Considering there's a plethora of Conan books that compile a fairly interesting lore, I'm surprised that both this film and the original choose to largely ignore it and construct their own mythos around the character.
Conan Scriptwriter Ruminates On Failure
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But we only have his word for it, don't we? In a piece that quite beautifully shows the blood, sweat and toil that everyone went through, it's a bit crass to say "And mine was the best", isn't it? That's for another column, another time.Generic Gamer said:
I think that's half the problem. With those two tiny sentences, he's turned a piece on how they're all treated as dogs into "I'm eating all the other dogs already".
Without those two lines, it's quite a heartfelt piece, which is why I think it's such a shame he included them.
Yeah, I think we can both agree on that. I just think it would have been so much better with that tiny adjustment - which is what he is really all about.Generic Gamer said:
J. Michael Straczynski re-wrote Ninja Assassin in about 48 hours, and that was panned worse than Conan. I just hope Sean Hood bounces back and doesn't end his career on this sour note.
Well the critics mostly liked it [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/conan_the_barbarian/], at least. Unlike this one, which to be honest I thought looked a bit bad from the trailer. Apparently I was right to avoid it.OutrageousEmu said:
You do know (I bet a lot of people told you this already) that Conan is NOT originaly Arnold in a Lioncloth?Exterminas said:
But actually several books? (With a comic book adaptation also)
The new Movie is apparently a closer match to the Books than Arnies movies were.
But if you view it as an Remake well yeah then it is a bit hard.
Well, here's the problem. You're dealing with something that already has a strong fan base. It's kind of too late to have the 'okay' movie, because we already had that... decades ago. If you're going to revive something, you need to be 200% better than it, just to get a little grudging respect. That's just common sense really.teh_Canape said:
Haven't seen the movie myself yet, but just looking at that still picture... I'm going to say the eye liner and relatively* skinny torso put people off more than any story. Looks more like a fashion model than a barbarian.
*Yeah he's buff, but I bet he still fits in some doors. Conan should be scraping his shoulders on barn doors.
Plenty, Alien 3 for example. I don't know if they removed him from the credits but apparently he won't talk about it in interviews and doesn't put it down on his portfolio. That's mainly because he came in after about three re-writes or more trying to direct a film that the studio hadn't quite decided on yet with script re-writes coming almost daily. Then most of it was cut to shit in the editing room.hansari said:
Also, look up Caligula.
Being as faithful as possible doesn't always work. Sometimes you're using material that was most popular decades ago, which wouldn't translate so well over to modern audiences. SOmetimes stories or characters or art just don't make the switch well into film. I don't think that had to be the case here, but he tried to modernize the character to hit a larger group of people, and I think it was a good idea. The execution just failed miserably. Maybe it would have been better if they stayed truer to source, but staying as faithful as possible I think is rarely a good idea. Especially when dealing with comic books.Machocruz said:
You still don't understand what "kids stuff" means when Ebert says it.OutrageousEmu said:
It means its silly, its a cartoon, for children, or in this case, manchildren.
If you strip the violence and rape, all you are left with is something that would fit right in a run of the mill He-Man episode.
Just like LOTR is a childrens book, no matter how much killing and eviscerating the book has.
It is an uphill battle being compared to Oliver Stone, one of the writers on the 1982 Conan movie. That shows what a good writer can do for your movie.
Well it was a really bad script and most of what was really bad about the movie was the script. The visual designers proved themselves capable of making a convincing Hyborea--that was better than the original.
Unlike the 1982 version, the character Conan here was a dull one-trick pony, but the script only allowed him to be one-trick, so we don't know if the actor was capable of more. The female lead was weak, but again, the script only allowed her to be totally lame--maybe, hopefully, the actress could have delivered more.
I was almost ready to give the movie a thumbs up, despite its faults I enjoyed most of it, but the ending was incredibly weak. We get this build-up for an artifact of immense power, and then... well... anyway.
The theater I was in on Friday evening of opening day was about 1/8 full.
Well it was a really bad script and most of what was really bad about the movie was the script. The visual designers proved themselves capable of making a convincing Hyborea--that was better than the original.
Unlike the 1982 version, the character Conan here was a dull one-trick pony, but the script only allowed him to be one-trick, so we don't know if the actor was capable of more. The female lead was weak, but again, the script only allowed her to be totally lame--maybe, hopefully, the actress could have delivered more.
I was almost ready to give the movie a thumbs up, despite its faults I enjoyed most of it, but the ending was incredibly weak. We get this build-up for an artifact of immense power, and then... well... anyway.
The theater I was in on Friday evening of opening day was about 1/8 full.
For the unlikelihood of Conan becoming the institution that it is today, any sword and sorcery fan should go to wikipedia and read about Robert E. Howard's life. If a Conan script can capture that pathos, it should do fine. The original movie did. Few others do, and the latest totally failed.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Howard
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Howard