Conan is a great character. It's been said that Tolkien was the father of "High Fantasy", and that Robert E. Howard was the father of "Low Fantasy". I like that description. Tolkiens strength is in his creation of such a rich world of mythological fantasy, although he can be very long winded in his epic style. His - more or less - American contemporary wrote more in the short story form, and, frankly, it is more charming in its cruder style. Conan, Kull, Solomon Kane, Howard really had something, and I enjoy his writings. Conan's world is not a world of a higher moral order. It is a more "every man for himself"-philosophy, and very cool.
In comics, my introduction to Conan was John Buscema, who, to me, is, and will always be the defintive Conan artist. Barry Windsor-Smith has his equally loyal followers, and it is an almost religious discussion as to who is the "right" Conan artist of the two. Buscema's take was rougher and gruffer than BWS's, but it had a brutal beauty of his own, and personally I think Buscema is better at drawing faces than BWS (whose strenght is more in intricate details in the background). I also think Buscema drew the definitive Red Sonja (although Frank Thorne was also good).
Apart from Buscema, I also like Neal Adams' and Gil Kane's work on Conan, which I find more similar to Buscema's than BWS's. The Conan trinity.
As for the cinematic Conan, I have always considered Arnold dead wrong for the part. He lacks the essense of Howard's (and Buscema's) Conan, and comes across unwillingly comical, "You killed my mothar, you killed my fathar, You stole my fathar's swouaaarrrd" (my attempt to capture the sound of Arnie in print). TV's Ralf Moeller is similar, but even worse. Much worse.
For all its problems with coherence, I still think that the new movie's Conan, played by Jason Momoa, came very close to the spirit Conan as I feel he should be. He looks the part; maybe a bit too pretty, but still convincing.