If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The production wasn't huge. But what they had to work with, they did well. I loved the costumes and the war paint he wore near the end. It felt very much like Conan.
A lot of hard-core REH fans contend that no version of Conan (three films now, as well as a live-action TV show and a cartoon) really portrayed the character accurately, and that a faithful screen adaption would be the ticket to success. I'm not so sure, as much as I love Howard's writing and the character. "Red Nails" would probably do okay, but I wonder what else could work? "People of the Black Circle" requires the viewer to keep track of a lot of people and has a lot of down time with no real fighting. My favorite story, "Beyond the Black River" could be done cheaply, but I think it would bore contemporary audiences. It's almost too smart for action audiences. Same with "Rogues in the House": Conan breaks into a place with a foppish guy, then fights an ape, end of story. I know there's more to it than that, but I'm trying to anticipate reactions when Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb put the stake in the hearts of films before they even hit theaters. What do you guys think? Is faithful the way to go? "Tower of the Elephant" could almost be shot in real time, it's so short and to the point.
>"Tower of the Elephant" could almost be shot in real time, it's so short and to the point.
That'd be a good one 'cos it's got a weird monster in it. I think part of the probelm adapting an established story is that Howard's writing was very episodic; so none of the stories would really fill a 2 hour movie, and if you start squishing them together it's feel incongruent.
I saw Conan yesterday at the Emeryville UA 10...only $5 admission on Tuesdays...lol.
The film was not bad...I sort of liked it (but not for multiple viewings)...I missed the original Conan movie soundtrack (which was kickarse)...but did not miss Arnold one bit...IMO...Momoa made a better Conan...he's leaner and meaner looking, plus he's way more agile than slow arse Arnold...Momoa wielded the sword much more effectively...and was much quicker with it...check out Arnold's Conan movie...he's basically in slow-motion...lol.
But that alone didn't make this new any worse or better...they are about the same...neither one are really in the classics category.
Perhaps he can take some acting classes b4 filming the next one. He was my problem with the movie. I found myself wanting arnie to make a cameo and cut the new Conan in half then say some cheesy line like Bet you didn't know this was a double feature, or sorry to cut this movie short or well you get the picture. Of course this is just my opinion of the movie.
Arnold is 64 years old...and he still can't act either...lol.
Arnold has always been about personality and a persona, not acting prowess.
im sorry to hear it didnt do to well. i thought it deserved better...
It might possibly make its money back when the overseas viewings and DVD sales are done, but odds are it won't. It came in at the #1 spot in Russia the week it debuted and is #2 this past week. I think it's doing respectably in Spain and France, too, IIRC. One thing people forget is that North America is not the world.
I'd just like to see it do well enough to spawn a modest sequel helmed by a different director and taken in a different direction; instead of Conan the Whatever or maybe Conan 2, go the 007 route and call it by the story it's adapted from. Maybe keep it simple without effects that will drive up costs, but writing that will strengthen the character is viewers' minds enough to give the franchise a boost. I know that's crazy talk.
Comment