# Conan (The Non-Arnold Years)



## Map the Dragon (Aug 19, 2011)

I am going to see the new Conan film tonight. I'll post tomorrow any review. I'll spoiler tag anything you all might not want to see.

Here's to hoping it doesn't suck.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Aug 19, 2011)

Looking forward to your review. Here's hoping it's good. 

Of course, I really enjoyed Conan the Destroyer, so some might say my level of expecations may not be that high. Yeah, what do they know


----------



## JBryden88 (Aug 20, 2011)

I just saw it myself, and I'm pleased. Screw Arnold he's not Conan, Conan existed long before Arnold, and the new Conan on screen is more faithful (even if some deviations are still glaring) then the Austrian Ape ever was.


----------



## Philip Overby (Aug 20, 2011)

I sort of want to see this more now that I've seen Jason Mamoa on Game of Thrones.  He seems like a pretty intense actor even though he doesn't really say much...

On another note I saw an old 90s Conan TV show recently.  It had a German guy playing Conan and it was really awful.  Not even so bad it's good.  Just bad.  

Poor Conan has been through a lot of stinkers.  Looks like this one might be good!


----------



## Map the Dragon (Aug 20, 2011)

I am going to be as honest with myself and you all as possible. I really am.

#1 - Arnold was easily a better Conan (excluding Destroyer). Mamoa was such a badass playing Khol Drogo in Thrones; I wish his Conan was as serious. Mamoa's Conan was too whimsical and quick to make silly decisions. Arnold's Conan was thoughtful and serious to a degree none of us can understand.

#2 - In ranking the three Conan films. #1 - Original Barbarian, #2 - New Barbarian, #3 - Destroyer.

#3 - Many faithful CtB fans were pissed when Destroyer was made. It took out the nudity and violence, added some Hollywood flavor and reduced the rating to PG13 from CtB's R rating. This new film put it back in, but to no or to a silly purpose. A room full of boobs did not make this film any better. And I'm the first to admit that any room full of boobs is a plus. However, it just seemed silly in the new movie. The gorey violence of the original was done to purpose and taste. This time, it looks like guys splashing in red Kool-Aid with no realism. I was impressed with the first fight scene in the new Conan (the young teenage Conan fighting a bunch of tribal guys). That scene was impressively filmed. Action went down-hill from there.

#4 - The best part of the film were the broad panoramic views of various cities and locales; these shots, digital or no, were quite beautiful and inspiring in terms of us as community of fantasy authors.

#5 - This new Conan (althoug with the dark hair and all might look more faithful to Howard's image) is not aligned with Howard's image. Read some of the stories and you'll see what I mean. This Conan is a new Hollywood version of the character.

#6 - Why isn't the new Conan even close to being the most physically impressive guy in the movie? They hired far too many bigger and badder dudes to play villains and friends...almost to the point that Conan looks average. Mamoa also lacks Arnold's physical development and size. There might have been better choices for the production.

#7 - The story is about as well written as Kull the Conqueror, Kevin Sorbo's Hercules series, or something giddy along those lines. There are too many cases of "why the hell did they just do that when something else is so obvious". Characters (nearly all of them) make stupid decisions to move the plot and altogther the conflict development is just bad.

#8 - I still liked it. Oh well; I'm not that hard to please I guess. I love fantasy films and sword fighting and magic and all that. I took it for what it was, ate my popcorn, and tired to have a good time.

#9 - The 3D actually worked for me in this film.

#10 - Conan's sword looks VERY plastic in oh so many scenes.

My 2 cents!


----------



## Codey Amprim (Aug 20, 2011)

Well I have just returned from the movies and watched the new Conan. A few things:

1 - The beginning became slightly obnoxious with the twelve year old screaming his head off the entire time.
2 - Don't see it in 3D, or at least not with a bad pair of 3D glasses. There was so much going on and I couldn't tell what I was actually watching half of the time.
3 - The gore was a tad pathetic, and the characters seemed squishier than pumpkins. Like I get the whole "I'm strong and badass" but you can convey that in other means than simply turning someone's head into pulp by smashing it into the floor in one attack.
4 - The daughter of the main bad guy (excuse me please for the laziness of looking up his name because I forget) creeped me the hell out and I wanted her to die long before she did.
5 - The swords did not seem very realistic.
6 - I enjoyed it, but it could have been better.
7 - The heroine was beautiful, I think she did her part well.
8 - The shots of the cities and especially the Skull Cave were amazing.
9 - I had to pee the entire movie. Smileyface.

My thoughts ^.^


----------



## JBryden88 (Aug 21, 2011)

Map the Dragon said:


> #1 - Arnold was easily a better Conan (excluding Destroyer). Mamoa was such a badass playing Khol Drogo in Thrones; I wish his Conan was as serious. Mamoa's Conan was too whimsical and quick to make silly decisions. Arnold's Conan was thoughtful and serious to a degree none of us can understand.
> 
> #5 - This new Conan (althoug with the dark hair and all might look more faithful to Howard's image) is not aligned with Howard's image. Read some of the stories and you'll see what I mean. This Conan is a new Hollywood version of the character.
> 
> #6 - Why isn't the new Conan even close to being the most physically impressive guy in the movie? They hired far too many bigger and badder dudes to play villains and friends...almost to the point that Conan looks average. Mamoa also lacks Arnold's physical development and size. There might have been better choices for the production



You speak a few fighting words good sir. So I will address them 

- Conan, in the stories is described as having gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth. In the Arnold film, he is just emo while making weird noises... oh wait, that's unrecognizable Arnie "acting." In the new movie, we get to see Momoa become Conan. From the mirthful tavern scenes, to the understandable grievances over his father's death, etc. We see both sides, so yeah, a more whimsical Conan is what we needed to see. He's portraying younger Conan around his God in the Bowl, Tower of the Elephant, and early piracy days!

- Yes, they butchered his origin, but he's still 10x closer to Howard then Arnold was. No Wheel of Pain. No being a slave. They mentioned Venarium. He's Conan

- Conan is not described as looking like a giant steroid. Conan is described as being strong, with rippling muscles and with a pantherish grace. He is lithe. The new Conan fits that bill. Sorry but a giant steroid isn't gonna be a master thief 

My arguments good sir.


----------



## Leuco (Aug 21, 2011)

Thanks for the review! Even though it didn't look very impressive in the commercials, I was originally going to go see Conan anyway.

Mostly because:

1. It's Conan.
2. I wanted to show some support for the genre.
3. It's Conan.


----------



## Meg the Healer (Sep 13, 2011)

I went to see Conan a few weeks ago and I must say - I am so tired of being forced to watch movies in 3D - especially when the 3D effects are not that impressive. I want to see the army marching right at me - not off to the side of me near the front row. With that said...

1) Though I did like Jason as Conan - but having seen him as Khol Drogo - I didn't get the same level of intesity from him that I've come to expect.
2) I did not like the heroine. To clarify, I didn't like that they made her seem so wishy-washy. She can jump out of a moving carriage onto a galloping horse, but she becomes all damsel in distress whenever someone come nears her. Conan was a little busy fighting folk, but she kept on screaming whenever she thought she might get hurt. I just didn't care for all that much.
3) The whole scene where they bring her to the top of the castle, to strap her to ritual circle thing - just to move her (still attached to it) to the Skull cave......wtf.
4) The cities were amazing and views were pretty spectacular.

Visually I love watching it, but overall I didn't care for the movie.


----------



## Leuco (Sep 14, 2011)

I still haven't seen this movie. Not sorry about it. Ok, maybe a little bit. But I'll just wait for Redbox.


----------



## Map the Dragon (Sep 14, 2011)

Leuco said:


> I still haven't seen this movie. Not sorry about it. Ok, maybe a little bit. But I'll just wait for Redbox.



That's the righ way to go. This is a waste of movie money (13 a ticket x 2 for us and popcorn to bring us to $32). Or....$1 on redbox for a subpar film.


----------

