MovieChat Forums > Conan the Barbarian (2011) Discussion > Stop destroying our Classics... PLEASE

Stop destroying our Classics... PLEASE

posted 12 years ago by outkastpharaoh
35 replies | jump to latest

In regards to this film being better than the old version that is total crap. If you consider better being the fact that the plot points and characters are more complex I will give you that much. But complex doesn't really make it better. I mean sure the story line may give the modern day jumping minds more to concentrate on, but for me there was something about the simplicity of the original. Its like trying to compare simple classic music to the music of today which has way too much going on in my opinion.

My real grudge with this movie is that it isn't really even a remake it is a totally different movie. THey could have just called this Barbarian movie or something and left Conan out of it. Then they could have avoided all the nerd rage honestly. Yea I was one of those people who was so mad at them even attempting a remake of this movie that I boycotted it in theaters. I am just now getting around to seeing it and as a standalone movie I like it because I am into swords and sorcery. But the sacrilege of defiling a classic like Conan is unforgivable. I still compare it to the old one and it doesn't live up to the classic. I mean I can watch the classic over and over. Lines that echo in my head for years like "crush ya enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women". And how could they change the riddle of steel? I mean seriously the nerve of these people. Hollywood should stop with the freaking remakes and just do originals in my opinion. If you do a remake it is going to be compared to the actors and everything. The villain that James Earl Jones played can not be touched. Conan should have been cast with way more build than this small guy seriously.

As a standalone movie apart from being a comparison to the old I like it. But honestly it doesn't compare. Hell I would have preferred them to continue the story line where the destroyer left off. Everyone wants to freaking give their own spin on origins. While we are at it why don't we do another remake of the Bible while we are being sacrilegious.... "Do you want to live forever?"

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Taranaichsaurus 12 years ago

My real grudge with this movie is that it isn't really even a remake it is a totally different movie. THey could have just called this Barbarian movie or something and left Conan out of it. Then they could have avoided all the nerd rage honestly. Yea I was one of those people who was so mad at them even attempting a remake of this movie that I boycotted it in theaters. I am just now getting around to seeing it and as a standalone movie I like it because I am into swords and sorcery. But the sacrilege of defiling a classic like Conan is unforgivable. I still compare it to the old one and it doesn't live up to the classic. I mean I can watch the classic over and over. Lines that echo in my head for years like "crush ya enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women". And how could they change the riddle of steel? I mean seriously the nerve of these people. Hollywood should stop with the freaking remakes and just do originals in my opinion. If you do a remake it is going to be compared to the actors and everything.

Replace all references to "remake" with "adaptation" and that's pretty much what many fans of the original Conan stories think of the 1982 film. All that talk about how they change everything, that they want to put their own "spin" on it, how it can't compare - that's what many Conan fans were thinking when Milius' film came out. Welcome to our pain, I suppose.

[–] karaokekevin2004 12 years ago

read a book.

[–] Norse_Sage 12 years ago

Outkastpharaoh, that you do not see the irony in your own post makes me want to puke.

Way, way back in the 1930's, texan author Robert E. Howard wrote great and timeless stories about Conan the Cimmerian, amongst many other stories.
These stories have stood the test of time, and are just as relevant today as when they were written, if anything they are even more relevant today.

They were reprinted in the stories continued by lesser authors from the fifties onwards, and adapted to comics from the seventies onwards.

Then, in the early eighties, enter Oliver Stone and John Milius.
Talented men in their own right, but they totally botched the Conan movie adaptation, big time.

What they did was essentially a pointless remake of the original LITERARY Conan, but a remake that completely misses the point and essentially pisses of said original. Seriously, it would have been better if THEY had renamed the movie "Kalidor the freed slave", because the character portrayed by Arnold, the so called Conan the barbarian, is neither of those things.

While the Milius movie may be good in it's own right, what it did to the original source material was nothing short of sacrilegious.

Enter 2011, and we get another crap Conan movie. Why is it crap?
Because it was made by inept producers that paid more homage that Milius' føkking Conan-in-name-only rather than the original Conan stories, that's why.

The original Conan deserved better.

The Milius movie on the other hand, the one you praise, had it coming.
What goes around, comes around.

Tesla was robbed!

[–] ttaskmaster 12 years ago

If nothing else, I think watching the 1982 film actually prompted people to read the books (I can personally name at least fifty people who did this at my school in 1990), whereas people mostly seem to be watching this new one and going, "Oh, is that what all the fuss is about? Oh well... effects were OK and I got to see a pair of tits. What's on next?".

It used to be that people went and read the book afterward "Because the book's always better, right?". Now they see something and forget there even is a book!

The Spacehunter Forum:
http://spacehunter.phpbbhosts.co.uk/

[–] resevil80 12 years ago

The only difference is....Conan '82 was actually a good movie...Maybe not a good adaptation, but still...Its the reason I read the Conan stories in the first place....I doubt this one made anyone feel that way....

So Conan '82...Success...

This...Garbage...

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

[–] outkastpharaoh 11 years ago

Yes the book is always better than the movie. And as a writer I know how hard it is to adapt these huge complex story lines into an hour and a half. So I have given up any nerd rage in movies that do not fit the book that they are based on. My anger about remakes is that there are all these great writers in hollywood with fresh original work and hollywood wants to go back and regurgitate stuff from my childhood. make it stop.

[–] SpiltPersonality 8 years ago

You know... I started to type stuff, and stopped. Decided to read some posts and came across this.

Well said Norse Sage. Thor would be proud of you .

What you've said is similar to the people who complained about the 'remake' of 'the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo'. Both are adaptions of a novel and not re-makes per se. If you're a fan of one movie or another movie that's fine. Personally, I LOVE the Arnie version of Conan, and haven't read any of the books (tried, but can't get into them) but I accept that the novels are canon. Anything else is not.

SpiltPersonality

[–] MedievalFantasy 12 years ago

Don't you understand this isn't a REMAKE? The only thing they share is the name "Conan The Barbarian". The "original" was based off the character by Robert E. Howard, and so is this Conan. He's not based off Arnold's Conan, but seeing how people these days are oblivious to books, it's easy to overlook this, I suppose.

Game Of Thrones season 3 March 31, 2013!
Merlin season 5 Sept. 29!

[–] skoobaba 12 years ago

Yet another OP making a fool of himself by not checking up the facts before posting...

[–] ztraybllet 12 years ago

but seeing how people these days are oblivious to books, it's easy to overlook this, I suppose.

That's a very general and inaccurate observation.

People still read books. Fact.

[–] Piglet-44 8 years ago

If they had called it Conan the Cimmerian or something other than "THE BARBARIAN" there might have been less complaining. If you give it the exact same name it builds an expectation in people.

The new Star Trek franchise handled it well. With the second movie named "Into Darkness" and not "Wrath of Khan" no one is expecting the same story. Sure you got 2 guys named Khan trashing a LOT of Star Fleet toys but you arent expecting worms in peoples ears at this point.

[–] rothoehler 8 years ago

It takes the base premise of the 82 film, that Conan's family was killed by the antagonists, and his main motivation, and the core storyline, is him seeking revenge.
Nothing of this is in the books.
If there's a decent adaption of the original, it's the TV series starring Moeller. Not that it does justice to the books, quality-wise.

[–] eifler121 12 years ago

I think the original sucks. This movie wasn't bad. You even say that the story was better. Because they made the movie different it's bad? That's pretty dumb...and unfair. People always complain about people being unoriginal about remakes.

[–] suicidea 12 years ago

While I thought the 1982 Conan was a good movie, watchable many times, I had also noticed in my young age (I was 10 when I saw it in 1983) that it had nothing to do with the Conan character or the Conan universe in the comics. But at least it was a good movie, it had action, suspense, a star, great villains and a great score.

I only watched the trailer of the new Conan and I'm not exaggerating, I turned off the youtube page before the 2-minute trailer ended. I couldn't stand the CGI, tired settings and costumes, the CGI, the same old tired slow-motion, the CGI... I shudder to think that as a trailer, what I watched was actually the good parts of the movie. I didn't know whether this was a movie about THE Conan or was an episode of Spartacus.

Never be complete.

[–] Wuchak (8169) 6 years ago

it had nothing to do with the Conan character or the Conan universe in the comics.

Wrong. Yes, it had it's own unique origin story, but it was also sort of a pastiche of elements from REH & other Conan stories. For instance, the crucifixion sequence came straight from "A Witch Shall Be Born" with a little "One-Eyed Jacks" thrown in for good measure.

[–] MrRazorz 11 years ago

My real grudge with this movie is that it isn't really even a remake it is a totally different movie. THey could have just called this Barbarian movie or something and left Conan out of it.

You're right, it's not a remake, and it never claimed to be. The only reason people keep referring to it as a "remake" is because they're ignorant of the source material (which was around for fifty years before the so-called "original movie" was made) and are somehow under the misapprehension that Conan didn't exist before 1982.

What this is is another adaptation of Howard's character, and is actually more faithful in many ways than the Milius/Schwarzenegger adaptation was. It still wasn't really "Conan", but then neither was the 1982 version.

[–] stephenmonachello 11 years ago

If you believe the original was a classic I am sorry. I would hate to see what other films you think are classics.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2604794/

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]