I think of Conan as a mythic hero, not really based in realism at all. Therefore, it wouldn't matter much how he devleloped his strength or what men of his day looked like, Conan was basically superhuman. Even though he doesn't have actual superpowers, his fighting ability, speed, stealth, and strength are beyond what is possible for a human being. That said, I think John Buscema's Conan is closest to what I picture when I read REH's words. His hair is like a mane, his face has a catlike quality to it, and he has the dimensions neccessary to accomplish what REH has him do. He's powerfully built, but nothing like a bodybuilder.
Also, Frazetta's Conan has the savage, powerful look I'm speaking of as well.
All I'm saying is if you don't like it, go make a better one. Untill then, accept it as the best your going to get until someone finally makes another one.
To state that one persons interpretation and adaptation is sinfully wrong just makes you look like an elietist brickwall. Its a tribute, its an expression of interpretation, its an opinion, its a story world-to-movie. If you hate it for where its not word for word howard, then I pitty your narrowminded view of the genre. I figured this board was more accepting of anything conan, but I guess it only likes comics, sculptures, and other authors... but not a movie... no that would be too much.
It's obvious that some here are treating the movie much like an attack on their faith. I'm not an arm-chair fanatic, and since it can't be setteled with a thousand pages, I'm out....
Again, I like this film and think it can work as a Conan Begins type film. Read some of my previous posts and you'll see that I've already defended it.
I'm simply defending other people's right NOT to like it. I don't think they need to become a professional film maker to have the right to that opinion. You seem to be unable to accept that others feel that REH's intent and vision should be interpreted as accurately as possible. I personally, don't need that, but can accept others' opinions. It seems you can not.
By Crom man! I despise that movie! You can NEVER brain wash me to think anything else. Everything about it was just sub-par for the course. He who has ears let him hear. Go ahead and get mad if the truth hurts.
We do need a new Conan film badly. A real Conan film, and truly in many respects it will be the first Conan film. We may as well not even have any Conan films as those two. And I also disagree that it was better than nothing. That is absolutely wrong, IMHO. Far better to have nothing than that hunk of junk. Here is the reason-- because it was NOT a matter of that or nothing. I was in college at the time. Conan fans had PLENTY. We had the best books in the world (Decamp's tampering notwithstanding) and the greatest comic books of all time in 1982. Don't ever say we had NOTHING without that cruddy film. The movie just didn't match up with the class collection that we already had, dude. We had the best stuff in the world, man! We had the original Howard books. Don't say that is nothing. That is EVERYTHING, whether they ever get it right in the films or not, even if Conan turns out to be another Tarzan in that regard. But he won't! Malmberg has more class and more common sense than to let that happen again. I am confident that what happened with Milius can never truly happen again, thank Crom!
The movie just didn't match up with the class collection that we already had, dude. Seriously, Conan fans had the coolest stuff in the world by 1982. We had all 12 Lancer Ace books with covers (and wall posters) by Frazetta and Boris, a wide variety of Howard's other paperbacks, AUTHENTIC Conan and Kull adaptations by Barry Smith, John Buscema and several other of the best comic artists of all time. The movie did not match up with that. We had the right to have the highest of expectations. But that movie just blew in from out of left field. In fact, it must have come from another planet. It was from an alternate dimension where Milius's head was living at the time. The twilight zone, I assume.
Dude, settle down. It's just a movie. If you dislike it, just don't watch it. No one's trying to "brainwash" you or "insult your inteligence". Many here just have different personal taste than you, and enjoyed the film for what it is-- two hours of diversion, nothing more. The points been made that this is an unfaithful adaption of the REH character, and perhaps an entirely different character of the same name. The difference in opinion is just that some people care about fidelity to the source material and others can enjoy something on it's own without considering the source.
Don't worry... I have had it on my DVD shelf with the rest of my collection, but this recent viewing has awakened me. It is going to have to come down and be put in a box in the attic, it doesn't deserve to sit beside my Chris Lee Draculas, the Batman films, the Spiderman films, Star Wars, LOTR, Star Trek, etc.
Have you ever heard the espression, "vote with your wallet"? It doesn't matter if you buy something then throw it in a trash can right after, burn it, or bury it in the backyard. When you put your money down for something, it sends a message to Hollywood that says, "I like this enough to pay for it and I'd like more please". Hollywood doesn't care if you scream yourself blue in the face about how you hate whatever they do-- they look at ticket and DVD sales, and make judgements based on those factors. Buying Conan the Barbarian on DVD is the same as saying to Milius and his studio, who gets royalties from your purchase, "I love this film!"
Then they need to contribute to a fund to make a new film. Then they can say they did more than tear apart what someone else was willing to stick his neck to do. My managment philosopy is: Ask a person to do something, and then accept what they do. If you trained them well, it will be fine. However, if they find a way to screw it up: then do it your self then next time. Otherwise keep you mouth shut and retrain.
This is a ludicrous argument. If you're not a film maker, you have no right to criticize a film? If you watch a movie and dislike it, you then have to devote your life to raising funds and finding a way into the film industry or just shut up? Do you have to play in a rock band to say you dislike an album or song? Do you have to be a professional writer if you dislike a book?
The bottom line is, movies are made to be viewed, and the people than pay money to watch these things have every right to think and say whatever they like about those efforts. I don't have to be a chef to know if a meal tastes bad.