Why is it more laughable to point out the way a movie scores on one market - and correct to concentrate on another one only?
You do, of course, know that the German speaking market is probably the most important foreign one for US productions - and you do, of course, know that it is the Nr. 1 market for anything concerning Arnold Schwarzenegger (for obvious reasons).
I never said that Conan was not a huge box office success, I merely stated that it didn't age well.
I never stated that Kull is a true adaptation of Robert Howard's works (nor a really good movie, btw), I simply pointed out that today's audiences are more likely to swallow something more easy going like that, instead of the pathos dripping productions.
Yes, I know, things are still a bit different in the US - as productions like 300 or MI3 prove; unfortunately though, US productions can no longer live on the bo-success achieved on the US market as movies like Alexander or MI3 have proven, and therefore serving the tastes of US audiences only has become a roll of the dice: it might work out - like it did with 300. But if it doesn't (or simply just remain below the expectations despite doing in fact very well like Waterworld or - again - MI3) the blow hurts immensely.
Anyway, I do realise that this isn't about Robert Howard, Conan or Kull anymore. And frankly: as much as I enjoy fandom, I do find rabid fans a bit tiresome.
reply
share
roberthowardfan
17 years ago
Roman, in the future, I'll appreciate it if you respond to what I actually say. Where do I begin with your logical lapses? I never said you said Conan was not a huge box office success. I said you claimed viewers would be turned off by it because it presents its material seriously--as you did. I never accused you of saying Kull was a true adaptation of REH's work. If you'll recall, the person I took to task for that posted it on a thread before you entered into the debate. As for your initial statement of pointing out a movie's strengths in one area and ignoring its weaknesses in others, do you even realize what you were saying? You ignored two things--the rest of the world outside Germany and the amount of money made by these two films relative to each other. Those are large portions of a movie's market to ignore. As for Conan not aging well, I can't speak for Germany, but here in the US, REH has seen his work achieve massive critical acclaim and commercial success in recent years--something it lacked when either Conan or Kull came out. That has led to discussions of Conan's being remade with other Howard works that are even darker--Bran Mak Morn and Solomon Kane--also entering preproduction. In contrast, I've noticed no one has mentioned a possible remake of Kull. That could have nothing to do with the poor reception the movie received when it came out ten years ago, I'm sure. One final thing you overlook is the fact that movie ticket and DVD sales provide the lion's share of a movie's revenue. TV licensing is far down the list. Since Conan has made much more money from both than Kull, I'll leave it to your imagination which one audiences--98% of them outside Germany--are more receptive to...
reply
share
roman8
17 years ago
I'm sorry, but there are so many things you mix up, misunderstand or simply don't know the facts of, that I don't even know where to begin.
I'll concede whatever point you want - it really isn't worth it.
reply
share
lacedemonians
16 years ago
That has led to discussions of Conan's being remade with other Howard works that are even darker--Bran Mak Morn and Solomon Kane--also entering preproduction
That would really be something. But they would have to be made in consultation with die-hard Howard fanatics. As much as I like Arnold, the Conan movies did not really capture much of the spirit of Howard.
Illegitimus!
reply
share