MovieChat Forums > Conan the Barbarian (2011) Discussion > Re-make or not ...

Re-make or not ...

posted 8 years ago by waneagony
2 replies | jump to latest

As a starter, most who write on this board know of Howard's strories of Conan, so let's get that out of the way.

If the creators of this -11 movie did not want to ride of the success of the -82 movie, and did not want people to think of their movie (-11) as a re-make, then why name it "Conan the Barbarian, exactly the same as the -82 movie?

Howard never referred to him as "Conan the Barbarian". Neither in the stories, nor in his drafts, synopses or letters. So let's not pretend that is why the -11 movie is called "Conan the Barbarian" as well.

With that being said, I really like the -82 movie with Arnold, and really dislike the -11 movie. To me, the latter just felt like a really long episode of "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" or "Xena: Warrior Princess" (I liked both of these shows in their own ways I must add though - but as low budget shows, not a movie).

“It has been my philosophy of life that difficulties vanish when faced boldly.”
― Isaac Asimov

[–] godcharles 8 years ago

Friends,

I say NOT. I did not consider it a re-make because they didn't use any of the
'82 movies story. This also was a different characterization of Conan much more
in keeping with Robert E. Howard's original vision of the character. I also had just read the original stories when I saw this movie, and was quite content with how faithful they were to the original text. I think this movie only failed at the box office because of the Arnold-philes hating on Jason Momoa. Hate to tell you, but you can keep your Aryan Conan. He just doesn't cut it when compared to JM.

[–] rothoehler 8 years ago

I did not consider it a re-make because they didn't use any of the
'82 movies story

But they did exactly that.
All details aside, this is basically a story of revenge.
Conan's big quest is about finding the murderers of his family and take avenge.
This is the core of the story, the narraive archetype.
And this is taken completely from the 82 Movie.

Nowhere in Howard's stories (or those of other "official" Conan authors like du Camp) is such a motive mentioned.
Conan is a barbarian, Conan is a destroyer.
Conan is a pirat, a conqueror, a mercenary, a king.
He never was an avenger.

Conan was "born during a battle" and left his clan at around teh age of fifteen to seek his fortune in battle (his first action being the participation in the assault on fort Vilarium(?), as much as I remember). His parents are only briefely mentioned.

So, the story of the 11 movie is indeed, at it's heart, a remake of the one of the 82 movie.