1290 replies to this topic

[Kortoso]

Shame this version of the script wasn't written before the film was shot , sounds more entertaining

http://www.the-editi...arian-2011.html

Terry

Hilarous! They even capitalized EVERY other WORD just LIKE a REAL script.

[Roargathor]

That guy nailed it. Pretty funny. It's kinda sad that I didn't realize it was a parody until I read the part that told me.

[Xaltotun]

Shame this version of the script wasn't written before the film was shot , sounds more entertaining

http://www.the-editi...arian-2011.html

Terry

Hilarous! They even capitalized EVERY other WORD just LIKE a REAL script.

Brilliant! And still, that was better than wasting two hours on Sword and the Sorceror!

[Reaver]

I had an interesting personal revelation regarding CtB11. When I watched it in the theater, I enjoyed it (which, I feel, is basically the point). But, the more I read and think about it, the less I like it afterwards. I don't think I'll be rushing out to get the Blu-Ray in a couple of months. Maybe, if they put out a Director's Cut, I will rent that.

[Atali]

Shame this version of the script wasn't written before the film was shot , sounds more entertaining

http://www.the-editi...arian-2011.html

Terry

"Fossilized shower cap" just floored me...

[Spartan198]

Saw it last Saturday. The only thing I didn't care for was Conan cutting off Marique's hand (because Conan always made it a point not to harm a woman, even if she'd wronged him), but otherwise I thought it was great. First movie I've seen in 3D at the theater and it was well worth it to me.

When we have sexe in TV series like Spartacus, Camelot or Game of thrones !

Quite frequently in the former two (Spartacus even had full on orgies with dozens of people), but I wasn't particularly thrilled with the latter and never watched it again after the pilot.

Edited by Spartan198, 11 September 2011 - 12:25 AM.

[Mark Finn]

I'm still trying to process Mark, Rusty, Dennis and others enjoying the film while Leo, Indy and myself (hmm, who's the odd-one out in that lineup? ) hating it. I'm like, dude, what's going on?

Then I remembered those sage words: big nasty saber-tooth cats. I mean, we already have the schism between REH fans who liked the 1982 film and those who didn't, I guess we should've expected this.

It's not really that hard to comprehend, Al. It comes down to this: I started bracing myself for impact when I found out that the script was written and they were using the original movie as the inspiration. I shrugged my shoulders and immediately put my expectations in the basement. When it was revealed that Paradox had to relinquish some control of the property to get the movie made, I had two choices: I could rail against the system that doesn't know I exist, or I can try to take a long-term viewpoint on the picture. This movie would be the thing that kicks the door open. And then I looked at what else was in development and thought, "you know, one of these is going to be 'right' in that way that we've yet to see something get done. No telling which one it'll be. Kull? Agnes? El Borak?"

So I went into that movie as if I were watching something that I knew had no Howard content in it already. And in that respect, it didn't disappoint. I'm also unapologetic about the "spectacle" aspect of film, and as such I'm a sucker for something that looks cool on film. And there are a few pieces of eye candy in Conan, too. But the real surprise for me was Momoa himself. In a long term view, there's a possibility that a second Conan movie being better than the first--stranger things have happened in the last decade (X-Men II, Spider-Man II, Dark Knight). While the movie has no Howard content in it, Momoa's performance was far more Howardesque than Arnold's ever was.

But notice in my review I made no attempt to refute anything negative said about the movie. If you don't like it, then nothing I say is going to change your mind. And I agree with all of the comments that the story was too simple, that there wasn't enough REH in it, that they should have used the original stories...yeah, I was the one saying that last year. And the year before that. (Random aside to the other guy who wanted me to defend my statements: Um, I've BEEN here, through all of this, for the past couple of years. I'm on record and none of that changed. Use the search feature. I'm easy to find.) And I wrote my review with all of that in mind. Some people are going to love it as straight up carnage. Other people are going to hate it because it's straight up carnage. You can't win. Conan has always managed to divide the room, and he's still doing it in pop culture form after all these years.

The other kid accused me and Rusty of "selling out." That's funny. I wrote a movie review that tried to focus on the positives--and there are some positives, regardless of what anyone thinks. This isn't Ator the Fighting Eagle we're talking about, here. Nor is it the Dungeons and Dragons movie. Paradox went with a smaller studio because they couldn't get the bigger studios on board. Everyone insisted on having control. It is what it is. But I stand by my review, and also all of the other work I've done in Howard Studies over the past 10 years.

Anyway, Al, what I meant to say before all of that was this: I like big dumb action movies. When I knew I couldn't get literary Conan, I decided to settle for Kill Bill/Cimmeria.

[Evil Thoth-Amon]

I hope you are kidding, Mark. I always respected your work in Howard studies. But the reason you give here to support your "good" review of this movie are plain unacceptable...

This movie would be the thing that kicks the door open. And then I looked at what else was in development and thought, "you know, one of these is going to be 'right' in that way that we've yet to see something get done. No telling which one it'll be. Kull? Agnes? El Borak?"

I am sick of hearing phalacies like "better this Conan movie than no Conan movie at all" or "Howard movies depend on the success of this flick". It is better have NO Conan movie at all than a pathetic videoclip that will destroy the public image of the character. And I really dont want more Howard movies made THAT way.

Remember that AWFUL Albert Pyun adaptation of the Captain America comic books? OK, imagine people saying things like "better this Captain America than no Captain America at all". Or, maybe, "Marvel movies depend on the success of this title". How stupid is that??? It was a RELIEF that no one saw that stupid experminet. We have now an awesome Captain America superproduction THANKS to that!!

Only good movies deserve to be supported. The rest are empty words.

And in that respect, it didn't disappoint. I'm also unapologetic about the "spectacle" aspect of film, and as such I'm a sucker for something that looks cool on film. And there are a few pieces of eye candy in Conan, too.

Well, I find this words simply UNBELIEVABLE. Seriously, guys, I dont find any spectacle in this film. And it was the only thing that I truly needed.

Were is that colossal battle between two outstanding armies of ancient times? They never shoot it. Where is that incredible sea combat between two powerful battleships? They never shoot it. Where is that aerial view of a glorius hyborian city? They never shoot it. Where is that thrilling climax in the ruins of Acheron in which Conan should fight against legions of demons and undead in a weird Escher-like city? They never shoot it.

This movie is CHEAP and it looks CHEAP.

"Conan the barbarian 3D" fails at the MOST BASIC LEVEL. It is not even a good entertainment. And the special effects are averange AT BEST. In a "summer blockbuster" I really expect something more. Eye candy? Are you talking about the bad CGI elephants, the SAW-like cruelty, the ludicrous swords and costumes or the giant squid with less than a minute of footage? Your eye must have very low standards, pal.

But the real surprise for me was Momoa himself. In a long term view, there's a possibility that a second Conan movie being better than the first--stranger things have happened in the last decade (X-Men II, Spider-Man II, Dark Knight)

I dont get all that love towards Momoa. In my opinion, his work was bad as Arnold's, but for different reasons. Well, I suppose it is a matter of opinion.

What really bothers me if that naive idea that a sequel could have such a GIGANTIC quality improvement. Are you comparing, SERIOUSLY, this awful "sword & sorcery" flick with the masterful direction of the first X-men? With the fun of the first Spiderman? With the intriguing plot of Batman Begins? Please...

Some people are going to love it as straight up carnage. Other people are going to hate it because it's straight up carnage. You can't win.

I loved Rambo IV and it was a straight up carnage. Because the story have sense, the dialogue was adequate and the characters have strong motivations. This film has neither of those.

And I want to remind you something: this movie have reached a 22% in Rotten tomatoes, a 36 in Metacritic, it have a 5.3 on IMDB (less than Scorpion king, less than Sahara and less than Waterworld) and, well, it have bombed at the box office. Conan the cimmerian have become nothing more than the laughing stock of the year.

Paradox went with a smaller studio because they couldn't get the bigger studios on board. Everyone insisted on having control (...) The other kid accused me and Rusty of "selling out." That's funny. I wrote a movie review that tried to focus on the positives--and there are some positives, regardless of what anyone thinks. This isn't Ator the Fighting Eagle we're talking about, here. Nor is it the Dungeons and Dragons movie.

Frederik Malbmerg decide to sacrifice quality for the sake of that damned "R" rating. Why we need that R, seriously? Anything more violent than "Dark Knight" or more sexy than "The blue lagoon" it's pointless exploitation. When Robert Rodriguez was attached to the project, Warner was ready to produce a FAITHFUL version of the character in PG-13. This people know how to do a reboot. I would like to say: that was an option, Mr. Malbmerg, not to ally yourself with the most untalented morons in the whole country. Well, that chance is gone now.

It is funny that you say "I try to focus on the positives", because you are one of the biggest retractors of "Kull the conqueror". And I dont see why the Kull movie is worse than this one. At least, that one was an straight foward adventure that you can actually follow. It have some humor and some good swordfights. The villain is better, and the love story have a real evoultion. For me, Conan 2011 always feel like a trailer: it is no more than an absurd mix of half-scenes trying hard to be "cool". Even when they tried to tell a story, they fail miserably. The violence is always over on top, it lacks the charm and originality of the pulp fiction, the hero never have any real problems, there are thousand of plot holes, and the Howard quotes are out of place.

No, it is not Ator. But it is close, I fear. Too close.

Edited by Evil Thoth-Amon, 11 September 2011 - 11:06 AM.

[ThuleanWarrior]

^Where is the "like" button?

Edited by ThuleanWarrior, 11 September 2011 - 11:08 AM.

[mario]

one thing that i have found about people who read reh is that to their benifit and their detriment , we are all very opinionated individualistic people who stand by what we say. The problem is when we disagree on something suddenly we're labeled 'sellouts' by some and not hardcore or 'not understanding howard enough'by others.
And thats really a load of nonsense, if you like this movie and youre here, you've read reh, know that you enjoy it,and know you can enjoy different takes on conan( which has been the case for near 80 years), be it milius , nispel or harry freakin turtledove,lol! it shouldnt make you anymore or any less of a fan because you have an opinion. there is so much mudslinging on these reh sites that as fans ,we defeat our own purpose.
no kidding everyone here would like an reh movie but we do not live in a perfect world.Liking marcus nispels (or milius , or even red sonja or kull i hate but if you like cool no biggie)conan should not make anyone any more or any less a conan/reh fan, the implication alone is pathetic.Im a grown @$$ man with a family and i like to discuss this stuff with people but that does not mean getting stupid because im hiding behind a keyboard.
I honestly think that had an reh adaptation come forward, then you should be faaaar more scrutinous because then your really putting rehs name on it. if beyond the black river had come out instead of this flick and the reviews and lack of general success of it were the same as this conan, id be much more angry and upset , does anyone understand why?I for one also enjoyed this flick for much the same reasons as Mr. Burke Mr.(amster)damaged) and Mr.Finn did, I saw this movie purely as a work of pulp. That is what Howard was selling first and foremost, any deeper subtexts was a sort of thank you to the more adept reader.Sorry if thats not' hardcore enough' but its a simple truth. This movie is not high art nor was it meant to be.
But I'll be d#$%@d if someones who doesnt know me is gonna come on here and call me a sellout or not a true Howard fan because there's a really a minor difference of opinion on a trivial matter such as this movie.One i wont really care if thats what anyone is gonna do, because ultimately you cannot take the joy away i get from reading reh or the various conan adaptations and 2, it just tells me some people have too much time on their hands.Relax, and dont take the fun out of this.Have fun , if you didnt like the movie cool , there's a ton of folks who dont. If you liked the movie cool too, there is nothing wrong with that either.it doesnt matter anyway because the movie flopped and we always will have the pleasure of going back to the original stories which are first and foremost a pleasure to read , not a freakin religion like star wars has pathetically become.

Edited by mario, 11 September 2011 - 12:01 PM.

[Eamon]

Pulp movies can more often than not work on their own merits, the problem is like Toth Amon says, this doesn,t.

Conan also deserves more than mere pulp treatment in my opinion. If it got decent pulp treatment like things like Rambo then at least it would be entertaining. But Conan 2011 is just one big empty and offensively bad movie.

Gonna watch Solomon Kane later to remind me that some directors know what they are doing.

[RobP]

one thing that i have found about people who read reh is that to their benifit and their detriment , we are all very opinionated individualistic people who stand by what we say. The problem is when we disagree on something suddenly we're labeled 'sellouts' by some and not hardcore or 'not understanding howard enough'by others.

I don't think anyone can or does have a beef with someone liking the film or not. The beef comes when people say it is a good movie - not that many or even any have. It is very hard to defend as such IMHO. The next serving of beef comes with the question of will it harm the Conan brand or not. Then we are in the realm of speculation but given the reception by the general public it's hard to see it helping.

Opinions are like....well, you know, we all have one. All equally valid and all equally open to debate. Critical or informed opinion may hold more weight, but is still opinion. Facts are facts however and the fact is that this movie bombed at the box office

[Gin-Wulf]

ehh, a , Rambo IV had no plot that made any sense at all it was even weaker than this film, lol,, that film was directed better but the story was trash and seeing you put this film down by that one is very laughable .

[Eamon]

ehh, a , Rambo IV had no plot that made any sense at all it was even weaker than this film, lol,, that film was directed better but the story was trash and seeing you put this film down by that one is very laughable .

Laughable or not, Rambo did well and was well liked. This wasn't by a long stretch!

The Rambo example is only to compare two no brainer movies. But one is good at being a no brainer, the other is not. So I question as to what is really laughable here!

[Evil Thoth-Amon]

You forget also the fact that I am not talking about cinematic quality, deep themes or complex storylines. I am talking about things so basic as "motivations" and "three act structure". This new Conan movie lack of the most essential elements you need to compose an action-adventure tale. "John Rambo" have a very SIMPLE plot but it is effective.

[Gin-Wulf]

the one main issue with this film i see is the directing if it was shot better and the director was willing to shoot scenes besides action people would not be so up in arms.

[Evil Thoth-Amon]

Maybe you are right, maybe you are not. Anyway, the "direction" of a film it is not a minor issue: is, with the screenplay, the MOST important ingredient!

[Reaver]

Why are people so hell-bent on being "right" when it comes to films? No one is refuting your claims about this movie, ETA. People are only refuting your claim that it simply CANNOT be enjoyed because of all of the flaws.

I guess I just don't get people like you. Some people liked it, some people didn't. Deal with it.

[Evil Thoth-Amon]

I guess I just don't get people like you. Some people liked it, some people didn't. Deal with it.

You dont get it, indeed. People can enjoy it. That's OK. But come here to defend its "objetive merits"... is another very different kind of thing. And, in this particular case, we are talking about Mark Finn, the guy behind "Blood & thunder"! I only want to transmite my opinion about this film consecuences. I truly thinks this adaptation of the character will be TOXIC for Howard legacy and the Conan brand. I only try to explain why. This conversation is relevant for me.

Edited by Evil Thoth-Amon, 11 September 2011 - 03:26 PM.

[Eamon]

Conan needs to be better than this. I find it surprising that some don't appreciate that need and are 'content' with something so base as this movie.