Conan (spoilers ok)

[The Yosemite Bear]

know yea o prince between the time that the oceans drank Atlantis and the Sons of Aryan rose in the East there was an age undreamed of.....

hither came the new Conan movie (which the Bear won't be able to see for a while, but here's it's thread.)

[JME2]

I'm only a casual fan of the Conan mythos, but I might see it.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Yeah I started this thread a week early, which is better than my timing of two months early for the last season of Dexter.

[neoolong]

So, uh, it's really not that good. It's basically a two-parter from some low-rent cable TV series with a couple of thousand bucks thrown in to try to make it feature quality. Any interesting environments you think you're going to see are actually (digital) matte paintings used for establishing shots.

Jason Momoa is good, but really has nothing to work with. And the fights are blocked and edited to near-incoherence. You'll basically get what's going on, but you aren't going to marvel at how awesome of a warrior Conan is. Which is a shame, because Momoa has a physicality that should make the fights pretty good. They really go for quantity over quality and I'd say something like 65% of the movie is fight scenes. Just, bad ones. Ronon Dex's fight scenes from Stargate Atlantis are better than every fight he has in this movie.

Even though there's some extended exposition and back history given to Stephen Lang's villain, I didn't really care. He's a pretty generic villain, and not even Lang can elevate it any. Rose McGowan is okay; at least it feels like she's trying in the role. Rachel Nichols is pretty.

And the plot of the movie really strangely cribs from the 1982 Conan movie considering that that one wasn't particularly faithful or anything.

And the 3D is inoffensive at best.

[mr friendly guy]

I am hoping to see it on "super tuesday", the non 3 D version. I am hoping it wil be a decent popcorn flick. Hopefully more worth while than Clash of the Titans.

[Icehawk]

Saw this yesterday. My expectations were very low going in and coming out I would say it was ok, I'm not a Conan fan or know much of the preexisting Conan universe but I still found it decently entertaining. Would not waste the money on seeing it in 3d though.

[Havok]

It is officially a flop. luckily, they only spent $90 Mill on it. How much was the originals budget?
I'm hoping what this does is pique the interest in the franchise and it gets a proper do over again soon.

[Havok]

Oh yeah. Some perspective on the floppness.
Conan: 2011 Opening weekend: 10 million (est)
Conan: 1982 Opening weekend: 9 million.
Oops.

[neoolong]

How the hell did that cost $90M? Maybe they should have spent the money they used for mediocre 3D to make the actual movie better.

[Elheru Aran]

Well, Havok, the original Conan probably didn't cost all that much above 9 million to start with... not so much of a flop when you add it all up... this, on the other hand, will take rather a longer time to recoup its costs. Did you forget the difference between old money and new money?

[Havok]

You're obviously missing my point.

'82 Conan was a fucking huge hit. It opened up at #1. 9 million was great for what it was. I wasn't saying THAT movie was a flop. I was illustrating just how much of a flop '11 Conan is.
And 9 Mill was just '82's opening weekend. It went one to make 68.8 Mill world wide with only an 8 week release. Put it this way, it made only two million less in it's opening weekend than E.T. made in it's opening weekend.

11' Conan could only muster a measly 1 million more than a movie that opened 30 fucking years ago WITHOUT inflated ticket prices and 3D and an advertising budget probably double what the original Conan cost to fucking make.

If '82 Conan opened today under inflated prices, it's opening weekend take would be a little over $20 Million. Also keep in mind that '82 Conan opened in 1, 395 theaters while '11 opened in 3,015. Extrapolate '82 out over 1620 more screens and your are looking at around a $40 million-ish dollar opening weekend in today's prices. Not blockbuster status, but for an R rated movie? Pretty damn good, and I imagine it would probably be better than what I figured as I tried to stay conservative.

[The Yosemite Bear]

and it's got to fight against fanbase too, mind you I liked that the new actor looks more like somethign off a Julie Bell/Boris/Farzetta cover than Ahhnuld did. Still DeLorentis was able to use the 82 movie to recover from the whole DUNE fiasco....

[Darth Wong]

I have to laugh at the Conan fanboys on the movie review sites complaining that the critics are overlooking the fact that the movie is more faithful to the original books than the old version. Of course the critics are overlooking that fact, since it is totally irrelevant to the question of whether the movie sucks!

Besides, I've read some of those original books, and they suck too. The author spends so much time wanking about Conan's masculine power (over both enemies and women) that one can only imagine it was entirely written with one hand. When you find out that he was a loser who couldn't nail a woman to save his life and lived with his mother (and killed himself after her death), it's pretty obvious where all this over-the-top wankery came from.

[Faqa]

Actually, it's VERY relevant - the original movie was deeply terrible as well.

No, seriously, it's only good points are laughing at Arnold's accent and the fact that it outright forbids you from taking it seriously, thereby leading you into the realm of (very) cheesy fun.

Now, I haven't seen this movie, but the trailers make it look DARK AND RAR GRITTY. No fucking wonder it's terrible, if it's trying to do a straight take on the original movie

A shame, really. Jason Momoa has the props for a good barbarian action star.

[Stark]

I have to laugh at the Conan fanboys on the movie review sites complaining that the critics are overlooking the fact that the movie is more faithful to the original books than the old version. Of course the critics are overlooking that fact, since it is totally irrelevant to the question of whether the movie sucks!

Besides, I've read some of those original books, and they suck too. The author spends so much time wanking about Conan's masculine power (over both enemies and women) that one can only imagine it was entirely written with one hand. When you find out that he was a loser who couldn't nail a woman to save his life and lived with his mother (and killed himself after her death), it's pretty obvious where all this over-the-top wankery came from.

The most amusing thing about the dodgey 30s fiction is the by-mail version of forum outrage that occurred when one of the author's 'friends' suggested maybe constantly saying 'thews' was a bit tiresome and that drama or characterisation might be an improvement.

The movie doesn't seem to have received much exposure over here, so I doubt it'll do any better than in the US. Movie audiences might be willing to watch anything, but you have to at least TRY to get them into theatres.

[Havok]

Actually, it's VERY relevant - the original movie was deeply terrible as well.

Uh... what? The new movie sucks and was faithful to the source material, and that makes it VERY relevant, because you didn't like the old movie, which wasn't really faithful at all?

No, seriously, it's only good points are laughing at Arnold's accent and the fact that it outright forbids you from taking it seriously, thereby leading you into the realm of (very) cheesy fun.

Oh wait... I didn't get the memo that we were supposed to take Conan seriously. Mike, Dan... did you guys get that memo? And you realize you just said that it is fun, which is why people mostly like the original movie which was a success and a hit.

Now, I haven't seen this movie, but the trailers make it look DARK AND RAR GRITTY. No fucking wonder it's terrible, if it's trying to do a straight take on the original movie

A shame, really. Jason Momoa has the props for a good barbarian action star.

OK, I know you didn't see the movie, but you did see THE POST ABOVE YOURS yes? The point of Mike's post was to make fun of the people that are using the fact that critics are ignoring that the new movie is closer to the original source material than the old movie was, thereby NOT making it a 'straight take on the original movie'. Fucking pay attention.

[neoolong]

Wait, people are saying that the new movie is closer to the original source material? How much closer is that? Because the new movie basically plays like a remake of the old movie, other than making Conan a little more jovial at times and quicker on his feet.

[Stark]

No, people are saying that whether or not it's 'close' to the source material is irrelevant to whether or not it's entertaining.

[mr friendly guy]

The new movie plays like the old movie? Say what? Ok its been a while since I have seen the Arnie version, but I am do remember several differences, namely Conan doesn't get captured and tortured as he infiltrates the Big Bad's lair, and the love interest this time was a sacrifice rather than the fellow warrior. In fact wasn't the old movie about Conan recovering some King's daughter who had fallen under the influence of the villain's cult? Of course the villain just so happened to be the one who murdered Conan's village.

In any event I just saw it. Expected a popcorn movie and got it, so I was fairly satisfied. I of course, saw the 2 D version, so I can't really comment on whether the 3D will add anything to it. Definitely better "plot" (as far as plot goes in these type of flicks) better than the original. I certainly found it better than Clash of the Titans.

[Faqa]

Actually, it's VERY relevant - the original movie was deeply terrible as well.

Uh... what? The new movie sucks and was faithful to the source material, and that makes it VERY relevant, because you didn't like the old movie, which wasn't really faithful at all?

No, seriously, it's only good points are laughing at Arnold's accent and the fact that it outright forbids you from taking it seriously, thereby leading you into the realm of (very) cheesy fun.

Oh wait... I didn't get the memo that we were supposed to take Conan seriously. Mike, Dan... did you guys get that memo? And you realize you just said that it is fun, which is why people mostly like the original movie which was a success and a hit.

Now, I haven't seen this movie, but the trailers make it look DARK AND RAR GRITTY. No fucking wonder it's terrible, if it's trying to do a straight take on the original movie

A shame, really. Jason Momoa has the props for a good barbarian action star.

OK, I know you didn't see the movie, but you did see THE POST ABOVE YOURS yes? The point of Mike's post was to make fun of the people that are using the fact that critics are ignoring that the new movie is closer to the original source material than the old movie was, thereby NOT making it a 'straight take on the original movie'. Fucking pay attention.

Holy shit. You are absolutely right, I completely misread the post. I have NO idea how that happened.

My error.

[neoolong]

The new movie plays like the old movie? Say what? Ok its been a while since I have seen the Arnie version, but I am do remember several differences, namely Conan doesn't get captured and tortured as he infiltrates the Big Bad's lair, and the love interest this time was a sacrifice rather than the fellow warrior. In fact wasn't the old movie about Conan recovering some King's daughter who had fallen under the influence of the villain's cult? Of course the villain just so happened to be the one who murdered Conan's village.

So, the main villain originally being a snake cultist/bandit that kills Conan's tribe and takes his father's sword which Conan reclaims at the end after a quest for vengeance is completely unlike the main villain originally being a necromancer cultist/bandit that kills Conan's tribe and whose daughter takes Conan's father's sword which Conan reclaims at the end after a quest for vengeance? I'm not saying that they're aren't differences, but can you really say that it doesn't pull a large amount of the plot from the Arnie version.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, but the "you killed my tribe, now I kill you" plot is so commonplace in that genre as to be cliche. You have to be more specific than that.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Well about your comments Re: Howard, he probably could have gotten somewhere with his Ex had he not been so dominated by his fundy mom, who was dying of tuburculouus even before he was concieved. from discriptions given about thier first casual date, it's doubtful that back in the 30's anything ever progressed beyond the making out they tended to do....

well at least he got to touch a breast a few times, that's better than most of the AYVBs....

[mr friendly guy]

The new movie plays like the old movie? Say what? Ok its been a while since I have seen the Arnie version, but I am do remember several differences, namely Conan doesn't get captured and tortured as he infiltrates the Big Bad's lair, and the love interest this time was a sacrifice rather than the fellow warrior. In fact wasn't the old movie about Conan recovering some King's daughter who had fallen under the influence of the villain's cult? Of course the villain just so happened to be the one who murdered Conan's village.

So, the main villain originally being a snake cultist/bandit that kills Conan's tribe and takes his father's sword which Conan reclaims at the end after a quest for vengeance is completely unlike the main villain originally being a necromancer cultist/bandit that kills Conan's tribe and whose daughter takes Conan's father's sword which Conan reclaims at the end after a quest for vengeance? I'm not saying that they're aren't differences, but can you really say that it doesn't pull a large amount of the plot from the Arnie version.

The broad outline about getting revenge for the death of his tribe is the same, however the "journey", ie how many steps before Conan ends up killing the bad guy is somewhat different IMO.

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

Besides, I've read some of those original books, and they suck too. The author spends so much time wanking about Conan's masculine power (over both enemies and women) that one can only imagine it was entirely written with one hand. When you find out that he was a loser who couldn't nail a woman to save his life and lived with his mother (and killed himself after her death), it's pretty obvious where all this over-the-top wankery came from.

In defense of Howard, his father was a doctor who had to travel a lot to make a living, and I've read the only option otherwise for his mother to receive proper treatment would be a sanatorium, the conditions of which were pretty miserable in the 30s. Not to say he wasn't a socially awkward guy, but all of that combined with the fact that he was obviously clinically depressed and socially awkward combined with the high statistics of suicide among long term caregivers after their patient dies kind of makes how he ended up almost inevitable.

I feel a lot more sympathy for guys like Howard since I found out I was diagnosed with high-functioning autism as a child (this was before tests for Aspergers were standardized) and my parents did exactly dick about it- they don't even remember the diagnosis, and it only came out when my brother found the relevant paperwork in my mother's estate- it seemed like he never had a chance, the way he grew up.