I can't freakin wait! Conan is back and this time they'll do it right!
Arnie best be hitting the gym hardcore before filming starts then.
Otherwise, they should consider him for another role.
Terrible idea. Not only is the original Conan a pretty bad movie, but Schwarzenegger is too old for this s**t.
Feel free to stone me.
|
Arnie best be hitting the gym hardcore before filming starts then.
Otherwise, they should consider him for another role.
One of the 'Cohen' novels could make a good movie as well ;-)
I liked the newer Conan movie- it really was closer to the novels than the original movie, and especially the second movie. Still, it would be good to see the original storyline continued.
I liked the newer Conan, especially after the crap that was Destroyer.
While not totally against seeing Armie as Conan again, I think he missed his window. Lots of gym time better be in his future.
|
One of the 'Cohen' novels could make a good movie as well ;-)Arnie best be hitting the gym hardcore before filming starts then.
Otherwise, they should consider him for another role.
Nah, the novels are pretty much why the Arnold Conan movies sucked. Way too much de Camp and Jordan, almost no Howard.
YMMV, of course.
They took some stuff from Howard's short novels including the Serpent cult & Thulsa Doom, the Tree of Woe scene, and John Milius/ Oliver Stone mixed some of their own writing in with it. There is that final scene with Conan sitting on the throne as an older grey bearded king, and finally we get to see what happens next in a sequel I've been waiting for.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the 'Cohen' novels could make a good movie as well ;-)Arnie best be hitting the gym hardcore before filming starts then.
Otherwise, they should consider him for another role.
Nah, the novels are pretty much why the Arnold Conan movies sucked. Way too much de Camp and Jordan, almost no Howard.
YMMV, of course.
Ahem...I said Cohen novels, not Conan novels!
|
|
Ahem...I said Cohen novels, not Conan novels!One of the 'Cohen' novels could make a good movie as well ;-)Arnie best be hitting the gym hardcore before filming starts then.
Otherwise, they should consider him for another role.
Nah, the novels are pretty much why the Arnold Conan movies sucked. Way too much de Camp and Jordan, almost no Howard.
YMMV, of course.
Oh, snap. :-)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion: As far as movies go (ignoring the books) "Conan the Barbarian (1982)" is much better than "Conan the Barbarian (2011)". The 2011 version is terrible. On rottentomatoes the tomatometer for the 1982 version is at 77% while the 2011 version received an abysmal 23%. It was quite possibly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The actors seemed to read their lines from prompters and the characters were very 1 dimensional.
My biggest complaint is that even though Jason Mamoa looked the part, he failed to make Conan as relatable as Arnold did.
|
|
I was not surprised to hear this. I can remember watching the DVD with commentary from both Schwarzenegger and the director John Milius. They both expressed their love of the first movie and their interest in revisiting the character. The commentary was recorded about 2002, a few years before Schwarzenegger ran for governor and I assumed that his election put his plans on a new Conan movie on ice. Well, he is no longer governor so I guess that he decided to return to the role that helped make him a star. I am not sure how the movie will be but I will give it a chance.
The 2011 Conan was garbage. Jason Mamoa had all the emotional range of cardboard. The guy had 2 facial expressions the entire film. All of the attempts to make the move more "X-treme"(more boobs, buckets of ridiculously fake looking blood, attitude) made it look like it was written by a 12-year old.
I'll admit to having not read the novels, but I did read the comics as a kid. Given the budget and move effects of the time, I thought the original Conan was incredible. Still one of my favorite movies to this day. I'm tremendously excited to see Arnie returning as Conan.
After killing Thulsa Doom (yeah, I know, spoiler), Ahnolbd throws a burning brazier at a stone temple... and burns up the temple! How massively badass is that? Eh? Eh?
Ahnold again? Oh the horror! Oh the humanity!
Bombata, save us!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The original Conan movie is still in a regular rotation for me. It got me to read the Robert E Howard stories as a wee teenie bopper. Even though I ended up preferring Howard's Conan, I still like that the original content inspired a cool movie that I enjoy to the present. I see the two as topically related, but not intermingled...so I can get excited about a new Ahhhnold Conan without worrying whether it is going to evoke anything like "true" Conan (as if any such version exists in 70+ years of non-Howard pastiches, hack jobs, comics, paper backs and more)
The 2011 Conan movie captured some of the visual styling and pulpy brutality of Howard's creation, but it wasn't interesting or fun to watch (imo).
So...bring on another "Viking" movie version of Conan! However, I'm not sure how I feel about the "brilliant" (dripping with sarcasm) minds and check-books that brought us Wanted, and the last four Fast and Furious movies being capable of more than generating another movie that features marketable actors and *black out for two hours until the hurting stops.*
Still, I'll probably approach the new Arnold Conan the same way I have the Expendibles movies (ie invest in the punching, shooting, exploding and one-liners).
Interesting. For me, it'll be better than the 2011 Conan, which my friends (also my gaming group) and I saw in the theater together (at the urging of one member of the group).
It was truly terrible, and we make fun of him for wasting 2 hours of our lives to this day. (He was going to give each of us a DVD of the movie for Christmas as a gag gift, but thought better about giving the production company more money.)
They need Milius back as well...it was his writing which really made the first Conan stand out.
Frankly I'll be utterly shocked if the bring back Milius. He hasn't made a big movie in a very long time and his last works was a failed TV show. The current production crew already have a storyline and it will be Conan meets Unforgiven(Eastwood).
|
|
And what makes you think they will be any more true to some Howard story (or even his idea of the character) than the first movie?
And from their point of view they probably should not, most who will see a new Schwarzenegger Conan movie, will do so because of the first movie, not because of the Conan stories. Considering the huge mainstream success of the first Conan movies I am quite sure the majority of the audience has never read a single Conan story.
I think the woman who was in this latest Conan flick and the John Carter movie was very pretty. If I was Conan, I would do her in a cave, too.
I think the woman who was in this latest Conan flick and the John Carter movie was very pretty. If I was Conan, I would do her in a cave, too.
Rachel Nichols. Check out the series "Continuum". She's the lead actress.
I liked the new Conan movie well enough, but then again, I was also amused by the third Scorpion King movie. We do "Bad Movie Nights" here, though.
The new Conan is even worse than the old one. And that you watched the third Scorpion King movie implies that you made it through the second one, of which I only managed about 10 minutes. I salute your brain's ability to take severe punishment.
The new Conan wasn't that bad, I've seen much worse trust me. Some of these people are imagining things in their own head, you'll never get a movie you wanted exactly like you want in your mind. The movie wasn't great but it wasn't as bad as a SYFY channel movie or the failed Arnold sequel Conan the Destroyer. The after school special version of Conan, with Wilt Chamberlin lol. This upcoming Conan sequel has always been aimed at an older Conan who is a king by now.
The new Conan was cool.
No problems, except for the Hyborian Winnebago.
I'll see Arny's new Conan the Octogenarian too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't give a crap; I'll watch these movies.
The New Conan was waaaaaaaay better.....all things considered.
|
|
The new Conan was terrible. Those of us who think so aren't the only ones.
I liked the new Conan, and frankly, I don't care what how many others thought about the movie - all I had to do is to spend less than 2 hours watching it and decide for myself.
The new Conan wasn't that bad, I've seen much worse trust me. Some of these people are imagining things in their own head, you'll never get a movie you wanted exactly like you want in your mind. The movie wasn't great but it wasn't as bad as a SYFY channel movie or the failed Arnold sequel Conan the Destroyer. The after school special version of Conan, with Wilt Chamberlin lol. This upcoming Conan sequel has always been aimed at an older Conan who is a king by now.
Of course there are worse movies. Most made by Michael Bay, for example. And while lot of the SyFy movies are really, really bad, they have a high camp factor and can be hilarious (Sharktopus, anyone?).
The new Conan was terribly boring. Which was not the actor's fault, btw. I blame Marcus Nispel, who also directed the very painful to watch "Pathfinder".
|
|
The new Conan was terrible. Those of us who think so aren't the only ones.I liked the new Conan, and frankly, I don't care what how many others thought about the movie - all I had to do is to spend less than 2 hours watching it and decide for myself.
It wasn't just unpopular. It was abysmal. Its fine that you like it. You have the right to your opinion. However, comments like these have been made:
"The new Conan wasn't that bad, I've seen much worse trust me. Some of these people are imagining things in their own head, you'll never get a movie you wanted exactly like you want in your mind."
When a movie gets a 23% on rotten tomatoes there is obviously something very wrong with it that is not being imagined in our own heads. Go find me another movie that you feel is good that got a 23% on rotten tomatoes.
Ha, there a likely tons of movies I like that scored in the 23% range.
The new Conan was not as good as it should have been. I agree Marcus Nispel is to blame. But seriously if the people in this thread disliked the 1982 version of Conan they will ALWAYS be disappointed by Conan films. That one is an interesting exercise in filmmaking. A lead actor who hardly speaks in a script that is very lite on dialogue.
Honestly Conan, the character, is very hard to clearly define in an emotional way when you are limited to a 2 or 3 hour film. Couple that with 95% of it's audience will be familiar with the subject matter through some NonHoward source and Pure Conan will be super Elusive.
We were spoiled by Jackson on LotR, that little moment in the Sun is almost over.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh.
"Katy Perry: Part of Me"has a 77% on Rotten Tomatoes.
I better get out and see it before it's gone.
Either that, or......keep on not giving a s@!~ what Rotten Tomatoes says.
By virtue of tomat-O-meter, Toy Story 2 is the greatest film of all time.
Now, I like Evil Dead. Alot.
It's definitely not the 32nd greatest movie ever made; I don't give a s!!$ what your tomatometer sez.
|
|
Huh.
"Katy Perry: Part of Me"has a 77% on Rotten Tomatoes.
I better get out and see it before it's gone.
Either that, or......keep on not giving a s*#! what Rotten Tomatoes says.
77% is not a get out and see it before it's gone rating. Also, the subject matter of a movie can be lame and it can still be a well made movie. In the case of Conan 2008 the subject matter was not lame and it was still terrible.
Rotten Tomatoes is not the be all end all way to determine whether or not a movie is good. It is, however, not a bad place to start.
Wow. Evil Dead is 11 movies better than the Maltese Falcon.
|
|
By virtue of tomat-O-meter, Toy Story 2 is the greatest film of all time.
Toy Story 2 was an extremely well made movie. I am able to understand that even if I don't like that genre or style. Also, you don't understand how the tomatometer works. The list you are referring to is ranked first by percentage and then by number of reviews. Notice that everything on that list has a 100%. That list doesn't distinguish between the rankings once they are all at 100% in any meaningful way.
Rottentomatoes is good for one thing - if the movie got a 20% then wait for it to come out on video. If it got above a 60% then chance it.
So, I should chance the Katy Perry movie. Even if it sucks, I'm just goofy and don't understand stuff.
THANKS, SOME DUDE ON THE INTERNET WHO UNDERSTANDS STUFF I DON'T!!!!!