LOOKS LIKE JASON MOMOA HAS SPENT SOME TIME ON THE WHEEL OF PAIN

Fuck the chronic constipation expression, he is so hot. Lisa Bonet is a lucky woman.

Jason Momoa, looks...Properly Barbaric, for...Conan The Cimmerian! In fact, he looks remarkably similar to the Marvel Comic's Conan, by Roy Thomas.

I didn't have too much of a dog in this fight because I'm doing the cool (read: widespread) thing and being cynical about remakes, but dude looks alright.

Eh, I suppose it's acceptable.

He has a very hearty, pronounced brow.

Well he certainly looks better than I expected, I just wish I was more on board for this and not so skeptical.

It pains me how low-rent this flick is.

Likewise, Darkmite. Likewise. Momoa looks okay, but I am skeptical that something that doesn't involve either Arnold or Milius will ever even be able to think about reaching that level of quality and entertainment.

When I heard about Crown of Iron and Milius not happening, well, I liken it to when GdT left The Hobbit.

As everyone else, I'm leery, but Momoa looks better than he did in other pictures I've seen of him where he looks like Tyr from Andromeda.

*sigh*

It's unfortunate that so many people, who are unfamiliar with the source material, view Arnold and Milus' work as the ultimate Conan film. I liked it for what it was, however the original Conan stories were much, much better than either Conan films and Arnold bore little resemblance to the Conan I know and love. Conan is much cunning, intelligent and witty in the books (and comics) than he was presented in the Milus version. Most people that I know who are big Conan fans that are familiar with the books and comics feel that the movies did not capture the true spirit of Conan.

Therefore, I had always hoped that a creative team would come along with a vision that was more faithful to the source, because I think if done right Conan could be epic on the level of LOTR, especially given today's fx.

I don't know if it's that Conan is too difficult a property to really devote the kind of energy/bidget it deserves vs. the fear of not recouping, or if no one has really cared about/understood the property enough but it doesn't seem like this will change with this feature. I will wait to see more, but the best I can hope for is to be mildly entertained by this feature as it doesn't seem that the parties involved are truly dedicated to making a faithful, epic and amazing Conan picture.

I understand that for many, there is no desire to explore Conan beyond the Arnold and Milus version but at least recognize that there are many, many big Conan fans that don't see it as the end all/be all to the character.

As for the pic, looks better than I initially expected, but I'm still not holding my breath for a great Conan film.

I think - at least in the first film - Milius did a fantastic job of capturing Conans world, but had to work around a star who couldn't act, could barely speak and was cast for his physical attributes rather than his ability to capture Howards true barbarian.

Yes, this. Arnold got alot of work because of his charm and his body. Conan was good, but nothing is probably ever going to reach the written word (or comics) when it comes to Conan the Cimmerian.

Also, I absoluetly abhor the use of *sigh* in a post. It only makes you look pretentious. Use your words and use them in way that that respects the poster before you.

I still say, you get a writer and director that want to be true to Howards world and then cast this guy...



...and you'd have Howards Conan brought to life.

All I'm getting is the little red X, Rain Dog.

It's like a tiny red Conan on the Tree of Woe!

Fixed. His casting as Conan has been an epic no-brainer to me for almost ten years now.

Rain Dog, that's a perfectly good choice for a movie, but he's still too pretty for Conan, and so is this guy, but it's a movie. Arnold is not pretty, which is part of why he makes a great Conan.

It's like casting a perfect Tarzan. The first book is pretty great. Is there anyone out there who can embody everything the book gave me? Probably not.

I'd feel so much better about a Duane Johnson Conan.

That being said, having read the books, I echo the sentiment that Milius built the world of Conan, even if he didn't have the right barbarian. The whole "Riddle of Steel" is perfect, and I think it reflected back on Arnold. Is it the end all and be all? No. Those of the books.

But it is a damn fine movie that I am happy to associate with Howard's work.

I am not impressed at all by...The Pebble. I am glad that...Jason Momoa is Conan. I hope that...Conan, is at least similar to the...Marvel Comic's Conan, written by Roy Thomas! That Conan was a man of action...a pirate, a King, a soldier, etc.

I don't really think that's fair to Arnold. It wasn't that he couldn't act so much that his strengths as an actor needed to be handled by the correct director. He isn't great at dialog, but he can absolutely use his physicality to act, look at the scenes early on in the arena or his meditation on the riddle of steel after killing Thulsa Doom. Conan The Barbarian was a great movie not only because it avoided his weaknesses as an actor, but also played on his strengths.

(The only other director who I think was ever able to use Arnold as well was Cameron. Arnold absolutely EXUDED menace in The Terminator).

Yeah but he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag and could barely speak english - it's why Milius' Conan does very little other than grunt and say his name. I'll take a bit of pretty with acting chops over that any day thanks.

Yes but in doing so it sold the actual character up the river to play to those strengths. I'm not here to be fair to Arnie, I'm here to be fair to Conan, and the fact remains that an actor that wasn't strong on dialogue or vocal acting and could only represent himself physically (no matter how much of a star he would eventually become) was in no way appropriate for the barbarian Howard created.

Honestly, I'm tired of people bitching about Milius' Conan being unfaithful to the books. I'm a fan of Howard's writing, but let's not get pretentious about it. He wrote gory sexy adventure stories, not important works of literature.

And even if they were, faithfulness to the source material does not a great movie make. Greystoke has very little in common with Burroughs' Tarzan, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the best Tarzan film ever made.

Source fidelity can take a flying leap, for all I care. Make a good movie. That's all that matters.

I don't need a note for note interpretation of Howards stories Gregs, I'd just like a filmic Conan I believe could pull off the whole, thief/pirate/thinking side of the cimmerian equation. I'll say again, Milius is not to blame here, he captured Howards world so well it kind of amazes me he used real world locations to do it it feels so wonderfully heightened, the weakness was at the feet of centering that film on an actor who was essentially miscast in the lead role.

Actually, the sigh wasn't really aimed at the initial poster but more as a general frustration from years of hearing the sentiment that only Arnold and Milus can make a great Conan film, when I believe that that film was good, but the character could be done much better justice. I've found that this opinion usually (not always) comes from those that have limited exposure to Conan aside from the films. Perhaps my disappointment from waiting so long to have a new Conan project that truly captured the essence of the character, and being less than excited thus far spilled over but nowhere in my post did I attack the poster, which is what I would have done had I meant to be disrespectful.

Milus did do a good job of representing elements of Conan's world, but there have been so many great stories with landscapes ranging from lush jungles to barren deserts to bustling cities to oceans, etc. that I found it to be somewhat lacking in the variety of environments Conan could be in. Not to mention all the creatures and other fantastical elements of his world (I know a lot of that wasn't possible to depict at the time it was made, but these things are reasons that I don't hold it up as the great Conan film others might).

Again, I did enjoy it for what it was, I just wish that one day the character's possibilities would be handled by those that can bring them to life in a way they deserve.

It's only a weakness if you're demanding fidelity to the source material. The character that Arnold was portraying wasn't Howard's Conan. It was Milius' and Arnold's Conan. And I like that one too.

Again, Greystoke. Not Burroughs' Tarzan, but an excellent Tarzan story nonetheless.

No probs, and fair enough - I happen to prefer the one Howard came up with. It's not about fidelity, it's about being a fan of that literary iteration personally. I find that Conan much more interesting.

I like the Milius one too - just prefer the Howard version.

It isn't even so much about Milus' faithfulness to Howard's works as it is that the Conan of his works and other sources is a BETTER character than what Arnold portrayed. Also, the environments, creatures and fantastical elements that would make great entertainment, have never been realized in a Conan film. Those things, done right, would take the character to new heights. Conan isn't just some dumb brute, and because he isn't that it makes the character more interesting than the "typical Barbarian" angle.

To be fair, this was very young Conan they were dealing with. Judging from the "King Conan" coda, it looks like Milius had hopes of developing the character away from the "dumb brute" in future films.

I think this is something that people forget. That film's Conan wasn't intended to be the final statement on the totality of the character. It was the first chapter in a saga. It's just that the rest of the saga never happened.

...and the less said about that particular sagas second chapter the better - but you make a good point as always sir. It's why I can still enjoy the original movie as much as I do.

I agree with all of this. My intial post was mostly pissed off about *sigh*. I don't think a movie needs to hold too close to it's source material to be good, or even great. A few have surpassed their source material.

Also, I much prefer movies to books. Conan and Tarzan were just two examples (for me) of how difficult it might be to capture them on the screen faithfully. Which doesn't really matter, as you have said. A movie based on them is really what I want, and a really good one is just icing on the cake.

Perhaps, but you also have to realize that in that world characters grow up fast. By the time Conan was like 19 he had already wandered to many different places, learned different languages, had much lifetime experiences, etc. Again, I don't want to seem like I'm savaging (heh) the Milus film but there are many ways I feel Conan could be improved upon cinematically.

If you're just concerned about a good movie, I guarantee that if the character was done the justice it deserves, with a top budget and top talent you would certainly find it to be a great film that surpasses the original. Sadly, that's not likely to ever happen.

Never say never, it may end up some young hungry auteurs passion project some day, I just don;t think this Momoa go-round is going to be it.

The top talent is the only part of that statement that actually matters.

Let me rephrase that then. A budget that's able to suitably reflect the more fantastical elements of the character.

Nice to see some love for Greystoke.

As for this Conan ugh. It just doesn't look very promising at this point. Count me as one of the Milius's film lovers and wish King Conan could have happened.

I enjoy...Conan The Barbarian, but prefer both...Robert E. Howard's and Roy Thomas' Conan. I like the fact that REH's Conan, made his first kill as a pre-teen, and did not spend all those years, in service of the butchers that killed his parents like in the CTB film. Marvel's The Savage Sword of Conan was...Awesome.

Greg Clark, To me, the only, great live action, Tarzan is...Johnny Weissmueller. The only other Tarzan I enjoy is Filmation's Tarzan Lord Of The Jungle. I hate...Greystoke.

I know DESTROYER isn't popular around here (I see it as the D&D version of Conan)... but it definitely aimed for more of those elements you thought was missing from the 1st.

Darkmite8, Except for the fact that, Conan isn't really made for...PG. Maybe, a...Harder PG 13 would benefit the Cimmerian, just not a soft...PG.

I'd be willing to bet that it would be PG13 if released today, but yeah it is a bit too kiddie/watered down for the property.

Agreed, and there are parts of Destroyer I like a lot (specifically when they're escaping the cave and Conan slowly backs off with sword raised while facing the enemies and the music kicks in, IMO the most Conan moment in both movies). And I respect that they tried to capture some of the other elements of Conan. Ultimately, by making it pg and putting in too much silliness, it ends up being a disappointment overall however.

Getting back to the Milus film, I found this quote that really does a great job in explaining why the Conan character was lacking for so many fans.

http://www.conan.com/invboard/index....pic=3841&st=20

Okay fair enough, but Milius's film is an origin story. After he gets his revenge against Thulsa Doom, what propels Conan forward? The coda of the film hints that he wants to be a King and has the drive to make himself one. I believe there is some discussion about this earlier in the film as well. Anyway the point is that there's no saying Milius's Conan wouldn't have evolved into a more self-actualized and driven character. Imagine a sequel where he wanders around doing mercenary work because what else can he do but sell his sword-arm, and then ends up on the high seas first captured by pirates and then becoming Am-Ra and finding a new purpose in life, etc etc.

If they don't fuck this up, we might get something like that with Mamoa but I guess we'll see. As it is, Conan the Barbarian is a monumentally great film and it saddens me that fellow Conan book/comic fans dismiss it so readily while probably making fun of the kind of geek who burst blood-vessels over changes made to Watchmen.

Even if Milius didn't capture the spirit of the character, he certainly managed the world of the character and it's also probable that the differences between Howard's Conan and the one we got have a lot to do with choice as opposed to misunderstanding the original vision.

Two posts from Moriarty highlighting whats great about what Milius brought to the table.

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=6362
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=10000

That's some enthusiasm. Not a bad read.

I, for one, would murder to see the Marvel comixa Conan onscreen; hell, gimme sea faring Conan and Belit facing old gods, fierce savages and crazy cultist and im there.
Hell, one of my favorite Conan moments was from those series: it involved conan having to choose his reward,and then looking at a girl and a horse.
God dammit, i wish i could remember the name of that issue.

He honestly doesn't look that bad. I still have some big doubts about this but him not looking too bad in the role is at least a little something.

Ryoken, I do not know if this helps, but of the...7 Savage Sword Of Conan TPB released, that story was in one of them. It might have been either vol 4 or 5.

Thanks, Fleed, i wish I could remember the damn title...i think it was "The secret of skull river", but not sure yet.

That's some good reading. I may be one to defend Howards Conan - but I still have a lot of love for the original film.

I'm not particularly interested in this project, but the the man in the photo does look remarkably like that make up test we saw a while back. Same cheek bones, at least.

All the same I'll keep at least one eye peeled for future updates about this project. Milius is responsible for bringing the world Titus Pullo, so I am willing to take some of the supposed appeal of CONAN on faith*

*for the record, I saw the first film and did not care for it, but at the same time the basic concept seemed sound so this film might be OK