1290 replies to this topic

[Cuchulain]

<p>

I just saw the film and it was worse than my lowest expectations. If you are gonna make Conan a heroic revenge fantasy film atleast make it epic, mindless fun. The only thing i liked was Jason Momoa, he looked grim when he killed the bad guys. His dialouge was bad like the rest of the script. It was like they were joking, a parody with the lines being so bad. I saw it with 5 family members and some of them laughed how campy bad some of the scenes was. I didnt even remember to think it was bad REH adaptation since the film didnt even work as generic barbarian film.The final fight, the master theif with keys, the terrible REH qoutes, the mask that didnt give Khalar any powers. Im glad it was critical and BO flop so we dont have to see these people abuse Conan again. I dont make excuses for it like some other fans in the hope that in the magical future there will be a good adaptation. It was bad film REH adaptation or not.

you put a fine point on it lol...

Im just glad i didnt pay to see it in the cinema. I have no interest in buying the DVD. It wasnt my DVD we watched. I will rent it to see REH documentaries. I just think some REH fans are fooling themselves thinking these level of creators can in the future suddenly become good and make a good Conan film. Its bad when people who dont know Howard Conan stories were debating after the film if it was the worst film they have seen in years or not......

</p>
<p> </p>
<p>this is the statement I was trying to address </p>
<p> </p>
<p>you stated that you hated it, fine but just because I went in and found it more than I expected. Not a great film but good enough for me to enjoy, exactly why am I fooling myself again ?</p>
<div id="myEventWatcherDiv" style="display:none;"> </div>

I meant fans who said they didnt like as REH film but hoped it would still be big hit because the sequel will be much better. Thats naive imo. Accepting bad film in their views for future sequel by the same people is off to me. There is many posts like that i have read in these forums. Some fans sound desperate for the sequel like Conan film really means that much.

Other fans who liked it and found more than they expected fine good for you. I wish it was that good to me.

I see what you are saying. did you read the script that was to be the sequel ? and do you really think that Nispel would have been apart of that after this movie failed? I think this movie had a few Howardian moments but nowhere near enough. I heard that the sequal was going to be an adaption of an original and so yes before the movie was released. I to had high hopes that it would have success with what ever target they were reaching so I could finally see a true original on the screen. I find nothing naive about that. If the movie did succed to the point of let's just say Batman begins level, Are you saying that you wouldn't want the same director, directing the sequal ?

[Evil Thoth-Amon]

I didnt even remember to think it was bad REH adaptation since the film didnt even work as generic barbarian film.

That was the point I tried to make.

[Libaax]

I see what you are saying. did you read the script that was to be the sequel ? and do you really think that Nispel would have been apart of that after this movie failed? I think this movie had a few Howardian moments but nowhere near enough. I heard that the sequal was going to be an adaption of an original and so yes before the movie was released. I to had high hopes that it would have success with what ever target they were reaching so I could finally see a true original on the screen. I find nothing naive about that. If the movie did succed to the point of let's just say Batman begins level, Are you saying that you wouldn't want the same director, directing the sequal ?

I didnt read the script to the sequel no. If the movie was a big hit like say Batman Begins then no i wouldnt want the same writers, the same director. The script was weakest part,director was not good enough either.

I understand what you want and hoped to see but im REH type fan who doesnt really need a Conan film. I know a faithful adaptation is not likely, i was only hoping for something fun to watch,like Solomon Kane. Thats why i expected so little of this film. REH is on my bookshelves, hoping, dreaming about good Conan film is just not that important to me.

This one didnt work for me and i dont care at all if sequel happens or not. Respectfully i dont want to waste my time talking about this. I said how i felt about it clearly.

Edited by Libaax, 05 December 2011 - 11:05 PM.

[Kortoso]

Interesting blog post about 3D movies:
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/3d_movies

[Cuchulain]

I see what you are saying. did you read the script that was to be the sequel ? and do you really think that Nispel would have been apart of that after this movie failed? I think this movie had a few Howardian moments but nowhere near enough. I heard that the sequal was going to be an adaption of an original and so yes before the movie was released. I to had high hopes that it would have success with what ever target they were reaching so I could finally see a true original on the screen. I find nothing naive about that. If the movie did succed to the point of let's just say Batman begins level, Are you saying that you wouldn't want the same director, directing the sequal ?

I didnt read the script to the sequel no. If the movie was a big hit like say Batman Begins then no i wouldnt want the same writers, the same director. The script was weakest part,director was not good enough either.

I understand what you want and hoped to see but im REH type fan who doesnt really need a Conan film. I know a faithful adaptation is not likely, i was only hoping for something fun to watch,like Solomon Kane. Thats why i expected so little of this film. REH is on my bookshelves, hoping, dreaming about good Conan film is just not that important to me.

This one didnt work for me and i dont care at all if sequel happens or not. Respectfully i dont want to waste my time talking about this. I said how i felt about it clearly.

I respect your wishes and I will no longer waste your time

[Cuchulain]

<p>I think that IF ( I know, really big word for only two letters ) Nispel would have pulled a Hail Mary from the shoddy script that we all read, then I think he would have been the first person in line to direct a sequel. Especially since we knew that Blackman/Mcaine team was working on the script for the sequel before the movie was released. which of course meant there was no hope of the original writers of the first movie penning the script. Would I have preferred them to do the B/M script first ? HELL YA. but what they told us in the beginning gave some of us hope and there is nothing Naive about that. Nothing wrong of holding a man or team to their word until proven wrong.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<div id="myEventWatcherDiv" style="display:none;"> </div>

[Sharn]

I think it is a little unfair to compare this movie to LOTR. Rings is epic or high fantasy, while Conan is sword and sorcery, two very different types of fantasy. Sword and sorcery is generally on a smaller, more personal scale, while high fantasy emphasizes epic, world saving quests. There is no denying the effort and devotion that went into LOTR, it is quite an achievement! By the way, there were a few hard core Rings fanatics who felt LOTR sucked, so ya can't please them all.

I am not saying I expect any Conan adaption to film to constitute attention by the Oscar Academy, but, the complete dedication on the part of the creators of the LOTR films is more along the lines of what I mean. Yes, P. Jackson and company made changes in the storyline to accomodate certain technical and writing interests and opinions. However, the characters were recognizable as being the characters the JRRT originally wrote to paper. Momoa's Conan, IMO, does not evoke any realtionship to the literary Conan. Not even to the somewhat overblown Robert Jordan Conan. Saying that this film is more akin to a 'generic sword and sorcery' movie is actually quite accurate. The Barbarians comes to mind as a good on par film to Conan 2011(along with the previous Kull mention).

Take Bladerunner as an example. It took a little known story by Phillip K. Dick and made it a box office phenomenon. Greatly more succcessful than Conan 2011 has any right to be. Bladerunner is a good intriquing story, with good acting, believable enviroment and so on. This goes back to my original statement about Hollywood today. Characters like Conan don't apparently inspire real interest or effort on the part of film studious. They would rather do insipid and primarily pointless flicks like The Tree of Life and pour critical acclaim on something the average moviegoer would fall asleep to. Hell, Ironclad was better than Conan. Better cast, better acting, props, storyline and so forth.

[johnnypt]

Take Bladerunner as an example. It took a little known story by Phillip K. Dick and made it a box office phenomenon. Greatly more succcessful than Conan 2011 has any right to be. Bladerunner is a good intriquing story, with good acting, believable enviroment and so on. This goes back to my original statement about Hollywood today. Characters like Conan don't apparently inspire real interest or effort on the part of film studious. They would rather do insipid and primarily pointless flicks like The Tree of Life and pour critical acclaim on something the average moviegoer would fall asleep to. Hell, Ironclad was better than Conan. Better cast, better acting, props, storyline and so forth.

Actually I think Blade Runner is an example of what some want to happen with CTB2011. When BR came out in 1982, it turned out to be a box office disappointment, especially with the expectations Harrison Ford brought to a sic fi movie at the time. Critics were also somewhat split on it. Within a short time however, the film got a second life and was reassessed in the public eye, on its way to becoming the cultural touchstone it is today. Here was a film by a director with a strong vision, aided by a talented cast, a unique music score and iconic visuals. Those are the things that drew audiences back to the movie after it was semi-ignored at the box office. It also helped it came out in the era when cable TV and home video were relatively new.

I know people are hoping that as Conan hits home video, it'll get a second look, but I simply don't see the elements from BR in the recent film for it to receive a later re-evaluation by the public.

[Kortoso]

Well, maybe if Ridley Scott had filmed it...

[Eamon]

No, we are not comparing Bladerunner's post cinema success to Conan the Barbarian 2011 as that would just be wrong.

I like many movies that I know are crap (CtB2011 doesn't even qualify for me) and it's not a matter of opinion. Crap is crap.
It would be stupid for me to try to tell folks Masters if the Universe was a well made movie because it just isn't. I like it, but I know it's crap and I can live with that.
Folks should be able to live with the knowledge that this Conan movie is also very crap.

Actually watching Mamoa as a bad Conan reminded me of Lundgren as a bad He-Man.
Though at least that He-Man and a decent villain and proper actor in Frank Langela.

Edited by Eamon, 08 December 2011 - 06:31 PM.

[Libaax]

Bladerunner had greatest SF hero of them all in Harrison Ford, legendary SF author novel talk that people always compared the novel and film. Also Ridley Scott worst film is better than Conan2011....

Bladerunner is not a fav Ridley film but still it got cult status because it had critical acclaim. Box office records dont matter 20 years later, otherwise Transformer type films would be best hollywood films.

Fav Ridley Scott is The Duellists, Alien

Edited by Libaax, 08 December 2011 - 07:48 PM.

[thedarkman]

It may be crap, but its my kind of crap. I remember going to see Carpenter's The Thing back in the day, and I loved it. Most of the movie going public and critics hated it, said it was crap. Now people rant about the new prequel being crap, and to leave a horror classic like The Thing alone. It took a while for folks to get to like The Thing. I do not predict the same fate for Conan 2011, but it will always be classic crap to me. By the way, I also really like The Sword and the Sorcerer, so you know where I'm coming from.



P.S. check the poll results at the top of the page, I may not be the only one.

Edited by thedarkman, 08 December 2011 - 09:07 PM.

[Eamon]

Now The Thing?? The Thing still made a profit. This has not.

I cannot imagine that this Conan movie will ever be considered a 'crap classic'. Not even to the level of things like Beastmaster and Sword and the Sorcerer.

Lets not forget that this movie cost 90 million to make. Non of the 'crap classics' even came close to that number.

Film good makers have made far greater movies for far less.

[thedarkman]

It may be crap, but its my kind of crap. I remember going to see Carpenter's The Thing back in the day, and I loved it. Most of the movie going public and critics hated it, said it was crap. Now people rant about the new prequel being crap, and to leave a horror classic like The Thing alone. It took a while for folks to get to like The Thing. I do not predict the same fate for Conan 2011, but it will always be classic crap to me. By the way, I also really like The Sword and the Sorcerer, so you know where I'm coming from.



P.S. check the poll results at the top of the page, I may not be the only one.

Now The Thing?? The Thing still made a profit. This has not.

I cannot imagine that this Conan movie will ever be considered a 'crap classic'. Not even to the level of things like Beastmaster and Sword and the Sorcerer.

Lets not forget that this movie cost 90 million to make. Non of the 'crap classics' even came close to that number.

Film good makers have made far greater movies for far less.

I have to agree with you about the 90 million. The film looked ok, but it did not look 90 million dollars ok. If the film used existing sets, low paid Bulgarian cast and crew members, and no superstar A-list payouts, where did the money go? I would have figured on a $50 million budget judging by the look alone.

And no way in hell was Beastmaster a better movie.(Tanya Roberts looked hot, yowzers!)

[Eamon]

Betcha the money went on Mamoa's hair do?!

I personally think The Beastmaster did what is was supposed to do far better than Conan The Barbarian 2011.

[johnnypt]

I personally think The Beastmaster did what is was supposed to do far better than Conan The Barbarian 2011.

Sums it up perfectly.

I'll probably be watching CTB2011 this weekend with my dad, who loves all the 80s S & S flicks (he's big on Sword & the Sorcerer). I'll let y'all know what he thinks.

[RobP]

I have to agree with you about the 90 million. The film looked ok, but it did not look 90 million dollars ok. If the film used existing sets, low paid Bulgarian cast and crew members, and no superstar A-list payouts, where did the money go? I would have figured on a $50 million budget judging by the look alone.

Those elephants didn't come cheap you know

[John Maddox Roberts]

We don't know that CtB2011 has lost money. Apparently it didn't make much here in the States, but it might pick up an audience worldwide, Then there are DVD sales. These days, it's actually hard for a movie to lose money. Many classic films flopped at the box office but found success on television: "Fantasia" and "The Wizard of Oz" come to mind. So a year or two from now when all the figures are totted up, the producers may yet decide that a sequel is in order.

[Evil Thoth-Amon]

We don't know that CtB2011 has lost money.

We know. Of course we know.

Assume that the movie cost 60 million (and we know it cost much more). Assume it mades 30 million in the USA and another 30 million worldwide (and we know it made a lot less than that). It, still, would lose money. Because cinema owners take between 30% and 50% of the box office.

Then, we will assume than Lionsgate will gain 15 million in DVD sales (an almost imposible number). It will, still, not enough.

These days, it's actually hard for a movie to lose money.

Actually, you are wrong. These days, it is VERY EASY for a movie to lose money. It was a much safer bussiness in the past. Today, almost the 90% of the produced movies lose money.

[johnnypt]

It looks like first week out on home video, the movie pulled in just south of $7 million in the US, split almost evenly between BD ($3.2 million-10th) & DVD ($3.5-17th). Throw in Netflix & streaming sites (say $3.3 million, pure speculation on my part), it probably did roughly the same as its premiere week in the theaters here. If we take the worldwide # from box-office.com as correct with $56.5 million (seems to be more up to date than boxofficemojo's take), add the $10 million from the first week and go with the generally accepted $90 million for the budget, it needs to pull in an additional $24 million or so to gross back the production budget. But as Evil Thoth just mentioned, that's just gross and not net, so it wouldn't be in profitable territory yet. I wonder box office counted all of the other costs in getting their $120 million budget figure. $30 million for marketing and other expenditures seems a little high, but it may be right. If $120 million is the profitability line, it's probably going to take a few years of steady catalog and decent TV sales.

As I was poking around the web today I saw an ad for In The Name of the King 2. If that gets a sequel, anything is possible.