CONAN THE BARBARIAN post-release discussion - Page 2

Are you saying you fucked and/or got to a number of bases with Rose McGowan? Was this pre or post plastic surgery?

Did anyone else think they were actually going to go the incest route?  I kinda wish they had a sex scene between Lang and McGowan.  It would have made the last act a lot more interesting.

I aint gonna lie.  I was lusting after McGowan way more than Nichols during this movie.  I thought Nichols was just breath-taking during some of it though.  Still, I wanted that witch bad....

Saw this over the weekend with the wife at the $2 theater.. MST3Ked our way through a matinee viewing. So help me, I had fun.

It carries none of the thematic/philosophical resonance of Milius', It's all hack & slash. And not only (as Nick pointed out) is it aping other flicks like CLASH OF THE TITANS, SCORPION KING, PIRATES, (and the climax was so FOTR's Mines of Moria) etc... It's almost a blend of the CONAN 1 & 2 and KULL THE CONQUEROR flicks more so than original Howard source material. Greatest hit album without the meatier tracks. Better than the average SyFy original by far (I should know... I watch a ton of those, including the recent WITCHVILLE). The plentiful R-rated material alone elevates it there. Better than Nispel's forgettable PATHFINDER. I think.

It's ultimately crap and doesn't do the character justice (Momoa's cool), but hell, I watch and own the Corman ripoffs of the 80s on dvd and wait for BARBARIANS (featuring the Barbarian Bros) to be released on home vid. Blood, boobs, beasts... meets the Joe Bob Briggs 3 B requirements.

What I want to know is... Where did the Love Shack come from? Is that Conan's regular seaside hookup place or did they stumble upon that convenient location? And the battle cries and yells to the heavens (Pearlman holds baby up, pirates raid slavers, etc)? They were so awkward and screamed of first takes.

Also... my wife said, and I quote (in the parking lot afterwards): "That tavern scene had an amazing amount of titties."

I'll own it.

I've read in a couple reviews of the DVD, that Jason and Rose do a commentary that's a must-listen. Silly, cracking jokes, and just great chemistry all together. Can't wait.

Damn... I wanna listen to that.

Just watched this tonight. Its really a sad experience there is nothing that distinguishes itself as Conan at all. It was like hey lets watch  " Swordmaster who resembles Conan The Barbarian versus some warlord asshole who takes 20 years to find a woman " I mean were they even trying?

Mamoa was ok but nothing was particularly that good about him other than the look. His grunts and movements were hokey.

What was with all the title captions for the cities and towns (I counted at least 6)? I mean who the fuck cares.

Nispel has wasted two good potentially satisfying fantasy films now (Pathfinder and now this) and he deserves to be in directors jail.

Lastly I wanted to quote Drew McWeeny's review of the film.

" The last point I'd like to make is that this film makes a very strange, almost unthinkable mistake.  When you're painting in archetype this big and broad, you need to make things very clear, very black and white.  Your good guys need to be very good.  Your bad guys need to be very bad.  Conan is a barbarian, yes, but he is driven by a very simple, easy moral code.  He inspires loyalty and love because he follows his own heart, and he does what is right.  In this film, his motivation is exactly the same as the motivation of the bad guy, and frankly, they never make the case that Conan has any more of a moral right to win than Khalar Zym does.  It's arbitrary good and bad instead of anything that the audience can genuinely invest in, and it's really misguided. "

Seems a few people have glossed over this but it deserves to be said again. Its not hard to do a film like this.

Watching a few old interviews of Momoa, McGowan and Nichols they all seem to think they've made a good Conan film they haven't though they haven't even made a good sword and sorcery film.

John Milius, Robert E Howard and Arnold laugh at this new Conan and so do I.

I finally saw this on DVD. 

I was entertained. It was good in some places (liked Momoa, Lang, eye candy), and not so great in others. 

But I think the film has gotten an undeservedly bad reputation. It's not great, but it certainly is not as bad as most reviews suggest.

Its not great for sure. Whatever it is its not a quality product.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker 

" The last point I'd like to make is that this film makes a very strange, almost unthinkable mistake.  When you're painting in archetype this big and broad, you need to make things very clear, very black and white.  Your good guys need to be very good.  Your bad guys need to be very bad.  Conan is a barbarian, yes, but he is driven by a very simple, easy moral code.  He inspires loyalty and love because he follows his own heart, and he does what is right.  In this film, his motivation is exactly the same as the motivation of the bad guy, and frankly, they never make the case that Conan has any more of a moral right to win than Khalar Zym does.  It's arbitrary good and bad instead of anything that the audience can genuinely invest in, and it's really misguided. "

I find this a weird complaint. Someone doesn't really seem to know the character all that well. Conan is not a black & white archetypal hero in the source material, and as far as I'm concerned, shouldn't really be in adaptations either. He's more than a bit of a greedy scoundrel in many stories, going where the 4 winds take him. Some of his heroic deeds are out of survival or due to his lust for adventure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

 

I find this a weird complaint. Someone doesn't really seem to know the character all that well. Conan is not a black & white archetypal hero in the source material, and as far as I'm concerned, shouldn't really be in adaptations either. He's more than a bit of a greedy scoundrel in many stories, going where the 4 winds take him. Some of his heroic deeds are out of survival or due to his lust for adventure.

Beyond that, I'm pretty sure they mentioned that the woman Zym was looking to resurrect (his dead wife) kinda wanted to destroy the world or whatnot.  I'd say that probably places Zym and his daughter squarely in the "evilly evil" camp.  Even beyond running around slaughtering folks for their own empowerment/gratification, and requiring a human sacrifice to accomplish their intended resurrection.

Guess I really didn't see the whole "Conan isn't any more morally right than Zym" bit, myself.  Seeking revenge/justice for the slaughter of your barbarian village that seemed to mostly be minding its' own business vs. seeking resurrection of a nihilistic witch using the (strangely useless) McGuffin of Evil Evilness (no matter how wrongly prosecuted you might feel your nihilistic witch wife was...but I guess I find the monk a little more credible and unbiased a source than Zym) doesn't really seem to be "morally equal" to me.

The Milius film does a better job of upping the stakes and clearly showing the motivations of each character.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker 

The Milius film does a better job of upping the stakes and clearly showing the motivations of each character.

I don't think anyone is arguing that this is better than the Milius film on any level beyond perhaps Momoa being a mildly closer-to-Howard depiction of Conan (whether or not that's "better" is subjective, though). I think some of us just didn't see this lack of clearly spelling out who was "evil/bad" and who was "good" between Conan and Xym's opposing factions.  But it's possible I (and or others) have misinterpreted what you were saying.