Way better than 1982 film, in every respect, IMO
If you agree, post here :)
shareWith the exception of the music, I agree wholeheartedly.
MovieChat Forums > Conan the Barbarian (2011) Discussion > Way better than 1982 film, in every resp...
I liked this movie.
Do not be fooled by what I am saying...try to hear what it is I am not sayingshare
Holy cr@p, I heard so much negativity about this movie, I rented it half-heatedly just to glance at while I was doing my computer work. Well, 5 mins into the movie, I shut my computer down and kept it off the whole movie. This movie turned out to be SO GOOD! I cannot fathom all the negative reviews and the flop this made at the box office. It is really sad because this movie wasn't just good, it is one of the best movies I've ever seen. I felt the same way about Prince of Persia, except this movie was even much better than Prince of Persia (and that movie flopped too btw). I wish they could somehow make a sequel to this, but I know that won't happen. Anyway, I am one that definitely liked this movie, thought it was much better than the original (date for date), and am sad to hear so many people writing about how bad they thought it was. I just don't understand it.
shareI just don't understand it.
If it's any consolation, people who didn't like the movie feel exactly the same way about how people could like it. ;)
What can one say?
I've been into the Japanese stuff for awhile & thought otaku were bad, but our fanboys are as bad. Probably worse.
Being of an age to remember some of the first runs of these movies, it always amazes me when a young thing (college age like my daughter) comments on this or that movie & the first thing through my brain is "Didn't that movie flop?""Didn't the critics totally rip that one?"
I really liked the new Conan. It was fun like Xena & Hercules & didn't get all serious. Momoa is easy on the eyes & the ears, far more than Arnold ever was.
This movie was fun, I can't believe it gets so many negative reviews. And yes, the teenagers that slate this movie, based on reviews, not on watching, are the same kind of people who say "the original is better" as this is the fashionable thing to say. Like guys who say Sean Connery is the best Bond because FHM told them to say so. But that is a rant for another thread. Give this movie a chance, for fcol, don't take it too seriously.
shareIts a considerable conciet to use that kind of argument to dismiss opinions simply becasue they disagree with your own. That rant is entirely ignorant of the proportion of people who overtly do the exact opposite of what you claim (and the very real proportion of film fans for whom technical prowess is a requisite beofre they will cut a film any slack whatsoever) and in real terms both extremes are a tiny fraction of the whole who for the most part just watched the film and formed an honest opinion. Don't take opinions, especially your own, too seriously.
sharedon't take it too seriously.Is that the same as saying "ignore everything you don't like about it, then you'll like it"?
I don't think the original was amazing, but this one definitely isn't.
Just two quick "Hollywood" complaints; why at the end was Momoa holding the chain only with one hand and why was Rachel Nichols only holding onto it with one hand? My theory is so Conan could look extra powerful and the woman couldn't be outdone(for feminisms sake); and Hollywwod couldn't miss there chance to demonstrate casual sex, devoid of feelings, by having Conan and Tamara shake hands and part as buddies after their sex romp earlier. In the old days that would've created a bond/commitment, but now it's just for kicks.
Yea, Tho I Walk Thru The Valley Of The Shadow Of Political Correctness...🇺🇸 share
Prince of Persia didnt flop. It made twice its budget. And yes. Conan is not as bad as most of the people want it to see.
shareI suggest you watch the original and then compare this one to it. I suspect that for many people they only believe this one to be better because they saw it first. Frankly my only real problem with it was the lead in the remake is too small, they needed a huge body builder like they did in the first one to do the character justice.
shareWhen you gotta work, any crap becomes infinitely interesting.
--------------------------------------------
I own you.
Both films are not really true to Howards stories, but the old version is better in every aspect than this miserable turd.
shareI agree with what Ralf A. said 100%
shareThere is one difference between this and the Arnie movie. This film contains acting. Jason Momoa is a million times better than Arnie who couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. I watched the new version with a feeling of dread but enjoyed every second. I don't expect everybody, or even anybody, to agree with me, but at least do me the courtesy of allowing me an opinion.
share[deleted]
I LoLed...
So thanks.
lol no
shareI'm watching it expecting to hate it but it's actually not bad at all. The weak link is the casting of Conan and some of his dialog "I live, I love, I slay"......I just threw up in my mouth a little. Stephen Lang is always awesome and the I'm a sucker for Ron Perlman, even though like some have said before, when he says "I love you" to Conan before sacrificing himself...well that was unfortunate. Plus Conan was never meant to look like he was an islander, he should look almost scandinavian. Momoa's body is fine, even being smaller than Arnold but that face...it's just not Conan.
All in all not a bad movie but pales compared to the original. Not just because of Arnold per se but the mood and atmosphere of the 1982 film (including Basil's awesome score) just work for me in the way I imagine the world of Conan. I will say that anyone who bashes the production value of Nispel's Conan must be trying to watch in 3D without any batteries in the glasses. It looks good.
Blame Robert E. Howard, as that quote is far closer to his Conan than anything a monosyllabic Arnold managed to grunt out in his movie.
"I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."
- Conan, "Queen of the Black Coast", by Robert E. Howard
Yes! And also...
Howard states in The Hyborian Age that "the Gaels, ancestors of the Irish and Highland Scots, descended from pure-blooded Cimmerian clans." He correlates Cimmeria to the Cymric people, the Cimbri, the Gimirrai, the Cimmerians and the Crimea.
"Hyborian Age" Wikipedia
So not really Scandinavian, either...
i wanted to like it. i'm into remaking what would be considered "B" grade back in the day but i have to say the original movie was light years better than this one. i was bored as hell. maybe i just have old balls...
shareLol, some of the CGI made me feel like I was watching the 80's version ; )
The difference between the two...
One catered to the male ego, while the other catered to the general public
(IMO)
(and it seemed like he looked into the camera way too much)
-=1000 travel books are not equal to 1 real trip=-
I actually thought most of the movie was pretty good.
Don't understand the 5.2 rating. Seen way worse films that truly deserve those bad ratings. It wasn't grand, and towards the end, it seemed like a bit of a let down, but all things considered...a solid 7.5 or so IMO.
And yes, better than the original.
5.2 isn't necessarily a 'bad' rating.
It just means the movie is completely average. 7.5 would imply it was better than most, and I'm sorry man, but it wasn't. 5.2 seems about right to me, like you said, there are far worse movies out there... but there are many far better ones too. This movie belongs in the middle of the pack.
5.2 isn't necessarily a 'bad' rating.
It just means the movie is completely average. 7.5 would imply it was better than most, and I'm sorry man, but it wasn't. 5.2 seems about right to me, like you said, there are far worse movies out there... but there are many far better ones too. This movie belongs in the middle of the pack.
I'll be more specific. 5.2 is low for IMDB universe. Considering most films do not even get below 5 no matter how bad they are.
There are swaths of horrid movies carrying a 4-5 mark on IMDB, and this movie is better than most of those.
5.2 is not in the middle of the pack on IMDB, it's at the bottom end.
___________
Also, for me, my rating scale doesn't have 5 being "average"
1-3 is unwatchable trash, 4-5 is just bad, 6-7 is around average, 8 good, 9 very good, 10 excellent.
share
You think?
Really that comes down to opinion, so I'm not going to bicker with you about it. I can see your scale being perfectly reasonable as well, but if anything I find IMDB ratings to be lower than they should be, which is why I look at 5 as average. Some great movies have in the 7 - 9 range, with only a few "hard to argue with classics" being 9+.
Now, that's in terms of "averages", since that's what the rating is. I rated it a 5 because, as I said, I found it to be pretty much average, and in my rating scale 1 - 4 = below average, 6 - 10 = above average (to their obviously varying degrees.
but if anything I find IMDB ratings to be lower than they should be, which is why I look at 5 as average. Some great movies have in the 7 - 9 range, with only a few "hard to argue with classics" being 9+.
My instant thought goes to the twilight series as example. They are all in the 4.5-5.5 range. And I thought without a doubt this movie was better than any of those.
So I still think 5.2 is low even for the IMDB universe.
I think there's a dichotemy. To me, at the top, better movies are under rated on IMDB. But horrible movies are often over rated on the IMDB scale. share
5.2 is quite high for this film. This film is balls to the walls bad. I don't compare it to the original film, nor do I compare it to R E Howard's work. I looked at it as its own movie. And it was horrible, as a movie it just failed to be any good.
The troubles seem to have started right from the word go, back in the conceptual stage. The fact they got Marcus Nispel to direct shows they had no faith in the project and just needed a yes man who was happy to still be working despite his films being really bad.
If they got a director with a modicum of talent, they would have laughed at the horrible script, argued with the moron executives and left the project OR forced it to be redesigned from the ground up, which would be too costly (ironically, it probably would have made more money had they done that, so it could have turned a profit instead of a gaping loss).
Nispel, like Andres Barthowiak (spelling?) is a hack director, he only gets attached to projects where the studio wants to retain 100% creative control.
To say this abortion is better, as a film telling a story, than the 82 version is outright wrong. I understand some people like this one more, which I understand, I like some terrible movies too (chopping mall), but because it is liked, doesn't mean it is good. Transformers 1, 2 and 3 prove this. And, to be fair, if liking did equate to quality, then this film would still be considered terrible as those who like it are in the very small minority.
I have no problem with people liking this film, I just want to point out that liking doesn't make it good. It is a terrible movie, it is nothing like the original film (which it wasn't supposed to be, so in that sense it succeeded), it is nothing like Howard's stories (which it tried to be) and in no way, shape or form does it resemble a well told story.
Well, actually, considering the hate this movie has been getting since before its' first trailer was even released the rating of 5.2/10 is actually high.
I mean, the rating of the movie was deliberately lowered by the Arnoldheads who gave it 1-s without even having the intention of seeing it. If it weren't for them, the movie would have been rated at least 6.2/10. I am absolutely serious about that. There are some movies that get massive hate over the internet from people who don't intend to see them and this was one of these movies. Others are the Twilight movies, the Justin Bieber movies, etc. However the target audience of 'Twilight' and 'Never Say Never' is 12-year old girls - and 12-year old girls don't care about reviews, word of mouth, ratings, etc. The 12-year old girls care about "OMG HE SO CUTE I LOVE HIM OMG!!!". That is why these movies are successful despite the low ratings.
The target audience of an R-rated action movie is a different thing. I mean, it is mostly adults, and adults care about ratings, reviews, etc. Not to mention the fact that most of these people have grown up with Arnold's movies and won't accept anyone else as Conan even if the new actor has the muscles of Ronnie Coleman, the acting talent of Robert DeNiro and the fighting skills of Jet Li, they would hate him just for not being Arnold -> hence bogus 1-s, fake reviews written by idiots who haven't seen the movie being spread all over the internet, fake rumors started by idiots who haven't seen the movie being spread all over the internet, fake word of mouth being spread by idiots who haven't seen the movie, etc.
The movie called '300' had exactly the opposite fate - it was hyped massively by the fans of Frank Miller and the people who liked 'Sin City' and many people - thousands of people - gave it 10-s before it was even released. That is what it owes its' high rating.
In both cases it has nothing to do with the movies being good or bad.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
That's a little presumptuous of you.
So nobody who gave this movie a low rating did so because they just thought it was a *beep* movie? It was all the "Arnold Heads"?
No, I bet you'll have Conan fans, not really the ones I know on this forum, who give this a 10-s, just for it being Conan. But I think they will be far outnumbered by Arnoldheads, because the majority of Hardcore Conan fans who are on this forum, have given this a low to average score, maybe some higher. And likely most movie fans in general did the same. And if you put that all together, you would get something as low as a 5.2
I can't give this a more specific number, because I don't know exactly how many Arnold heads, Hardcore Conan fans, or any other number of people in specific groups have voted on this.
'I don't have faith, I have experience' - Joseph Campbell
Haha. Fair enough.
I just find the scapegoating on "Arnold Heads" kind of strange. It's just a fancy word for "Haters" which is just a fancy word for "People who have opinions that differ from mine". Haters is woefully overused, and Arnold Heads has the same kind of 'cop-out' feel to it.
Well you have a fair amount of them. But not just Arnold fans, but just fans of the 82 movie who are just prefer it for Nostalgic reasons, or mostly at least. I don't want to say the 82 version is worse. But it was certainly not better. It might just seem that way, but again there is a lot of biassed opionons flying around, though from both sides, but again they come more from Arnold fans in my experience, rather than from hardccore Conan fans, who hated this film, appreciated it for what it is, though it was just ok... Their opinions certainly very more compared to Arnold fans.
'I don't have faith, I have experience' - Joseph Campbell
Honestly, I find the '82 to be better. But it wasn't going for the same style as this one so I find it hard to compare them. I like Arnie, I'll admit it, but I didn't like '82 BECAUSE of Arnie, and I think they could have cast someone better for the role.
As I've mentioned before, I see '82 as a low-fantasy epic. The sweeping landscapes, the bombastic score, etc, etc. '11 comes off as a high-fantasy hack-and-slash, so while you can look at it in terms of acting/directing comparisons, you can't really compare them beyond that. That isn't to say hack-and-slash is 'bad', just... not the same. It's like trying to compare a horror movie and a comedy on a point-by-point basis, it just doesn't work very well.
I just found '82 let me get into the world more, and I'm sorry, but some of the writing in that movie (if you can get past Arnie's accent) is fantastic. I still love the sparsely dialogue'd origin sequence. The scene where Thulsa Doom kills Conan's mom while he's clutching her hand, just staring ahead as her head falls to the ground? It wasn't gory, it didn't need to be, it was just an awesome sequence.
Again, I like Arnie, Commando was a *beep* great action flick, but I think Conan '82 wouldn't get half as much flak as it does if they'd gone with someone else.
I just didn't get the same appreciation for '11 that I got for '82, it just didn't seem as polished a product and it relied too heavily on special effects. That was its downfall and it had nothing to do with Arnie.
And you can honestly say that if the 82 version was made with another actor, because Arnold was pretty unknown and with poor to mediocre acting skills, you wouldn't rate the movie differently?
Personally I find the 82 version a better film, but not a better Conan film and there are others who share the same opinion. And that is just based on knowledge and partially also on opinion. One because I know the character of Conan, though I'm not going to say I'm a large expert, and based on the knowledge I have, Arnold failed badly, which is what disappoints me of the 82 version. I find Jason better in his portrayal of Conan and his performance, while badly influenced due to the director, is much better and that on itself made it a better Conan movies, cause even as a Conan movie this film is flawed and no doubt highly flawed as a movie on itself.
But I can't appreciate the 82 version anymore. I used to, before I learned more of Conan and the source material. Because I'm trying to look at it objectively. Because believe it or not I'm also an Arnold fan. I love movies such as the Terminator films, except the third one. Predator, True Lies etc. He's a great for action flicks, but I think the character of Conan demanded more. And maybe on that level I'm a bit biased, simply because I like the character of Conan so much. I find that more as just being passionate, rather than biased... But I can see how others would not agree on that.
'I don't have faith, I have experience' - Joseph Campbell
I'd have rated it higher if it hadn't had Arnie to be honest. He fits the 'image' of what people perceive a barbarian to be (big muscles, bigger sword) but he just didn't do the writing justice with his delivery; too many monologues.
I also agree with that Amsterdamaged guy on here that Momoa is probably a more 'believable' Conan, if believable = fitting Howard's description of him. I can still appreciate '82 for what it was, a damn fine low-fantasy epic but I'll agree it was Conan largely in name. My knowledge of the source material is hardly extensive, but I've read Vol. 1 of the Ace Fantasy compilation pocket books and have at least a basic idea of the tone of the world.
I don't look at them as "Oh, this is the better Conan movie" though, I base my decisions on a movie's quality based on the movie. '82 was the 'worse' Conan but, as you agree, it's a far better film. The '11 movie meanwhile is closer to the source material, but it doesn't have much appeal beyond that.
So really, it comes down to what you're looking for in the movie. Do you want a great movie with less to do with Conan, or a mediocre movie that's closer to the source material? I'm happier with a great movie, personally.
Now if only they'd make a great movie that's closer to the source material and we're all set ;)
Now this is where we differ, because, with all respect, unlike what you said, I don't think the 82 version is a much better movie. I think it's a better movie. I would say this 2011 version is an entertaining mediocre movie, while I would put the 82 version to an average good movie, meaning it's close to being good. Maybe I used to think it was good, but that was before I knew anything about Conan.
So for that reason I do prefer the 2011 version, while I don't hate the 82 version, but I guess I would say that I appreciate both movies for what they are, however I appreciate the new movie more for being a better Conan movie, though if you prefer the old movie, I respect that, and can understand why.
Something I like to add is that the old movie is slightly overrated and the score is overrated, done by Basil Poledouris. This is simply because like the movie the score is just overrated. He doesn't add to the list to really good composers such as John Williams, Danny Elfman, Bernard Herman, Jerry Goldsmith, John Barry. I only heard people highly speaking of him about the Conan score he did for the old film on this board and while I am very familiar with the musical world especially in films, his name never came up and that speaks for itself. I'm am member on a private John Williams forum, where we talk a lot about other composers. Again, he is not mentioned.
If he really was that good people would snatch him up... And you never hear of the guy and I'm familiar with other scores he did from other movies. It's not something to speak highly about, so I don't know where the praise is coming from.
'I don't have faith, I have experience' - Joseph Campbell
Honestly, I've never heard the guy's name either, granted I don't follow composers save the big names like Williams & Zimmer (he's big, right? Gladiator was -great-). I guess even composers have 1 hit wonders though, and this guy definitely scored (GET IT!?) with this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0tZGhfZ8HA
This piece in particular (after the Mako-intro) just made this movie for me. The deep bass of the drums mixed with the strings and the crescendos. It just fits the movie so well that I can't help but enjoy it while Arnie's sword'ing the hell outta people.
So he may not be a big name, but even no-names can get it right once in awhile!
For me the score isn't memorable, unless you have watched the movies more than a hundred times. It's scores like from Williams, that are really memorable for me. I recently saw Tintin, bit different material than Conan I might add and the music was really good as usual. Williams has no weak spots imo. You might say I'm biased in my opinion. Perhaps, but there's a reason he's a well respected man in the classical musical world and that speaks for itself. I don't disagree that no-names can get it right once in a while... But Conan is not one of those moments for me. The opening is pretty good, I'll grand you that. To be honest there's a similarity with the Total Recall opening theme imo, just at the beginning.
'I don't have faith, I have experience' - Joseph Campbell
This is horrendously ignorant. Basil Poledouris's work on Conan is *always* considered a highlight of soundtracks in the 1980s. I would also suggest you go watch "The Hunt for Red October" again and realize just how influential BP's score for that film has been. Everyone from Jesper Kyd to Gregson-Williams has been cribbing his style ever since.
I'm not denying Williams's legacy, just pointing out that if you weren't ignorant (and BP not died) you would see things differently.
I love the 82 film, so I'm admittedly biased... But I wasn't going into this hoping to dislike it. I thought it might be reasonable fun... Boy was I wrong. I had trouble making the effort to sit through it all without fast forwarding. It was bad on so many levels. There was the occasional interesting shot, and otherwise it was a complete mess, even forgetting it was Conan and just looking at it as pulp fantasy fun.
http://duncansguide.blogspot.com - My Reviewsshare
I agree
And it was awesome action movie...
I dont get IMDB rating..
I will give 9 out of 10.
Well I haven't seen this version of Conan yet, but I can agree with the overrating of 300, which I thought was at best horridly bad. It receives nothing but hyped praise though...
share[deleted]
I'm actually surprised it got a rating this high since it got bashed so much. Sounds like a lot of people were putting in their two cents before they actually saw it. I don't think it's better than the original at all (except some of the action scenes and of course, spfx) but it wasn't as bad as it was made out to be. As long as i can get some entertainment out of it, it deserves a 5 by default and can build from there. I gave it a 6.5.
Momoa was ok. A little too cocky and not brooding and dark enough. Lang was excellent as always as was McGowan and Perlman. Was hoping to see a little more from the supporting cast. The story was ok. Could have done without the generic western accents.
[deleted]
No it was not. Arnold Schwarzenegger did a better Conan. The 82 version was directed better and the whole movie was better than this remake. This looked like an FX cable show. The acting was bland as well as the whole movie. I rented it for $1.20 from Redbox. That's all it was worth. I knew I would not spend money at the show to see it and I see why. So no, this was not better. And it did poorly at the box office and never made it's investors their money back.
San Diego Ca, Indie Filmmaker
The 82 version was directed better and the whole movie was better than this remake.
______
Anyone who claims this movie is a remake is dumber than the dirt on my shoes. Fact.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
There was nothing particularly impressive, IMO, with the direction on the original. And whether a movie is profitable or not has little bearing on its quality. If that was a measure of quality, "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" would rank above "Schindler's List". lol.
shareNot making money = few people went to see it = few people cared/liked the film.
Never said money = quality, I said money shows how much people liked it. This film stank and hardly anyone liked it, which is what makes it a real failure of a movie as opposed to just being a crappy film.
well, I cant judge the movie because Ive never seen it but I went to wal mart today and 2 employees who worked there told me it wasnt very good and they recommended I get cowboys and aliens instead. So I guess I may never know.
shareWell, we live in an age in which Twilight is considered good literature and Justin Bieber is considered good music. I'm not surprised to see these kind of posts.
It's sad, though, to see how many people fail to realize what makes a movie good. Meh, to each his own.
Well, we live in an age in which Twilight is considered good literature and Justin Bieber is considered good music.
---
... and the 1982 movie is considered a good movie... The times are really sad...
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
"... and the 1982 movie is considered a good movie... The times are really sad..."
So what exactly makes the 82 movie bad, IYO?
Read what I already wrote. I won't repeat it.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
"Read what I already wrote. I won't repeat it."
Groovy, then I won't have to refute it proving you probably didn't understand the old movie and thought it was about a "big guy with a sword who kills bad guys with swords".
Well, you just can't do it. All the philosophical cr@p that Milius put in it is just cr@p. It didn't make it better. It just made it pretentious.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
The '82 film was just as poorly reviewed and received. It's only in hindsight and with age that it is now considered a classic.
share"Well, you just can't do it. All the philosophical cr@p that Milius put in it is just cr@p. It didn't make it better. It just made it pretentious."
The fact that you consider what Millius put in his movie as "philosophical" exactly proves my point. It's as if you just told me that computers are magic.
No wonder you like this empty, soulless, poorly written, unoriginally directed, Fast and Furious-ified, Linkin Park-ized version better.
No wonder you like this empty, soulless, poorly written, unoriginally directed, Fast and Furious-ified, Linkin Park-ized version better.
______
If you actually saw it you might have understood why I like it. I like it because it is FACTUALLY at least ten million times better.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
"If you actually saw it you might have understood why I like it. I like it because it is FACTUALLY at least ten million times better."
Wait, aren't you the guy who once tried to convince me he was an expert swordman? Well, sorry to burst your bubble, pal, but a different choreographer and a different fighting style a better movie makes not. Maybe "Tron Legacy" had better fight choreographies than the original "Tron", but it's still a far worse movie (and notice how I didn't say Conan '11 had BETTER choreographies, only different ones), and probably will not be remembered in years to come. Not more than the original, at least.
This movie was bad, the script was absurd and made no sense, the characters were all unrelatable jerks (and I've felt a slight kinship with Conan for years, read some of my messages and you'll find out why), Momoa was miscast (no proto-celt has ever looked like a pacific islander, EVER) and the fights were clearly shot as crowd pleasers for 15 YO kids who think "300" is da shiat. It didn't tell anything, not even a proper story (it was more like a bad videogame). Hell, even the screenwriter had to publicly apologize for it.
If you think this is better than Millius' take, I'm sorry to say so, but you might want to have that checked.
Talking about a movie we haven't seen, aren't we? At least you are doing it...
Look, if you thought I was going to give a real response to all the cr@p you just wrote you are dead wrong. I already did it - to you, personally, and to other people - even in this topic. Read. If you don't agree with me just put me in your ignore list. You will not change my opinion because my opinion is the absolute truth. FACT. Accept it.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
"Talking about a movie we haven't seen, aren't we? At least you are doing it..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you think I haven't seen it? I have seen it from the stupid and improbable "C-section" scene in the beginning to the final fight against the guy who's been looking for a girl for 15 YEARS AND HASN'T AGED A SINGLE DAY, and *SPOILERS* supposedly wields demonic power and invincibility because of that dumb-looking squid helmet (why do they call it "mask" if it's clearly a helmet?), yet only uses his sword to fight Conan, and dies like everyone else.
"Look, if you thought I was going to give a real response to all the cr@p you just wrote you are dead wrong."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I knew you weren't going to. As far as I know, you never do.
"Read. If you don't agree with me just put me in your ignore list. You will not change my opinion because my opinion is the absolute truth."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, you trolling, right?
"FACT. Accept it."
------------------
Oh, talking about facts now, are we? OK, here are some facts:
Conan '82: 6'8 on IMDB. 75% on Rottentomatoes. 6'6 on Filmaffinity.
Conan '11: 5'2 on IMDB. 22% on Rottentomatoes. 4'3 on Filmaffinity.
Conan '82 spawned a great deal of ripoffs/ homages during the 80s (Beastmaster, Deathstalker, Ator), because it was regarded as a great movie and everyone back then wanted to do something like it. Conan '11 bombed and one of it's 198945 million screenwriters, Sean Hood, publicly accepted it was a crap movie.
Here. FACTS.
[deleted]
"Umm, you do know the old movie was destroyed by the critics when it was released, do you? Most of the positive reviews came YEARS after its' initial release date. And you do know the critics rarely like pure fantasy, do you? I mean, 'Willow' has 45% on RT despite the fact that it is an iconic movie. And you do realize the FACT that the old Conan movie owes its' rating to the brainless Arnoldheads who rated it high just because it started the career of their idol, do you? And you do remember how many idiots gave the new movie 1-s without seeing it, do you?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, yeah, yeah, ratings mean nothing, I knew you were going to play that card. But is that a fact, or is it simply your opinion? Is there a website where I can check the exact percentage of idiots and arnoldheads who contributed to the downfall of this, according to you, modern masterpiece?
I thought you wanted to discuss facts. I gave you some.
And the cold, hard facts say that this movie sucked.
"Not to mention the FACT that here, on imdb.com, b-movies like 'Undisputed 2' get higher ratings than classy action movies like 'Lethal Weapon 4' or good thrillers like 'Changing Lanes' which sends the credibility of this site straight into the lavatory when it comes to rating movies."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, is there a way to onjectively check the credibility of IMDB, or is that simply your opinion? And for the record, I think I like the fights in Undisputed 2 better than the ones in LW 4. Isn't that how you rate movies?
Are you suggesting that this is classy action movie and not a crappy B-movie (or even Z!) just because the names involved are mildly famous?
"As for the FACT that you haven't seen the movie - it is obvious from the way you write about it."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hum, and how do I write about it? Saying it sucked? Are you implying that I think it's bad as a tumor just because I didn't pay enough attention to it? Funny, that's exactly what I think your problem is with Millius' movie.
Well, I watched it carefully enough to realize how nonsensical the story is, how bad the dialogues are and how atrocious the pacing is, with a fight every 90 seconds or so. Not to mention Momoa does not look like Conan at all, and is there simply because he was Khal Drogo and the producers thought he could work his magic into this as well.
Prove me wrong, if you can.
"I have written more about the actual problems of the movie than all of the haters did combined. Sorry but that is the truth. Read carefully. Idiot."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohh, losing it already, big boy? You're a swordman, act like a warrior and take the enemy blows with some dignity.
As for writing about the actual problems of the movie, I've talked about them millions of times and you've never even acknowledged them, at least while I was around. So what problems do you see in this movie? Not enough CGI, maybe? Lack of wirework in the fights? Maybe a little more metal in the OST?
Wow... You just proved my point. Again, you didn't write anything specific about the movie you are trying to talk about. Which means I am right and you are wrong. You have the right to hate it if you want. Nobody is stopping you. But how can I prove you wrong if you are not writing anything specific? It is impossible.
Edit:
By the way, if you don't write anything that I would consider specific(like an actual analysis of an actual scene of the movie without using sarcasm) I would end the discussion by putting you in my ignore list. What you are doing is basically saying "It sucks because I said so", and that means you are a moron. I have better things to do than arguing with morons. Sorry.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
"Wow... You just proved my point. Again, you didn't write anything specific about the movie you are trying to talk about. Which means I am right and you are wrong. You have the right to hate it if you want. Nobody is stopping you. But how can I prove you wrong if you are not writing anything specific? It is impossible."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you just... plagiarize my argument? O.o (What point was that anyway?)
Wasn't I the one asking you for the exact reasons why Conan '82 was bad? Yes I was, and you dodged the question and now you're are asking me the same thing about the '11 version!!
"By the way, if you don't write anything that I would consider specific(like an actual analysis of an actual scene of the movie without using sarcasm) I would end the discussion by putting you in my ignore list. What you are doing is basically saying "It sucks because I said so", and that means you are a moron. I have better things to do than arguing with morons. Sorry."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, you should be. You can call me an idiot and all is well, but you can't take a bit of sarcasm without threatening to leave the argument and ignore me? Geez, you must have the softest, nearly non-existent spine I've seen in a long time.
OK, just to prove I'm a good sportsman, I will make a couple of exact criticisms about this movie. Here they go:
The much talked C-section scene. There's no way a C-section can be performed like that. It's absurdly easy and quick, almost as opening up the fridge and picking up a soda can. And to top it all off, both Perlman and inconsequential actress number #4324 apparently become surrounded by a force field of some kind, because the many battling, roaring enemies around them decide to not come near them until the scene is over, thus allowing Perlman to cry (do cimmerians cry? I don't think so, or at least not in public) and to hold his newborn son high in while he goes all Lion King. Unlikely, ridiculous and over the top.
The dialogues. Tamara is finally captured by Zym and his daughter. Zym says something like "I've got you at last". Tamara says something like "but I'm not the one you're looking for!". Marique then cuts her and tastes her blood, and says "she's the one we're looking for". They all look at each other for what seems an uncomfortable couple of seconds. Cut. Mother of God, that was some terrible dialogue. I mean, it's like not having a dialogue at all. The exact opposite of what Millius did, which was telling things without dialogues. These guys talk and say nothing of real interest.
Another one: Zym attacks Whatsizname monastery and captures the guy in charge. He says something like "you and your pals killed my wife, now I'll have my revenge!". The guy in charge replies "but it wasn't us, it was the barbarian tribes! (Which is true, we saw that on the opening sequence, and Whatsizname monks were never mentioned) And your wife was a heartless bitch who wanted to enslave us all anyway". Khalar then says nothing for a couple of seconds, as if he was thinking "damn, owned!", and orders one of his henchmen to kill the man in some gruesome manner. Another stupid, pointless dialogue which serves only to enfeeble Khalar's motivations.
Need I say more?
Did you just... plagiarize my argument?
____
Umm, no? I mean, I wrote why I think the new movie is better at least 50 times already. I don't see a reason to repeat it again.
The much talked C-section scene. There's no way a C-section can be performed like that. It's absurdly easy and quick, almost as opening up the fridge and picking up a soda can. And to top it all off, both Perlman and inconsequential actress number #4324 apparently become surrounded by a force field of some kind, because the many battling, roaring enemies around them decide to not come near them until the scene is over, thus allowing Perlman to cry (do cimmerians cry? I don't think so, or at least not in public) and to hold his newborn son high in while he goes all Lion King.
As absurd as this scene is - and it surely is absurd and I wouldn't put it in the movie if I were in charge - you need to watch it again. Seriously.
The dialogues. Tamara is finally captured by Zym and his daughter. Zym says something like "I've got you at last". Tamara says something like "but I'm not the one you're looking for!". Marique then cuts her and tastes her blood, and says "she's the one we're looking for". They all look at each other for what seems an uncomfortable couple of seconds. Cut. Mother of God, that was some terrible dialogue. I mean, it's like not having a dialogue at all. The exact opposite of what Millius did, which was telling things without dialogues. These guys talk and say nothing of real interest.
Umm, if she hadn't told Zim that you would complain about her not trying to convince Zim she is not the one he is looking for. I don't see any problem with this particular dialogue although it could be much better.
Another one: Zym attacks Whatsizname monastery and captures the guy in charge. He says something like "you and your pals killed my wife, now I'll have my revenge!". The guy in charge replies "but it wasn't us, it was the barbarian tribes! (Which is true, we saw that on the opening sequence, and Whatsizname monks were never mentioned) And your wife was a heartless bitch who wanted to enslave us all anyway". Khalar then says nothing for a couple of seconds, as if he was thinking "damn, owned!", and orders one of his henchmen to kill the man in some gruesome manner. Another stupid, pointless dialogue which serves only to enfeeble Khalar's motivations.
Do I really need to go into a deep analyzing of this particular scene? I mean, wasn't it obvious why the monk did what he did? I always thought it was...
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/ share
"Umm, no? I mean, I wrote why I think the new movie is better at least 50 times already. I don't see a reason to repeat it again."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umm, yes? And you failed to see the point of that sentence yet again: I was the one asking you for a reasoning about why Conan '82 is a bad movie. You avoided answering, and asked me the same question about the '11 turd. Thus, you used my same argument without actually refuting it.
Also, you never explained to ME why it's better, and we've discussed that quite a few times.
"As absurd as this scene is - and it surely is absurd and I wouldn't put it in the movie if I were in charge - you need to watch it again. Seriously."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? I've seen it twice, and it only got more ludicrous the second time.
"Umm, if she hadn't told Zim that you would complain about her not trying to convince Zim she is not the one he is looking for. I don't see any problem with this particular dialogue although it could be much better."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, so now I'm a "hater" and I'm looking for reasons to hate this movie because I've got nothing better to do, right?
The problem, is that it is a pointless dialogue.It could have been a character development scene, in which we get to know each character more deeply through dialogues (because, frankly, we know only the basics about them). Instead, they spout three completely inconsequential lines about stuff we already know. WE KNOW Tamara's the one, WE KNOW Zym's been looking for her FOR 15 YEARS (he's one lousy villain, but hey, at least he doesn't age, nor feel the need to change his clothes), WE KNOW Marique can reveal her true nature. So what's the point?
"Do I really need to go into a deep analyzing of this particular scene? I mean, wasn't it obvious why the monk did what he did? I always thought it was..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you do. It's Zym the one who acts in a completely nonsensical way, not the monk. Why does he want to get revenge on the monks? As far as we know, the monk is telling the truth, his order didn't have anything to do with his wife's death. It was the united barbarian tribes.
Barbarian tribes like the Picts, who, BTW, serve as his scouts (another nod to the Milius movie). Shouldn't he be seeking to get revenge on them, instead of giving them employment?
I will respond to this post tomorrow. I just finished translating one short story in Bulgarian and right now I am so exhausted so I can't even write my name without checking it twice. Sorry.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
Sure. There's no hurry.
shareOK...
Umm, yes? And you failed to see the point of that sentence yet again: I was the one asking you for a reasoning about why Conan '82 is a bad movie. You avoided answering, and asked me the same question about the '11 turd. Thus, you used my same argument without actually refuting it.
I have already written it but whatever... What is bad about the old movie?
Laughably bad acting from the leading actor. Sorry but that is a fact. Even the creators of the movie acknowledged it - that is why they gave Arnold so few lines and that is why they didn't let him read the narration.
Laughably bad sword fighting choreography. I am sorry but Japanese styles of sword fighting are not suitable for western kind of swords at all, and that is the smallest of all the problems this movie had in that department. I guess there is a reason why Kyoshi Yamazaki was never hired to do the choreography f any movie apart from the old Conan movies :) Actually I liked the fights in 'Red Sonja', though, but that was probably because I saw that movie at the age of 10 :) The iaido kata was exceptionally horrible, and I am saying this as a man who has seen a few real iaido demonstrations in his life. A few of my friends practiced that art actively. The moves in the movie are generally slow and badly performed, which leads to...
Bad editing, especially in the action scenes. Sorry, take your fanboy glasses of and you will see it. That was mainly because Arnold was not skilled with the sword enough to do a decent fight scene. If you want to see real perfection in that department, see Kihachi Okamoto's 'Sword of Doom'.
Cheap look. Again, sorry but the 1982 Conan movie was more expensive than 'Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Arc'. Where did all that money go?
Pretentious writing. Sorry, "pretentious" does not equal "good". Lines like "I cry because Conan will not", for example, are cheesier than what one would normally expect from a Manowar copycat metal band, and the "great" riddle of steel contains "wisdom" that can be seen in low budget martial arts b-movies like 'The Kickboxer'. I am sorry but saying "Steel is nothing without the man who wields it" or whatever the exact line was with deep commanding voice does not make it better.
The main character is not a barbarian despite the title of the movie.
Arnold did not look like a man who had spent years in pit fighting. I mean, he was a gladiator for how many rears? Ten? I don't remember... And he didn't have a single scar on his body??? Yeah, right...
And so on.
Oh, so now I'm a "hater" and I'm looking for reasons to hate this movie because I've got nothing better to do, right?
Apparently yes.
The problem, is that it is a pointless dialogue.It could have been a character development scene
First, why on earth would you need character development at the end of the movie? That never happens in the action movies of this kind. Second, how exactly did we know "only the basics about them"? I mean, we knew who Zim was, what was his goal, and why. We knew who Marique was, what was her goal and why. We knew who Tamara was... You get the point. They were not deep, thought provoking characters, but they weren't supposed to be. The point was to show Tamara trying to save her life. Again, if she didn't do it someone would complain about her not doing it.
Yes you do. It's Zym the one who acts in a completely nonsensical way, not the monk.
1. Why does he want to get revenge on the monks?
2. As far as we know, the monk is telling the truth, his order didn't have anything to do with his wife's death. It was the united barbarian tribes.
1. Because he thought they were involved in the death of his wife? After all, they were hiding The One.
2. So what? Zim was a warlord psychopath, that was clear from the very beginning of the movie.
Barbarian tribes like the Picts, who, BTW, serve as his scouts (another nod to the Milius movie). Shouldn't he be seeking to get revenge on them, instead of giving them employment?
Why exactly? If one black man slaps you in the face would you want to slap all black men back?
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/ share
These types of movies never have character development? Only the bad the ones mate.
A good movie, regardless of the genre has good character development. Basic film 101 stuff. If the writers or director are too lazy to go through the effort of making characters more than one line of motivation then that is the fault of the writer or director, not the genre of the film.
I understand you like this film and want to defend it, ok, fine, but saying that this genre of films are supposed to be like this is completely wrong. Not a matter of opinion, it is WRONG.
Ask any director, writer, take any film course they will all tell you, without strong characters you have no film.
Why doesn't this film have it? Completely muddled and all over the place script courtesy of too many writers and studio "input" and a hack director who probably doesn't fully understand this concept (having never had any education in film) or if they did, they were completely inept at implementing it.
These types of movies never have character development? Only the bad the ones mate.
___
I wrote it never happens at the end which is quite different. There was enough character development before that.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
Point taken you did say that, my mistake.
However, there was not enough development in the film. Most characters in their first scene blurt out their goals for the film, and again at several intervals throughout the film to remind the audience. This is not character development, that goes beyond what their goal is, it is about getting the know the person their nuances, what they enjoy, what they hate and the closest we get for anyone is Khalar Zym in terms of development.
We learn he loves his wife, he wants her back, he wants to become a God (now that is a cliche this film could do without).
Areas that should have been explored to make him even more developed : He has wealth and power but all he cares about is his wife, it would have been good to show how little he cares for material wealth etc. and that he feels empty and alone with Maliva (in a non cry baby way).
Why does he want to become a god? I can understand why he wants his wife back, but why become a god? If we learned why, it would have allowed us to go deeper into his character and seen, more or less, the way he thinks and the view of his world.
this is just off the top of my head.
"I have already written it but whatever... What is bad about the old movie?
Laughably bad acting from the leading actor. Sorry but that is a fact. Even the creators of the movie acknowledged it - that is why they gave Arnold so few lines and that is why they didn't let him read the narration."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as Arnold goes, I think this is one of his best works. Exactly for the very reasons you state: he's in his place, doing what he does best, and that's looking big and brutal, not trying to be Hamlet. That's also kudos to Milius: he knows what to do with his actors.
The new one had Perlman, whom I recently saw again as Salvatore in "The Name of The Rose" and reminded me how good he can be, but he was totally wasted in this. Same as Lang, who was chilling in Avatar.
"Laughably bad sword fighting choreography. I am sorry but Japanese styles of sword fighting are not suitable for western kind of swords at all, and that is the smallest of all the problems this movie had in that department. I guess there is a reason why Kyoshi Yamazaki was never hired to do the choreography f any movie apart from the old Conan movies :)"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man, I think that's the most subjective thing you've ever said. I know lots of people who have watched the fights in Conan, and they're completely cool with them. Many among them, like my father and myself, are veteran martial arts practitioners.
You're the first person to ever tell me that.
"Actually I liked the fights in 'Red Sonja', though"
------------------------------------------------------
So that means that, in your eyes, Red Sonja is a better movie than Conan?
Bad editing, especially in the action scenes. Sorry, take your fanboy glasses of and you will see it. That was mainly because Arnold was not skilled with the sword enough to do a decent fight scene. If you want to see real perfection in that department, see Kihachi Okamoto's 'Sword of Doom'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not talking about editing, you're just talking about fighting styles yet again. Amd again, I don't know what's so wrong with the editing, I think it was OK and allowed to see us everything we needed to see to understand what was happening on screen.
"Cheap look. Again, sorry but the 1982 Conan movie was more expensive than 'Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Arc'. Where did all that money go?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, your opinion.
Pretentious writing. Sorry, "pretentious" does not equal "good". Lines like "I cry because Conan will not", for example, are cheesier than what one would normally expect from a Manowar copycat metal band, and the "great" riddle of steel contains "wisdom" that can be seen in low budget martial arts b-movies like 'The Kickboxer'. I am sorry but saying "Steel is nothing without the man who wields it" or whatever the exact line was with deep commanding voice does not make it better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe it was pretentious, or maybe it's that Milius and Stone didn't want to make a movie which was simply a story about a big guy killing things with a sword. Maybe they had things in their mind that wanted to talk about, as often happen to artists.
Whichever the case, at least that movie tried to say something. What does the new movie say that it's so much better, so much more thoughtful and intelligent? Does it actually say something besides "duh, swords, blood and titties"?
"The main character is not a barbarian despite the title of the movie.
Arnold did not look like a man who had spent years in pit fighting. I mean, he was a gladiator for how many rears? Ten? I don't remember... And he didn't have a single scar on his body??? Yeah, right..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No movie is perfect. In the new version, a 10 YO kid has the strength and ability to take down four grown up, armed warriors, a man who's initially 55 doesn't age or change his clothes in 15 years, and Conan has a built-in GPS system that allows his pirate friend to find him anywhere in Hyboria. You find that more believable?
"Apparently yes."
----------------
Well, you're successfuly turning me into one, I must admit.
"First, why on earth would you need character development at the end of the movie?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we never had any until that point, and it's better late than never.
"That never happens in the action movies of this kind."
--------------------------------------------------------
So that's what you see in Conan? A simple action tale? I thought you were one of those defending Howard's status as a complex, influential author in contemporary literature. Turns out, you only like it because it's got action.
"Second, how exactly did we know "only the basics about them"? I mean, we knew who Zim was, what was his goal, and why. We knew who Marique was, what was her goal and why. We knew who Tamara was... You get the point."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, and that's the basics about them. If you're not able to tell me AT THE VERY LEAST THAT about the characters, you shouldn't be working as a character creator as all.
Giving a character a name and a goal is one thing. Creating a good, fleshed out character the audience roots for (or hates) is another. And believe me, the action is so much more satisfying when that happens. Otherwise, you're just watching an empty lights and sound show.
"They were not deep, thought provoking characters, but they weren't supposed to be."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They weren't even relatable or despicable, so they pretty much weren't interesting at all. I bet not even you rooted for Conan, feared for Tamara's fate or thought how big a bastard Khalar was. You just sat there and thought "hey, the fights and the effects are pretty cool".
About Khalar's erratical, illogical behavior:
"1. Because he thought they were involved in the death of his wife? After all, they were hiding The One."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just assuming things. And don't tell me I've got to use my imagination, or that I like it all spoon-fed. That scene didn't make any sense. We know who Khalar's enemies are, and the monks are never stated as such. Writing fail.
"2. So what? Zim was a warlord psychopath, that was clear from the very beginning of the movie."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is Khalar a psycho? We're never told he's got some kind of mental illness that makes him delusional. We're simply told that he's a brutal warlord in a brutal age, and that he will stop at nothing to achieve his goals. What he is, apparently, is not too bright, because apparently he never understood his late wife's plans to enslave Hyboria, because he says she was "innocent". Even though she was a witch...
A witch he's now trying to resurrect because he wants to use her power to enslave Hyboria.... Oh god, I give up, this doesn't make any friggin' sense.
"Why exactly? If one black man slaps you in the face would you want to slap all black men back?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soooo, is this guy vengeful or not?
As far as Arnold goes, I think this is one of his best works.
Nah, he was much better when James Cameron directed him. Actually when I saw the old Conan movie for the first time I thought it was amazing at the beginning but when Arnold appeared all of its "amazingness" slowly went down the toilet.
Again, your opinion.
Umm, no? I mean, the Indiana Jones movies are a lot better when it comes to production values, camera work and visual effects - they hold their own against the contemporary adventure movies like 'The Mask of Zorro', for example. The old Conan movie just doesn't.
Man, I think that's the most subjective thing you've ever said. I know lots of people who have watched the fights in Conan, and they're completely cool with them. Many among them, like my father and myself, are veteran martial arts practitioners.
I am hardly a veteran but I have practiced sword fighting as a part of my aikido training, and I have seen a few iaido/kendo/jodo demonstrations done by people who were actually good with the katana. Believe me when I am telling you that all of these people would decapitate Arnold's Conan in a second in a sword fight.
Whichever the case, at least that movie tried to say something. What does the new movie say that it's so much better, so much more thoughtful and intelligent?
Why does a movie have to say something to be entertaining? Can you tell me what was the message of 'Yojimbo'? 'Yojimbo' is considered one of the best movies ever made, and it didn't try to give any real message. It was just a great action movie with one of the coolest characters that have ever appeared on screen.
1. In the new version, a 10 YO kid has the strength and ability to take down four grown up, armed warriors,
2. a man who's initially 55 doesn't age or change his clothes in 15 years,
3. and Conan has a built-in GPS system that allows his pirate friend to find him anywhere in Hyboria. You find that more believable?
1. First, Leo Howard was 13 when he filmed the scene. Second, the viewer could clearly see how young Conan being a natural fighter used his size as an advantage against the picts. It wasn't realistic but it did fit the tone of the movie.
2. I haven't aged in years. I mean, I look exactly like I did when I was 18, and that was like 7 years ago. I got a bit bigger for a few years while I was practicing aikido but when I had to stop I lost the weight I had gained very quickly. My parents still look exactly as they look on photos taken 10 years ago. I guess that is why I didn't have any problems with the age thing.
3. That was really kind of strange, by the way. It can be explained easily but there is no point in doing it. They could have added just one line to the script to explain it, and they didn't do it.
"1. Because he thought they were involved in the death of his wife? After all, they were hiding The One."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just assuming things. And don't tell me I've got to use my imagination, or that I like it all spoon-fed. That scene didn't make any sense. We know who Khalar's enemies are, and the monks are never stated as such. Writing fail.
"2. So what? Zim was a warlord psychopath, that was clear from the very beginning of the movie."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is Khalar a psycho? We're never told he's got some kind of mental illness that makes him delusional. We're simply told that he's a brutal warlord in a brutal age, and that he will stop at nothing to achieve his goals. What he is, apparently, is not too bright, because apparently he never understood his late wife's plans to enslave Hyboria, because he says she was "innocent". Even though she was a witch...
1. I am not telling you to use your imagination, I am telling you to put some logical thought. It was perfectly logical for him to think the monks had something to do with his wife's death because they were the ones hiding the pure blooded one.
That scene was there to show you that Zim had more personal motives to search for the mask and the One - before that scene the viewer would think that the only thing Zim wants is to rule the world. After that the viewer knows that he wants his wife back. And that scene was also there to cement Zim as the psychopath he was since the beginning. That is why his mouth started filling with saliva like he was a rabid dog.
2. Would a normal man do to Conan and his father what Zim did to them? No. If Zim was normal he would have just killed them. We weren't told he had a mental illness, we were shown that he was insane.
---
As I already said, the movie has a lot of writing problems, both when it comes to the story and to the dialogue. I guess the problem was mostly in the fact that there were too many cooks in the kitchen, and some of the cooks were actually quite incompetent. I may write some post where I describe them in details but not now. Sorry.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/ share
"Nah, he was much better when James Cameron directed him. Actually when I saw the old Conan movie for the first time I thought it was amazing at the beginning but when Arnold appeared all of its "amazingness" slowly went down the toilet."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I said "one of the bests", not "the best".
"Umm, no? I mean, the Indiana Jones movies are a lot better when it comes to production values, camera work and visual effects - they hold their own against the contemporary adventure movies like 'The Mask of Zorro', for example. The old Conan movie just doesn't. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kid, you're just voicing your own opinion.
Fact. Deal with it. ;)
"I am hardly a veteran but I have practiced sword fighting as a part of my aikido training, and I have seen a few iaido/kendo/jodo demonstrations done by people who were actually good with the katana. Believe me when I am telling you that all of these people would decapitate Arnold's Conan in a second in a sword fight."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe you. And I'd probably be able to defeat Robert DeNiro in a fair boxing match, but he'd probably kick my ass in acting class. In the same way, those guys with katanas could've awesome swordmasters, but probably weren't as big, bulky and photogenic as Arnold was. That's what was needed for the part. His ability with the sword was secondary. That's what choreographers are for.
I have trouble imagining a viking or a highlander (the obvious models REH modeled Conan after) moving as fast as a kendo master, anyway. That's simply not how they fought
"Why does a movie have to say something to be entertaining? Can you tell me what was the message of 'Yojimbo'? 'Yojimbo' is considered one of the best movies ever made, and it didn't try to give any real message. It was just a great action movie with one of the coolest characters that have ever appeared on screen."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. "Saying something" is not making a movie to say "be good to each other" or "life sucks". It's touching interesting, enticing themes. Conan '82 not only is a meditation about power, is also about friendship, letting go of the past, coming of age... Most good movies don't have "A" message, but lots of small commentaries on things like life, art... You know, things the artist is interested in.
2. You're admitting that Yojimbo had "one of the coolest character ever", thus acknowledging good character development is a must for any great movie. Good, because Conan '11 didn't have any of that.
3. Are you honestly saying that you watched Yojimbo and that you did not see anything else than a good action movie? I think I'm wasting my time here...
"1. First, Leo Howard was 13 when he filmed the scene. Second, the viewer could clearly see how young Conan being a natural fighter used his size as an advantage against the picts. It wasn't realistic but it did fit the tone of the movie."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, so does fit the tone of the movie that Arnold didn't have any scars. He was soo good at pit fighting that no one ever got to cut him deep enough. How's that?
Anyway, why did older Conan/ Momoa have scars, if he was soo good a fighter that he could perform feats such as defeating four pict warriors as a kid without getting as much as a black eye? Did he get worse at swordfighting with age, or what?
See? Doesn't make any sense.
"2. I haven't aged in years. I mean, I look exactly like I did when I was 18, and that was like 7 years ago. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Awsum. Then wait until you reach 55, take a picture of yourself, then wait until you're 70 and take another. Then compare both.
Khalar should've been, I kid you not, between 70 and 75 when he battled Conan in the last scene. Well done, Conan, you just killed a senior citizen in an epic fight to the death.
"1. I am not telling you to use your imagination, I am telling you to put some logical thought. It was perfectly logical for him to think the monks had something to do with his wife's death because they were the ones hiding the pure blooded one.
That scene was there to show you that Zim had more personal motives to search for the mask and the One - before that scene the viewer would think that the only thing Zim wants is to rule the world. After that the viewer knows that he wants his wife back. And that scene was also there to cement Zim as the psychopath he was since the beginning. That is why his mouth started filling with saliva like he was a rabid dog."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what's the difference between before and after? Khalar is still looking for the mask, Khalar is still brutal and evil. Now we know that he's also mighty pissed off because someone (let's say someone, it's not clear anymore) killed his wife, but that doesn't really change anything because his objective is still to enslave Hyboria, and that's what he wants to resurrect his wife for.
So did he love his wife? Did he think she was innocent? Did he know she was actually an evil, tyrannical witch? Is he doing all this out of hate, love or thirst for power? Yes, no, it depends, no one really knows. Because the character was underdeveloped and that scene was pointless. The writers just decided to put it there randomly, because Khalar is the bad guy and we need to see him do bad stuff.
"2. Would a normal man do to Conan and his father what Zim did to them? No. If Zim was normal he would have just killed them. We weren't told he had a mental illness, we were shown that he was insane."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it normal that Conan's dad nearly drowned him in iced water just to make a point? Is it normal that Conan seems fit to make the warden swallow the jail keys so the inmates will have to cut him open and fish them out? This is the Hyborian age, people are brutal and far from "normal" as we know it. Khalar is simply more brutal than others, but in no way we're told that he has trouble discerning reality. Give me a scene of him suffering a mental breakdown, or talking gibberish to himself, and I'll acknowledge he's insane, and that he doesn't really know what he's doing.
"As I already said, the movie has a lot of writing problems, both when it comes to the story and to the dialogue. I guess the problem was mostly in the fact that there were too many cooks in the kitchen, and some of the cooks were actually quite incompetent. I may write some post where I describe them in details but not now. Sorry."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So how is it that this movie has so many writing problems, and is still better than Conan '82? Just because the figh scenes are "cooler"?