and has even been preserved in the National Film Registry.

Yet when someone admitted to liking it here, someone else thought that person was joking. By your logic, that should not have happened. It's a quality film and therefore should have been instantly acknowledged as such- regardless of how anyone feels about the style or era.

The reality is that no film lives forever, no matter how great the people of that generation may consider it to be. A critically-acclaimed masterpiece may be lost over time, while a box office failure like The Wizard of Oz can go on to impact multiple generations. One day, I'm sure someone will look back at CtB and wonder what people saw in it- just as many now do with the original Thing. Of course, I should probably point out that when I say that, I'm doing so on the assumption that everyone here is intelligent enough not to feel insulted or patronized by a random post.

Actually, the poster did not think they were joking because they liked the film, they thought they were joking because they preffered it over the John Carpenter film.
That could have been to do with the quality of the script, acting, directing in comparison to another film's script, acting , directing, which they obviously found far superior, not necesarily to do with when the film was made, or even that they found the film without artistic merit whatsoever, they could have been citing mere artistic differences.

If they had said 'you must be joking' because he just said he liked the movie, that would be completely different, that would suggest they found no merit in the original film at all, and is a completely different statement to make.

Also, my point was, if you are going to come in and challenge someone's opinion, back it up by citing things they have said, don't just come in and act like you are some kind of all seeing mindreader. If you suspect they are kidding themselves on about the quality of a film due to 'nostalgia', and are prejudiced by a sentimental attachment to the film, say so, but say why you say so, otherwsie it's just plain insulting.

I'm talking about debating honourably, and not being some smart ass who comes in and just says a glib insulting comment and then runs off.

Oh, and btw, I took offence at a personal dig that was aimed at me, so please don't question my intelligence over what I should be getting 'upset' over, some people think they can just come in and say whatever the hell they like to me, and get away with it, well, that smart alec little punk hasn't been back in the thread since he made that personal comment to me, and he should think twice before trying any of that crap with me, or taking any orders from his 'masters' who send him in to do that crap in attempts to wind me up, cause I'll just play by the rules and roll right over his posts.
they'll just make me look good in their attempts to make me look bad, so, y'know, if they are smart, they'll be scared about that, but they're not really, so they'll come in again and again at me, and I'll shrug them off. They're just the usual types who know how to bang up an essay, i mean who doesn't? lol except these folk think that sets them above other people, stupid. But they really don't know how to think and fight on their feet and improvise, they are not good fighters at all really.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Of course, I should probably point out that when I say that, I'm doing so on the assumption that everyone here is intelligent enough not to feel insulted or patronized by a random post.

Ok, thinking about it, you've just revealed yourself here.

Going back to what I said in my earlier post about that, people being sent in to insult me in an attempt to wind me up and make me look bad, well with that statement you just revealed yourself to be cut from the same cloth there buddy.

Calling my intelligence into question over feeling insulted over something like that, well, you know damn well that is not what my intense rebuttal was about. You know damn well that little punk was bringing up my past as an alcoholic with his little 'lying in bed thinking about the good old days.' remark, and that's what I was replying with in mind.

I don't know who sent you in, the irish guy, the kung-fu guy, the top lawyer for the city, or whether you are doing this off your own back, and I don't really care, but you've now revealed yourslef not to be so much interested in debating about art as you are in trying to wind me up by bismirching my name.

Now, you can come in and plead ignorance blah blah blah, but I have heard it all before, so go through the motions, plead ignorance, but your only impact from such a reply will be to convince a bunch of lurkers, who don't know what goes on around here, that you are innocent.

 

[C. Lee]

Actually, the poster did not think they were joking because they liked the film, they thought they were joking because they preffered it over the John Carpenter film.
That could have been to do with the quality of the script, acting, directing in comparison to another film's script, acting , directing, which they obviously found far superior, not necesarily to do with when the film was made, or even that they found the film without artistic merit whatsoever, they could have been citing mere artistic differences.

Actually....he made no reference to the Carpenter movie at all. He quoted me saying I liked the Hawke's version and said this in response -

I remember watching that film. You can't be serious.

So it sounds like his response was as you say here -

If they had said 'you must be joking' because he just said he liked the movie, that would be completely different, that would suggest they found no merit in the original film at all, and is a completely different statement to make.

Also, my point was, if you are going to come in and challenge someone's opinion, back it up by citing things they have said, don't just come in and act like you are some kind of all seeing mindreader. If you suspect they are kidding themselves on about the quality of a film due to 'nostalgia', and are prejudiced by a sentimental attachment to the film, say so, but say why you say so, otherwsie it's just plain insulting.

The "quality" of a film as judged by others does not negate the enjoyment of a film by someone else.

I'm talking about debating honourably, and not being some smart ass who comes in and just says a glib insulting comment and then runs off.

Many many posters here do not understand debate or discuss at all.....all they understand is and if someone agrees with them...and or if someone has a different opinion.

Oh, and btw, I took offence at a personal dig that was aimed at me, so please don't question my intelligence over what I should be getting 'upset' over, some people think they can just come in and say whatever the hell they like to me, and get away with it, well, that smart alec little punk hasn't been back in the thread since he made that personal comment to me, and he should think twice before trying any of that crap with me, or taking any orders from his 'masters' who send him in to do that crap in attempts to wind me up, cause I'll just play by the rules and roll right over his posts.
they'll just make me look good in their attempts to make me look bad, so, y'know, if they are smart, they'll be scared about that, but they're not really, so they'll come in again and again at me, and I'll shrug them off. They're just the usual types who know how to bang up an essay, i mean who doesn't? lol except these folk think that sets them above other people, stupid. But they really don't know how to think and fight on their feet and improvise, they are not good fighters at all really.

Paranoia....not just a game, but a full time job.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Many many posters here do not understand debate or discuss at all.....all they understand is and if someone agrees with them...and or if someone has a different opinion.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Calling my intelligence into question over feeling insulted over something like that, well, you know damn well that is not what my intense rebuttal was about. You know damn well that little punk was bringing up my past as an alcoholic with his little 'lying in bed thinking about the good old days.' remark, and that's what I was replying with in mind.

Errr, I'm pretty sure Wolvie's 'lying in bed' comment was directed at me bro.

/awkward

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Errr, I'm pretty sure Wolvie's 'lying in bed' comment was directed at me bro.

/awkward

Not awkward at all, that's exactly what he was referring to, post up some cover if you will, but everyone knows what he was talking about there.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Well, clearly not everyone. But ok, don't let me get in the way of your rampage.