Way better than 1982 film, in every respect, IMO - Conan the Barbarian (2011) Discussion

[–] jriddle73 13 years ago

The assertion does nothing but betray a serious lack of judgment in anyone who would make it. The 1982 Conan was a failure as an adaptation of the character, but it was a great film, while this year's CONAN was aggressively mediocre in every respect.

---
"The Dig"
http://cinemarchaeologist.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] rogerwatersfan3 13 years ago

IMO, There's nothing great about the '82 film. Felt that way in '82, and, having watched it again a few years ago, feel that way today.

reply

[–] wastedyuthe 13 years ago

There is one major thing I really like about the original- the music score. It's superb and can't be beaten by this new version. However, I feel this beat it in every other way. I really don't get all the negativity at all. Just goes to show, if u like the look of a movie- go see it for yourself and make up your own mind! The blood and guts was better than I expected too- not as stupid as say the Spartacus tv show. Great.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MovieBuff80 12 years ago

I bought the movie off the shelf with no knowledge if I would like it or not. I really enjoyed it a lot. I loved seeing Ron Perlman in it.

reply

[–] monstermayhem32 12 years ago

I actually liked it a lot better than the 1982 version since this version is more darker and less campy. I think that Ron Perlman and Stephan Lang were terrific in the film.

reply

[–] killer3000ad 12 years ago

I had a good laugh OP. REally in all seriousness, this was a terrible movie. Listen OP lets clear up some facts
* 1982 Conan made more money than this this stinker even without inflation adjustment
* 1982 Conan launched Arnold's career while 2011 Conan just sunk a whole load of peoples' careers.
* 1982 Conan had a WAAYYYYY better and more memorable soundtrack than 2011 Conan
* 2011 Conan flopped hard.
* 2011 Conan flopped hard.
* 2011 Conan flopped hard.
* 2011 Conan flopped REALLY hard.

reply

[–] silentbob8201 12 years ago

Dingus, what does making money back have to do with the quality of the movie? It's a Wonderful Life flopped NOW WHAT? Am i saying it's a classic no but my point is you are a moron bringing up Box Office Numbers to trump people's opinions. Oh boy those Transformers films did gang busters where's their Best Picture Nom's?

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ar_scurr 12 years ago

82 Conan is far superior- the locations, sets, characters, costumes, music all added up to put the viewer into that world. I hadn't read any of Howard's work until recently but I think both film versions differed from the original work. The 82 film seemed a lot more grounded in a real time and place (despite the fantasy elements). Conan the Destroyer on the other hand, was a huge disappointment.

reply

[–] ponstan 12 years ago

I first watched the '82 film several years after its release on vhs, when I was young, and didn't enjoy it at all. Boring. The hero looked awesome (I remember thinking it was an ugly He-Man), but he didn't do anything and his goal of vengence seemed more like a sidequest. Also, his sidekicks had much better moves apart from the wacky sorcerer. The main villan was scary even though he looked like a muppet and did nothing and always seemed on the verge of tears. Fast forward about 20+ years later I caught it on cable...and I loved it. I now own the dvd.

The '11 film was almost the opposite. The hero looked quite good and his moves and skill were incredible. Yet he doesn't seem awesome, except when he was a boy. He also seemed to have a clearly defined quest. His sidekicks had lousy moves and needed to be rescued. The main villan looked fierce and also had some nifty skills. But not scary. In fact I was half convinced the daughter would turn out to be more evil.

I don't know, maybe there's something about the '82 film that you need to 'get'.
can't see the woods for the trees, greater than sum of parts and all that.

reply

[–] SamiCybertron 12 years ago

I'll be brutally honest regarding this film, I thoroughly enjoyed it and what it did. This movie despite a few problems is in fact abit better than the Schwarzenegger movie in every respect and before anyone kills me I want to say now that people need to admit. As great as the Schwarzenegger movie is, it's not Conan in any way, shape or form.

It's a sword and sorcery movie with the Conan name attached to it, and I wont deny that the film was very well made and well casted and well directed, that's honestly not worth saying that this film isn't. Judging Marcus Nispel's skills as a director he has made nothing but remakes and they have been crap with the exception of Pathfinder being quite enjoyable, but I will just raise my arms and say that Nispel was well chosen for directing this movie with the style he uses in his films and gives it that proper gritty edge that Conan has.

and quite frankly this movie is more accurate to E Howard's work than the 1982 movie is, sorry but that's the truth.

reply

[–] brendanfoy 12 years ago

I am a huge Conan fan and I will freely admit that Arnold's Conan film absolutely strays from Howard's stories and character, but it fully embraced the visuals of legendary Conan and fantasy artist Frank Frazetta as well as the tone Howard took in his stories. Howard wrote short pulp fiction about Conan to pay the bills (and because he was schizophrenic thinking the ghost of Conan would kill him if he didn't tell his tales), but short little pulp stories are not movie friendly. John Milius plucked the more charming elements of Howard's work, combined with visuals inspired by Frank Frazetta, and wrote a proper screenplay for the film with Oliver Stone. They adapted the pulp fiction the best they could and I thought did a tremendous job. Conan is actually a lot more like his father Kull in the first film, I'm sure Milius borrowed heavily from the Kull stories to better flesh out his Conan character.

So we have Kull turned Conan, exceptional art work from an exceptional Fantasy artist, a massive and charismatic action star, and a finely crafted script to pace the action appropriately. All of these ingredients came together quite nicely and will make a fine Conan film. In 1982 they did release a fine Sword and Sorcery film inspired by Howard's Conan, and it was a damn fine film.

Nispel got it all wrong. Momoa does well, but there are various Conan characters from his many stories; some show him to be a brute, others kind, others a calm and conniving thief, and more speak of him as a warrior. We only see one side of Momoa's Conan in his film while see saw various sides to Arnold's Conan as he develops throughout the story. The script dragged this new film down. It was nothing more than a revenge plot, no character development, and a relentless pace which never allows the audience to get a breather and soak up what is going on. Scenes were abandoned and hastily cut away into the next, and I could't find any sub plots or themes worth a damn in the film. It was technically a bad film on every level.

The audience perked up when the sandman fight started to happen, but after it dragged on with the usual Mamoa growls and grunts, we all slouched back in our seats hoping for it to be over soon. This fight scene could have been great but it was a tedious bore like so much else in the film. Don't just have Conan throwing himself around and yelling, put him in an actual fight that works like a riddle where he has to figure out how to defeat his opponents instead of just hacking away at them. In this fight scene the sand creatures could have had powers where they shift their bodies from rock hard to super soft, making it nearly impossible for Conan to hit them for damage. The trick should have been to get close to the sorceress and knock her unconscious to break the spell. Watching Conan wail away at sandmen got boring fast, but watching him steadily make progress in figuring out the trick to beating them, with help from his female companion, would have been something more interesting to watch. Either Conan or his female companion would go for the sorceress while the other distracts the sandmen, instead it was just Conan killing a bunch sand people for an arbitrary time limit.

the movie was full of these mindless drivel. Perhaps a better Conan character as played by Momoa, but it's a bad film and the script itself would have made for a terrible Conan story. If they bring this franchise back, they need to merge a couple of Howard's Conan shorts into one longer story better suited for the big screen, get a good director in place of Nispel, and work on putting together a good movie instead a series of bland action sequences loosely tied to together by Morgan Freeman.

reply

[–] killer3000ad 10 years ago

As usual more book purists coming and ranting about which film is closer to the books. Look kid it doesn't matter how much you love the books. In the end, the more faithful adaptation sunk the franchise. You can talk the books up all you want but movie adaptations, HAVE TO BE ADAPTED to the market.

reply

[–] killer3000ad 10 years ago

Dingus? That's the best you can come up with boy? Lol at you selecting Wonderful Life cause history showed it to be a classic. Has history shown Conan 2011 to be a classic in peoples' memories? No every time someone mentions the 2011 movie, they immediately think of how horrible it was.

You cherry-picked some examples and you didn't even get them right moron! How about I help out with another example similar to Wonderful Life. Blade Runner, bombed at the box office but in subsequent reruns become a cult hit to the point that they re-released multiple DVD editions.

Tell me has Conan 2011 had any such treatment? Do people remember it as a classic like Wonderful life? Did it become a cult hit in subsequent reruns? Did they issue multiple director's cuts and editions? No.

Case closed boy, WHAT NOW?

Way to blow your own hole open for all to laugh at. Shows how little you know about movies.

reply

[–] randy1012 12 years ago

I wouldn't say it's better in every respect. I think the '82 film is a better movie, but the '11 film is a better Conan movie, if that makes sense. The '11 film has a very weak script and an unmemorable score (which is particularly shameful, since the '82 film has one of the most memorable scores ever), but it presents a much more accurate Hyboria than did the '82 film. Jason Momoa's Conan is also vastly superior to Arnold Schwarzenegger's. Neither actor looks exactly like the character is supposed to, but Momoa captured Conan's rage, passion, and pure lust for life much, much better than did Schwarzenegger, whose Conan was too somber and, frankly, robotic.

While the '11 film is not a great movie by any means, I think it did enough right that it makes me want to see more. If they could get a better screenplay and a more talented director, then they could really have something special, I think. Unfortunately, with the movie's rather tepid box office, I don't see them doing a sequel any time soon.

reply

[–] SamiCybertron 12 years ago

While I will admit the 2011 Conan's Score by Tyler Bates was highly unmemorable compared to the mighty and powerful score by Basil Poledouris but like you said it has a particular flavor to it that makes it fit in more with the world of Conan.

Also yes the 2011 Conan really is not a perfect movie and the film is rive with problems from left to right but that is nothing that a sequel cannot fix but sadly due to the reception there wont be a sequel for a while.

But regarding how Momoa did as Conan, he was perfectly cast for the role and Momoa actually put some anger and emotion into the role where as Arnie was a complete lifeless robot half the time, that doesn't mean the 82 movie is bad though.

Momoa I feel was the Conan that Robert E. Howard described and played him so perfectly so really I cant get angry at that one casting choice.

reply

[–] RenlyStannis 12 years ago

I liked the 80`s Conan, but I wasn`t disappointed regarding the remake. Not Oscar-worthy stuff, but an enjoyable B-movie. I really don`t get why it tanked so badly in the cinemas. Great scenery shots even if it`s all CGI, some memorable fight scenes (Conan as a boy; the sand people ..). The original Conan has a better soundtrack, admitted. And Conan`s love interest had a rather weak part.

The main weakness of the remake is that the chief villain isn`t fearsome enough; also, it is not clear if the ritual at the end did enhance his abilities in any way (doesn`t seem so). I just whish they had used a more convincing badass opposed to Conan.

reply

[–] carlphillips408 12 years ago

The whole movie repulsed me.
I do not know what i expect to get from making such an announcement,the deed is done.
I just hold fond memories of the original Howard Conan above all else.
Admittedly,this movie relights the Howard lamp & will hopefully bring new fans into the fold but i could not help but think this movie drove yet another nail into the original Conan's coffin.It shoves the original Conan into the background.Who knows?Maybe people will read the original Howard stories & enjoy them more.It is how i found the original Conan through the marvel comics.
But having said that,the whole movie stank bad.The storyline was terrible,the effects were below average,the acting was nothing to take notice of & the characters were less than impressive.
Its only "saving" grace is the choice of actor to play Conan,i suppose they could have done a lot worse,they managed to do everything else a lot worse.
On the whole,it appeared like a "ladies" movie.Hunk with nothing else.A big step from the original Conan.
As for the 1982 version,i saw it as a spoof on Conan & i treated it as such.

reply

[–] herbsuperb 12 years ago

I enjoyed the '82 version well enough. It had a charm about it that really worked. That being said I enjoyed this version as well. I tried not to expect too much from it, which was wise. The film-makers did not seem to be trying to do anything particularly new or original, but instead to entertain. In that sense it succeeded as it was quite enjoyable to watch.

The special effects were a great improvement (obviously) and Rose McGowan's character was downright scary in many scenes. All other aspects were decent as well. The two areas where I feel the '82 version was truly superior were music (I loved the '82 score by Poledouris-RIP) and Sandahl Bergman. She was fantastic. She looked and moved like a warrior should. She had a strong dance background which obviously helped her a great deal in the film. Plus, James Earl Jones is undeniably awesome in pretty much anything he does. I liked Stephen Lang's performance as the lead villan, just not quite as much.

All in all, I was quite satisfied. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it was superior to the first. But both were fine movies.

reply

[–] resevil80 12 years ago

I'm gonna put it this way...if this movie came out in 1982 as the first representation of Conan(because the 82 movie is the only reason I started reading the books/comics ect) then I would have thought everything related to Conan to be utter garbage....There wasn't anything good about this....I feel cheated even though I rented it for a dollar...

"You are tearing me apart, Lisa!"" The Room..a cinematic masterpiece.

reply

[–] montoblonde 12 years ago

I liked the choice in actors/actresses but after that the whole moie fell apart. The story was pathetic to say the least, and even thought I liked the choice in actors/actesses their acting (aside from Ron Pearlman) had no insperation, which I attribute to the choice in director. I would love to see a reboot, but I am not going to hold my breath as this may have killed any chance of it.

DW All Day

reply

[–] Agrenish 11 years ago

This movie was a lot funnier with a lot more unintentional humor.

reply

[–] Plissken_1996 12 years ago

LOL, very good!

§ Humans! You're not worth the flesh you're printed on! §

reply

[–] Kyumonryu 12 years ago

for some reason I never understood, the flick with the laughable Arnold is considered an iconic movie, yet it was just incredible cheesy.
This movie however was fun to watch, not a real great movie but the time flwe by.
By the way, the way McGowan looks nowadays they could have saved the makeup, she is just hideous...

"...but they hung him anyway."
"Hanged, Ami. Your father was not a tapestry."

reply

[–] jvle100 12 years ago

IMHO Arnold wasn't a very good Conan... He was chosen for the role just because of his physique. I think the best things about the '82 movie were the musical score (by Basil Poledouris, may he R.I.P.)and James Earl Jones as the villain. It wouldn't hurt to use the old score for a new Conan movie; I always thought that the "feel" of the entire soundtrack was closer to Robert E. Howard's stories than the '82 movie itself.

reply

[–] Untouchable757 12 years ago

I hate you people.

Arnold's Conan was one of the most awesome, badass movies ever made (The Barbarian, not The Destroyer).

reply

[–] Prosercunus 12 years ago

I won't go into the merits of either film. It is pointless.

Here is one objective fact.

I have watched Conan (1982) more times than I can count.

I barely made through Conan (2011) even one time

It's not that I am biased toward Arnold (Ok, I am... he is indeed a personal idol of mine) but it is not that at all. The 2011 film is a mess and even if Jason Momoa was a good Conan (he isn't) it wouldn't of mattered.

I was actually open minded to a new Conan movie. I knew that Arnolds version of Conan was way off from the books and comics but I still liked them as their own personal adaption, unlike the new Conan movie which I couldn't enjoy on any level.

You will shed tears of scarlet

reply

[–] gtlam713 12 years ago

This isn't quite a direct reply to Prosercunus, but I agree on a personal level, having also watched the original Conan countless times throughout my life.

I understand a lot of people liked this because it was far more faithful to the source material, and I can completely respect that. The fact is that, Momoa's Conan and Arnold's Conan aren't even remotely close to being the same character.

I thought this movie was fun and entertaining, but it was a completely different animal form the 1982 version. To me, that movie (not the sequel) was more primordial, filled with archetypes, more reliant on imagery. Filled with a sense of Norse Mythology.

The opening scene alone, without words, does more to evoke a sense of raw power than most of the entire remake did, for me. The original family, tougher, and more real. Conan's mother in the 1982 version picking up a sword and staring down Thulsa doom was visceral. Conan's birth in the 2011 version made me feel nothing except that they were trying to make him seem tough for no reason.

The stoicism just wasn't there in this new one, no matter how many pelts you throw on Ron Pearlman (who I love), the original family just seemed so...tough, so primitive. For all the acrobatics of the 2011 young Conan, all the severed heads, I was just more impressed with the 1982 versions, and that same sense carried on throughout the entire movie.

'He is Conan, Cimmerian. He won't cry, so I cry for him'

There were just so many scenes in the original that just kicked me in the gut, and no amount of gore in the remake had the same effect. Like when Arnold snuck into the temple, covered in war paint, and is first spotted by Rexor. The way they look at each other. Rexor utters only a single word, and then you see the whites of Arnolds eyes through the face paint as he raises his sword up, and the thunder of Basil Pouldeouris' music sends chills down your spine. Honestly, if you saw Arnold coming down steps looking at you like that, you would soil yourself. I just...never felt the same about Momoa. He didn't have the same physical presence, no matter how hard he glared.

And then there is the antagonist. This new movie had two bad guys and neither one of them felt particularly frightening. There was never a sense of any real danger. In the 1982 version, James Earl Jones' Thulsa Doom seemed much more imposing, more cerebral, and effortlessly godlike. The scene where he kills Conan's mother, looking into her eyes, then beheading her. Without a single word , that character and that scene are so much more memorable to me than any of the remake.

Like I said earlier, I am sure this new one is closer to Howard's original vision, it's just that I don't care. It's just a feeling the new movie is missing. Listen to Morgan Freeman's opening speech in the 2011 version, and then listen to Mako's reading in the 82 version. Morgan Freeman is just about the coolest sounding guy ever, but his reading felt empty. Like a cool sounding professor giving a lecture. Mako's reading makes me feel like it is 3000 years ago, and I am sitting around a fire listening to an elder enthralling me with a great tale about an incredible legend.

reply

[–] Untouchable757 12 years ago

"There were just so many scenes in the original that just kicked me in the gut, and no amount of gore in the remake had the same effect. Like when Arnold snuck into the temple, covered in war paint, and is first spotted by Rexor. The way they look at each other. Rexor utters only a single word, and then you see the whites of Arnolds eyes through the face paint as he raises his sword up, and the thunder of Basil Pouldeouris' music sends chills down your spine. Honestly, if you saw Arnold coming down steps looking at you like that, you would soil yourself. I just...never felt the same about Momoa. He didn't have the same physical presence, no matter how hard he glared."

Couldn't agree with this more.

That's one of the most badass scenes in movie history IMO.

reply

[–] gtlam713 12 years ago

That and Thulsa's initial charge during the battle of the mounds, right after Conan tells off his own god.

I can't watch or think about that scene without getting the sudden urge to turn to the nearest person and punch them in the face.

There were so many scenes that were just so visceral...I enjoyed the new movie for what it was, I just never felt it had anything remotely close. There was no tension or sense of compelling conflict.

reply

[–] Maegnas 10 years ago

There's ideas and there's execution and the 1982 film was great on the latter while this felt more "on the spot" on the former (but lacked terribly on the latter).

Arnie's Conan was more Barbarian than he was Howard's Conan. From the few things I read, this 2011 film felt more closer to the original material but, as I said, failed to deliver the FEELING. Maybe it was the poor choice in score, maybe it was the poor choice(s) in performers, perhaps the amount of CGI, I don't know what it was but it was SOMETHING! Where the 1982 film felt more like Conan, when it was clearly further away from the source, this one felt less like Conan when, on paper, it was much closer to the original material.

Momoa cannot act, but then again Arnie cannot act also. People have mentioned Arnie's presence, on screen, and nobody can deny it, the guy fills the screen both physically and otherwise (it is until he opens his mouth and you are crash-landed to the tough truth that you're dealing with an Austrian ex-lumberjack). Maybe it was the "ensemble" around Arnie that made the first film feel better? Could be.

Visually both films have their respective merits. While the first one felt more "mystical" and mythical, the new one could show us more expanded views and larger battles/action scenes (if only there was someone to regulate the use of CGI so it does not overwhelm any film from 2000 and on). The one aspect where the first film wins, hands down, is the score. It evokes powerful feelings which are nowhere to be found in the new film (perhaps they should try and make a film around Polydouris' score? With a few people that can actually ACT?).

In conclusion, there will always be "fanatics" on both sides. Let's agree to disagree on specific points but always remember what these are - films, entertainment! Cancer won't be cured if either film is, or isn't, faithful to the original material, an artistic masterpiece or whatever else. So, let's be a bit more down to Earth when exchanging "answers" (a.k.a. insults) about these things.

P.S. This reminds me of the situation with the Star Wars trilogies. the original felt better, the new one looks amazing but feels like dog poo! ;)

Cute and cuddly boyz!!

reply

[–] karaokekevin2004 12 years ago

I realize that a whole generation of kids have been raised on the Arnold "Conan" and I enjoyed both films for what they were (IMO Conan in name only). When I saw this movie I was seeing the Conan whom I had read in all the novels and short stories.

reply

[–] Untouchable757 12 years ago

Who cares if it was more faithful to the source material?

That doesn't change the fact that the movie blows and Momoa can't hold a candle to Arnold.

reply

[–] OrinAGN 12 years ago

Don't worry about that bogus claim makemoney713.

He's full of crap.

People are stupid.
I know how you feel about the '82 film.
But in comparison... this movie is nothing close. The '82 movie for all its faults is much closer.

It was NOT a faithful adaptation. AT ALL.
This Conan's look was modeled after the Dark Horse comics, with the scars from that famous Frazetta painting.
And find me ONE story where Conan's dad cuts him out of a womb, and screams a battle-cry for no damn reason.
This movie has nothing to do with the stories it's based on.

The creators CLAIMED it was based on the source material and not a remake of the Arnold films.
But let's look at this:

In the remake we have Conan learn about the Riddle of... *ahem* I mean the MYSTERY of Steel...don't wanna make it too blatant.
Then things start to look very familiar as Conan's village is sacked and burnt to a cinder... just like the '82 movie.

So, yeah the plot of this new film is undeniably a pastiche of the Conan films from ’82 and ’84.

First part, Conan’s blacksmith-warrior father and his village are attacked by the evil villain, a la Conan the Barbarian (1982).

The rest of the movie centers on the villain’s three-part quest for Godhood and world domination, a la Conan the Destroyer. But instead of “find gem, find horn, make sacrifice,” we get “find mask, find chosen one, make sacrifice.”

THIS is Conan:
http://comicattack.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/pic-11.jpg

Looks kinda like THIS:
http://comicattack.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Pic-2.jpg

THIS looks all wrong:
http://comicattack.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Pic-7.jpg

reply

[–] OrinAGN 12 years ago

It was NOT a faithful adaptation. AT ALL.
This Conan's look was modeled after the Dark Horse comics, with the scars from that famous Frazetta painting.
And find me ONE story where Conan's dad cuts him out of a womb, and screams a battle-cry for no damn reason.
This movie has nothing to do with the stories it's based on.

The creators CLAIMED it was based on the source material and not a remake of the Arnold films.
But let's look at this:

In the remake we have Conan learn about the Riddle of... *ahem* I mean the MYSTERY of Steel...don't wanna make it too blatant.
Then things start to look very familiar as Conan's village is sacked and burnt to a cinder... just like the '82 movie.

So, yeah the plot of this new film is undeniably a pastiche of the Conan films from ’82 and ’84.

First part, Conan’s blacksmith-warrior father and his village are attacked by the evil villain, a la Conan the Barbarian (1982).

The rest of the movie centers on the villain’s three-part quest for Godhood and world domination, a la Conan the Destroyer. But instead of “find gem, find horn, make sacrifice,” we get “find mask, find chosen one, make sacrifice.”

THIS is Conan:
http://comicattack.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/pic-11.jpg

Looks kinda like THIS:
http://comicattack.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Pic-2.jpg

THIS looks all wrong:
http://comicattack.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Pic-7.jpg

reply

[–] AceRoccola 12 years ago

This movie has nothing on the original film adaptation. Though none of the Conan films have truly captured the world that Robert E. Howard created in his stories, this film feels even less connected with the tone, themes, and characterization of Howard's creation (though it tries to make up for that by sharing some of its vocabulary).

Aside from adaptation woes, the plot in this movie was trite, the writing was lazy, and tween Conan just isn't very appealing. Maybe this is a movie for a younger crowd, or just a less discerning one. But it was much less compelling than the 1982 version.

It was, however, a big improvement over the 1984 sequel, Conan the Destroyer. The new director and writers were simply clueless, and the change in personnel resulted in a lame and disappointing sequel that captured almost none of what made the first one so great. Compared to that embarrassing travesty, this new film was a smashing success. At the very least, it managed to capture the brutality of Hyboria with the action scenes and was quite visually pleasing. It also should be commended for not falling into the "everything is released in PG13" mentality that is rampant with reboots and modern sequels these days.

reply