So since a few of us were on this topic recently I've been curious.

It looks like my fears (e xp ectations) have been proven right. Here it is. Visual confirmation this movie sucks: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_c3ZUAeRf9HI/T ... +Conan.jpg


http://conan-trailer.blogspot.com/

Nothing will redeem this. Nothing. I don't care if it's Citizen Kane compared to the original. I don't care if Jablonsky (rumored) somehow accomplishes the impossible and makes a magnificent score that contends with the original. There is no excuse for a TOY SWORD in a sword & sorcery remake of a 1982 film that outdoes it by infinity. This is 2010. Two-thousand and ten. We can't do better. We can't even do just as good. We can't even do one one-millionth as good. What the.... **** is going on here.

This is freaking outrageous. I'm sorry but I would have designed a better sword for free just to know one of my favorite stories would at least somewhat measure up to what we should e xp ect out of it. Is this a joke?

Oh Sed... haven't you learned by now? This is just another mediocre effort by the unimaginative crooks that run today's movie industry, churning out an endless stream of steaming crap for the A.D.D generation to eat up like candy. There's no nod to the past, no love for tradition, and not a hint of originality on the horizon. The toy sword is just a symptom of the pervasive sickness that grips the soul of Hollywood like a rotting cancerous growth: why invest time and detail on such things for a crowd that has not the slightest bit of appreciation for it? They want oil-covered, muscular GQ-cover guys, hot bodacious chicks that are busting out of their chainmail bikinis with nothing going on upstairs, and action so fast, flashy, and devoid of purpose, that it makes your head spin so fast you wonder what ride you just stepped out of.

Finely detailed and setting-accurate props? Masterful score? Anything resembling an original script that actually e xp lores new territory? Why? These things don't make money these days; crap that goes in the opposite direction does.

/endrant

Thank you friend.


Even one truthful and intelligent post in a sea of indifference and low standards can boost my faith in humanity (or rather, a select few). It's good to hear someone else say it from time to time.

If nothing else, maybe it will get the original Conan out on BluRay....

You're welcome, Sed. Sadly, we are vastly outnumbered.

Olorin, one can only hope. They should do a two-pack deal and include The Destroyer on it. Still don't have that one on DVD as it is a very substandard release.

True Olorin (and Val).

For some reason my Destroyer DVD has a very small resolution compared to any other movie I watch and when I first played it on the PS3 on an HD TV it appeared as a small box in the center of the screen. ***. So that's kinda unwatchable to me now (looks horrible when I zoom it). I e xp ect a bluray

At least Barbarian works. But I still want to watch Destroyer. It's a fun flick. It's sad knowing what could have been... they intended to make many more Conan films with Arnold, "like James Bond" as I heard it put. They even say at the end of Destroyer he'll return. Who would have thought it would end up being in an inferior remake 25 years later.

Man, I'm not sure if I'm even gonna bother go watch that movie now... First off, new guy doesn't look like conan at all. Only thing that might remind of conan is the black hair. Other than that, he's too skinny, hair's too long, etc. And the sword, man... It seriously looks like something you could buy in a cheap halloween store. Something to go with your fake-ass grim reaper costume or something like that...

To be quite honest, looking at the screenshots and stuff, it reminds me of that old hercules tv series.

Meh, I'll be waiting patiently for Sed's movie =P

[quote=""Valkrist""]Oh Sed... haven't you learned by now? This is just another mediocre effort by the unimaginative crooks that run today's movie industry, churning out an endless stream of steaming crap for the A.D.D generation to eat up like candy. There's no nod to the past, no love for tradition, and not a hint of originality on the horizon. The toy sword is just a symptom of the pervasive sickness that grips the soul of Hollywood like a rotting cancerous growth: why invest time and detail on such things for a crowd that has not the slightest bit of appreciation for it? They want oil-covered, muscular GQ-cover guys, hot bodacious chicks that are busting out of their chainmail bikinis with nothing going on upstairs, and action so fast, flashy, and devoid of purpose, that it makes your head spin so fast you wonder what ride you just stepped out of.

Finely detailed and setting-accurate props? Masterful score? Anything resembling an original script that actually e xp lores new territory? Why? These things don't make money these days; crap that goes in the opposite direction does.

/endrant[/quote]

*applauds*

Wow...i'm at a loss for words...

[quote=""Valkrist""] This is just another mediocre effort by the unimaginative crooks that run today's movie industry, churning out an endless stream of steaming crap for the A.D.D generation to eat up like candy.
[/quote]


Hoom hom, master Valkrist. Don't be hasty. There are some of us who still can comprehend the words books, intelligance, and class. But many of our generation have become more treeish, and would rather watch a strikingly handsome* (?) man wield a...hoom hom hoom...toy.


*note the sarcasm

I hate to weigh in on this, since the sentiment is decided against the new movie, and because I've never read the books or comic books. That said, a friend said based on his knowledge of said books, the new Conan looks spot-on, as the Brits say. Doesn't necessarily mean the movie will be good, but he thought it looked good. He's not a sword buff and so was not opining on that aspect.

I'll give you that - Momoa looks the part. However, looks alone do not a movie make and this one will have massive e xp ectations to overcome. Bear in mind also that since at least 80% of the people that will go see this movie have no idea what the books and comics Conan is supposed to look like, this will be largely a moot point. It's ironic that they pic a guy that is faithful to the hero in appearance, but will likely deliver a crap movie in just about every other respect.

In all honestly, and all vitriol aside, I think this will be right along the lines of Scorpion King or Prince of Persia for cheese factor. Mark my words.

^ exactly


"Spot on" is a rather weightless assessment anyway, considering we only have a few (awful) set photos (and some horribly photoshopped shot that looks like it came from Xena in the 90s).

The goal of this movie was to make it after the books and while they may have gotten someone that looks the part a bit more than Arnie, there's something about this guy I can't take seriously. It's like they cast someone who constantly looks pissed off so there's no need to convey anger or any demeanor whatsoever through acting ability.

Again we only have a few shots. But the bottom line is that one was all I needed. That sword? No way. It single-handedly destroyed any potential this flick has. That's a huge sign of things to come.


I still say Vladimir Kulich would have been the ideal King Conan if they went with an actual story rather than another damned origin/revenge plot: http://uashome.alaska.edu/~dfgriffin/we ... uliwyf.gif

People don't know what stories are anymore... they think everything needs to be a biopic and start with the character's early ears. Characters should operate within a story, not the other way around. I mean, look at all these awful comic book flicks for example. They think the word "Thor" or "Avengers" constitutes a story. It's like asking a kid what his story is about and he says "it's about Ralph"... what does ralph do? "umm.."

I swear all you need to get greenlit in Hollywood these days is a name or a prop.

"Let's make a movie about a super computer!"

"Sounds brilliant! We'll work out why later"



But anyway, uhh.. where were we?

Okay, I've been kind'a half-reading this thread (no offense meant) because I'm not a big Conan, or Conan re-make, but I did a double-take when I saw Momoa...

The wife and I were big fans of Atlantis, and I didn't recognize him without the facial hair. LOL!

@Val & Sed...that's EXACTLY why I said I hated to weigh in on this.

I remember a friend of mine in college being as disappointed after seeing the first Arnold Conan movie as you guys are about this movie. He thought it reeked so bad. The only thing he liked was when Conan wrested a sword from the hand of a skeleton, because he thought it would follow the plot from the book then (the skeleton coming to life and fighting him). Alas, it did not, and he hated it the worse for it.

I am so lucky....I have never read any Conan stuff and I can go into this movie with no e xp ectations and judge it solely on its own merits w/o any notions of how it should be.

Now on the other hand, if GDT screws up that Lovecraft story he's going to film, I'll feel the pain you have over Conan. But I have great faith in GDT...he and Lovecraft are a perfect match. Hellboy pretty much was totally Lovecraftian.

Meh, I think Arnie looked good as conan, he had the brutish and squarish face and so on. Only things off were his brown hair, which was too bright, and his overly bulky body.

And I get what Sed means with the always pissed off look, he was kinda like that in stargate atlantis too.



Oh and olorin, I can never ever visualize the Lovecraft books as movies. I began reading Lovecraft about a year ago, and you simply can't convert that stuff into a film. I mean, that'd take PJ times five.

Well, he's doing At the Mountains of Madness, which is one of the more linear Lovecraft stories. I'm sure a lot of Lovecraft's texture and atmosphere will be lost, as that was contained in his intentionally-archaic writing style. At least in the case of PJ and LOTR, there was the dialog to bring the flavor of Tolkien into it. But in Lovecraft's case, there generally is no dialog, so GDT is going to have to be inventive.

But back to Conan....

So this is the new Conan? Words can’t begin to describe my sheer disappointment. Especially in that tacky monstrosity of a sword! I believe Darlek hit the nail on the head by saying it looks like something out of the Hercules tv series. Maybe an unused or unwanted prop perhaps? Just what in the name of Crom made them go down this path?
To be honest with myself I half e xp ected it. I knew when I first heard they were making a new Conan that it couldn’t be better or even come close to rivalling John Milius' 82 masterpiece. Did Marcus Nispel realise this too? Is that why he and his team of infidel defilers didn’t even try?

I’m sorry to be so judgmental over a handful of screen caps and I know I should give it a chance. But don’t you think this will end up being another disaster like Clash of the Titans? I’m so infuriated right now I won’t even go into that cockup of a motion picture.

You’d think with so much money and so much hindsight nowadays they’d be able to make something better or, if that’s impossible, something just as good. But looking at these pictures I doubt that day will ever come.

Welcome to the forums. I like you.

is this supouse to be a conan tread?
plees put on some more seriuce.otherwise close the tread.

in a grim mood today am? =P

He's just mad Conan is a Cimmerian, not a Dane viking.

Don't worry, am.dk., this new movie will suck so bad Conan will probably be Italian or something.

Disclaimer: I have nothing against Italians... just saying the people making this movie likely don't even have a clue where Conan is from. Probably from somewhere just outside Encino, Ca.

[quote=""Valkrist""]He's just mad Conan is a Cimmerian, not a Dane viking.

Don't worry, am.dk., this new movie will suck so bad Conan will probably be Italian or something.

Disclaimer: I have nothing against Italians... just saying the people making this movie likely don't even have a clue where Conan is from. Probably from somewhere just outside Encino, Ca. [/quote]
Ah, I think your on to something here Val, spaghetti westerns go spaghetti fantasy, spaghetti barbarian goes Ca. governor, Hollywood goes for extra cheese and the sauce has no meat in it.

OK, so ENORMOUS thread bump here, 6 years TO THE DAY after the last post....

Five years ago, Universal released the two original Conan movies on Blu-Ray. I wanted to get them but didn't, as reviews indicated that the studio screwed up the audio tracks. Some of the music score was missing from the first one (a huge glaring sacrilege in the eyes of many) and the second one had some audio issues too. Plus there was an image problem in the first one. Universal being Universal and not Paramount, all they ever did was say they'd look into it, but they never released corrected discs.

Fast forward to this spring, and both movies were re-issued on BD (I only just found out today). Also, both were re-issued together in late June in a combo set. However, at least at the moment there seems to be no word out there about whether the studio fixed the problems, or just ported the existing flaws versions into new discs. I'm one of those people who gets motion sickness easily, like from scrolling through too many posts in a thread, so I was getting pretty green about the gills by the time I got to the bottom of the thread at Blu-Ray.com, all without getting an answer. Someone would ask if the new versions corrected the problems, and since no one apparently knew the answer, they would instead spent many posts discussing which international release got it right, whether they would play in the US/Canada, what version of the first movie was it (there were 3 different cuts), and so forth.

So I guess I'm reduced to the same state as one poster, waiting till Shout! Factory picks up the license and does a proper release. They're know for doing a decent job with catalog titles (though they did rather drop the ball a bit with this spring's BD of Jesus of Nazareth).