Conan the Barbarian and the problem with nostalgia

[EdzUp]

They could have at least used a body builder to play the main role of Conan, the one in the new film looks like the barbarian equivalent of Mr Muscle from the old UK TV ads.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Again, Nostalgia is just a coined phrase used by children who are trying to comprehend why older people like things with better narrative, structure, actors, etc.

But I have not seen the old or new Conan. I am now tempted to watch both and compare the two objectively. I will probably come to the same same conclusion as all the critics though, since many of them are quite intelligent people.

 

[HK_01]

(massive facepalm)I've seen both of the when they originally came out (I'm 35 btw) and yes my condescending there is a Conan the Destroyer here's the link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087078/
do me a favor before automatically saying there is no such thing google it instead of just saying it does not exist.

Also, there was never any film known as "Conan the Destroyer", and anyone who claims there is must surely be mistaken...

Here, lemme IMDB that for ya...there ya go, all nice and neat for your convenience. [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087078/]

Also, there was never any film known as "Conan the Destroyer", and anyone who claims there is must surely be mistaken...

Before you speak, Google.

It's truly amazing how many people seem to be unable to see that he was joking when he said "Conan the Destroyer" doesn't exist...

On topic: I guess the reviews may well be clouded by nostalgia, but I doubt it's a good film anyway and won't go see it. I simply have no interest in it whatsoever.

Spoiler

if everybody's panning the movie there maybe a reason other then just nostalgia goggles(given the average age of this current generation's movie goer and some of the critic's weren't even a glimmer in their fathers eye when the originals came out) there were two Conan movies from the 80's btw Conan the Barbarian and Conan the Destroyer.82 and 84 respectfully,so i ask you this simply put is this movie worth 15 dollars?or should i just wait for the DVD?

Nevertheless, most people who are into Conan at all have seen the Schwarzenegger flick, even if they weren't alive or old enough in the 80s, and keep in mind nostalgia comes into effect pretty quickly. Think about how many people still worship Half-Life 2 as the god of FPS games--it's only been out for seven six and a half years.

I wouldn't pay for the 3D version, but then I wouldn't pay for the 3D version of just about any movie. Watch it for $7.50 if you can, or get the DVD. No, it's not a brilliant film, but it's worth seeing at some point.

Also, there was never any film known as "Conan the Destroyer", and anyone who claims there is must surely be mistaken...

(massive facepalm)I've seen both of the when they originally came out (I'm 35 btw) and yes my condescending there is a Conan the Destroyer here's the link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087078/
do me a favor before automatically saying there is no such thing google it instead of just saying it does not exist.

Also, there was never any film known as "Conan the Destroyer", and anyone who claims there is must surely be mistaken...

Before you speak, Google.

Also, there was never any film known as "Conan the Destroyer", and anyone who claims there is must surely be mistaken...

Here, lemme IMDB that for ya...there ya go, all nice and neat for your convenience. [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087078/]

Never before have I seen so many people completely miss a joke.
He's saying that it was bad not that it didn't actually exist.

Damnit, ninja'd.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Nostalgia is causing people to say 2011!Conan is terrible simply because it's not the original, and there's no pleasing people like that.

Wow...did you think of that backhand all by yourself?

The film was released with very little hype, no pre-screenings and tells the story badly. That's why it's trash. Robert E. Howard's Conan was a Barbarian Rogue...not a muscle-bound mono-syllabic moron.

Arnie was a crap Conan. So was Momoa. Nothing to do with nostalgia. Just to do with people not understanding the basis of Sword and Sandals.

Barbarian doesn't mean meathead, it means wanderer.

"Hither came Conan, the Cimmerian, black-haired, sullen-eyed, sword in hand, a thief, a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet."

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Two movies based on the same material with the same title are bound to be compared. Should be compared. Call that nostalgia if you want. Sounds like Conan 2011 just doesn't measure up. Based on the one trailer I watched before writing off this shitty-looking movie, this is no surprise. Then again, I'm not going to see it, so maybe I'm wrong. I will forever remain in ignorance.

 

[Yokai]

if everybody's panning the movie there maybe a reason other then just nostalgia goggles(given the average age of this current generation's movie goer and some of the critic's weren't even a glimmer in their fathers eye when the originals came out) there were two Conan movies from the 80's btw Conan the Barbarian and Conan the Destroyer.82 and 84 respectfully,so i ask you this simply put is this movie worth 15 dollars?or should i just wait for the DVD?

Nevertheless, most people who are into Conan at all have seen the Schwarzenegger flick, even if they weren't alive or old enough in the 80s, and keep in mind nostalgia comes into effect pretty quickly. Think about how many people still worship Half-Life 2 as the god of FPS games--it's only been out for seven six and a half years.

I wouldn't pay for the 3D version, but then I wouldn't pay for the 3D version of just about any movie. Watch it for $7.50 if you can, or get the DVD. No, it's not a brilliant film, but it's worth seeing at some point.

Also, there was never any film known as "Conan the Destroyer", and anyone who claims there is must surely be mistaken...

(massive facepalm)I've seen both of the when they originally came out (I'm 35 btw) and yes my condescending there is a Conan the Destroyer here's the link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087078/
do me a favor before automatically saying there is no such thing google it instead of just saying it does not exist.

Also, there was never any film known as "Conan the Destroyer", and anyone who claims there is must surely be mistaken...

Here, lemme IMDB that for ya...there ya go, all nice and neat for your convenience. [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087078/]

It was a joke, guys. Come on now. Maybe that's hard to get across textually, but yes, I know there was a Conan the Destroyer movie. I just like to avoid thinking about it, ever.

Barbarian doesn't mean meathead, it means wanderer.

"Hither came Conan, the Cimmerian, black-haired, sullen-eyed, sword in hand, a thief, a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet."

I entirely agree with this, and it is unfortunate that we have yet to see the full extent of the original Conan's character.

My point--and I apologize if I didn't get this across properly, persuasive writing isn't my strong point--was not that this new movie was an excellent rendition of the original Howard character, but simply that it was no worse than anyone should have expected and certainly no worse than the original film, and that people should see it for themselves, and form their own opinions, when the critics are reviewing the movie based on what they want it to be, and not what it actually is. [small]Too many ands[/small]

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

So, critics appear to be panning it and Moviebob believes it's not worth more than ten seconds of attention. It seems there's no hope for the new Conan, and this is a shame. Here's why.

I just got back from the movie. This should be good...

2011!Conan sets out to do one thing: to tell a violent and spectacular fantasy story. There's none of the metaphorical speculation of Inception, none of the ham-fisted morals of Avatar. It is, at its heart, pure adventure. And really, what should we be expecting here?

I was expecting something a little closer to Robert E. Howard's universe than the first movie, as I was told this was supposed to be. Unfortunately I was wrong.

Conan was a character created to kill monsters,

He killed no monsters.

thwart power-mad sorcerers,

A sorcerer who doesn't really do any sorcery is not really a sorcerer.

explore ancient ruins,

Less exploring and more there was a ruin to walk through...

have sex with busty women,

Yes, he did do this, but less than he should have.

and find hidden treasure.

He didn't even look hard for treasure, let alone find any.

With that in mind, does this movie pull it off? Absolutely.

Actually, uh, no, he hardly pulled off any of the above.

We get sweeping vistas of ancient castles,

Yes, we are show a very pretty world, and one that has the feeling of what Robert E. Howard's world could have looked like. But it was devoid of anything to fill it to feel convincing.

a pitched battle aboard a pirate ship

A very messy, boring battle that could have been cut from the movie, and nothing would have felt like it was missing.

and a duel above a volcanic chasm,

A duel with a sorcerer that cast no magic...

a horse and wagon chase,

Wich really felt out of place.

the requisite tentacle monster,

That didn't have a proper feeling of shock and awe and mystery of the original books. When any odd "monster" was introduced in the books and even the comics, there was often a "By Crom!" exclamation of horror and shock at something so supernatural. This one was just kind of...there.

and plenty of sorcery and berserking.

I don't recall much of the former, and the second was very...pointless.

Accompanying this is a soundtrack by Tyler Bates that comes pretty close to Poledouris' score for the original in scale and impressiveness.

There was nothing memorable about the score at all! Whereas Basil's original movie score is probably one of the most definative soundtracks of all time! The two don't compare, on any scale.

In terms of spectacle, the movie delivers without any doubt.

Yes, it was a spectacle, no doubt. But so is a Michael Bay movie. It doesn't mean it's good...

Granted, it's not without flaws. There's nary a break in the action longer than ten minutes, and we don't get to see much at all of Howard's frequently stealthy and charismatic Conan. It's definitely darker than 1982!Conan, and perhaps does take itself a little too seriously. However, at the end of the day, it is at least as good as the original film. Jason Momoa plays a more driven and believable (if not all that well developed) Conan, as opposed to Schwarzenegger's clumsy, inarticulate character who kind of just seemed to be along for the ride for much of the time in the '82 version.

Actually, I find the opposite. Arnie's Conan seemed far more believable a character than Momoa's, by far, and more true to life of Howard's Conan. At least we see examples of Arnie being a thief. Momoa needs to rely on a hired hand to open locks for him...This one was bloodier, sure, but really, the blood was a show that amounted to nothing. The only thing that I liked about this movie was the opening 15 minutes. I would have much preferred a movie entirely built around the child Conan they introduced at the start. Instead we got an adult version of the character that doesn't resemble the character we were just introduced to, let alone a proper Conan!

So why are the critics giving it such a hard time? Well, I think it all boils down to that great enemy of progress and rationality, nostalgia.

That's not true at all. It was a terrible movie along with being a terrible Conan adaption. That's why it is being panned. From the accessory characters, to the plot, to the title character himself, all were poorly thought out.

A lot of people, especially some older fans who haven't seen the movie in over 20 years, are remembering the original as far better than it actually was.

I actually just watched the original a couple of weeks ago, in preparation for seeing this one. I was very sorely disappointed that this movie did not improve on anything the original did beyond special effects.

1982's Conan was a wonderfully cheesy film that was great fun to watch, but the plot was minimal, the acting (with the exception of James Earl Jones) was atrocious, and the pacing was strangely irregular.

I found the acting to be well done, from Mako to Subotai, to even Valeria (the weakest of the bunch in my mind).

The only real leg up over 2011!Conan the original has is its soundtrack, which was truly excellent. Otherwise, they're both movies you watch to see a guy with giant pecs fight things, and both do a great job of delivering that.

Actually, the latest movies had a guy in giant pecs fighting things that you could even clearly follow much of the time because of the shakey cam, in 3D that didn't add a single iota to the movie. I was hoping this one would follow Robert E. Howard's works more closely, but instead I get something that is so devoid of life in character (from the world to the people themselves) that it may as well not have tried.

Many fans have a stupidly fierce loyalty to the property without having read the original stories or even having seen the first film in years. Nostalgia is causing people to say 2011!Conan is terrible simply because it's not the original, and there's no pleasing people like that.

I have the complete collection of Howard's Conan and I quite enjoy reading any of the stories in it, many times. I enjoyed the original movie (and still do) even though it didn't follow the works. I enjoyed the Marvel comics, even though they didn't follow the works. I currently collect the Dark Horse series even though they take many liberties with the works as well. All of them at least try to capture the feel of Robert E. Howard's style. This movie...not so much.

So don't listen to the critics in this case; their opinions are pretty biased. Keep in mind that both films are adaptations, and inaccurate ones at that, and the new movie isn't trying to be the old movie.

I didn't listen to the critics, and unfortunately, I was rewarded with watching the worst movie that I have seen this year. Worse than Transformers and worse than Green Lantern, and both of those I found to be terrible.

Go into the theater not expecting some brilliant, thought-provoking piece of cinema, but an adventure story and nothing else.

I could also go in expecting a pretty "moving picture show" devoid of character, and I might still be let down. As an adventure story and nothing else, it was a very dumb story with very 2D (or even less in some cases. Is there a "1D"? Who was his pirate buddy and why was he there?) that expected the viewer to be devoid of any conscious thought to enjoy it.

And no, that's not to say the film "isn't trying to be good". It is trying be a Conan movie, and doing a pretty damn good job.

As a Conan movie it failed. As a good adventure movie. It failed. As a B-movie romp...it failed. I just waisted $14 bucks, unfortunately. The good news is, that I won't be buying the DVD or Blu-Ray ever. And I did buy Conan the Destroyer...

You should be expecting to see evil wizards, giant monsters and ridiculous, over-the-top fight scenes, and you won't be disappointed. This is probably the best Conan movie we can expect from Hollywood's current generation. No, it's not the greatest thing to come out this year. But it's certainly not the worst.

So far it is the worst movie I have seen this year. Hell, the Clash of the Titans remake did everything better than this movie, and it was pretty damned terrible as well.

So watch the film and decide for yourself whether it was worth your time. I can pretty safely say Bob's wrong about this one.

I haven't heard Bob's review, but I can safely say that if he thinks it's terrible...He's definately in the right.

EDIT: Well, that post was longer than I thought it would be...

 

[Yokai]

[Impressive and lengthy counter to every single one of my points]

That's your call. I didn't expect everyone to like the movie--I enjoyed it, but I certainly understand why a lot of people wouldn't. Good that you went and saw it yourself. The point of this review was to simply offer a counterpoint to Bob's five seconds of "This was a piece of shit" because I saw a lot of people saying they weren't going to bother because of that one little uninformative sound bite, and I wish I'd made that a little more clear in the original post... ah well. It's obviously a really subjective film, and I just wanted people to form their own opinions.

 

[Bebus]

The film was exactly what I expected it to be. Nothing more, nothing less. I went in expecting a man-cow in a loincloth cutting people up with lots of lusty ladies on the side, that is exactly what I got. My biggest complaint was the 'action shots' in the filming stopped me from actually seeing most of the action because the screen changed so often.

Keep your pretension, keep your snobbery, hell, keep your story lines and developed characters. It was exactly what it said on the tin. There are too many films trying to be something they are not these days, this film was a damned relief in comparison. Few beers beforehand with my friends, and I had a good evening at the cinema. I probably won't see it again, but don't think it was a waste of money.