The new Conan movie are gonna be made by Swedish mates!!

Hollywood is a lost cause. Lets be grateful for the CTB movie, surprised we even got that miraculously .

Howard's characters and stories would be good for independent animated serials. Live action movies dont seem worth much these days.

<(To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women)



http://www.conanmovieblog.com/2010/01/22/millenium-decided-jason-momoa-will-be-conan/

http://ultimateconanfan.blogspot.com/2010/01/we-have-new-conan.html

Yeah, I just read it and was going to publish it.

I choose to laugh.



Done.

This is like changing a doberman turd for a collie turd. It's still dogshit.

I choose not giving a damn.

Wow, he has sci-fi channel written all over him.

Maybe it will just go straight to DVD and spare us the embarrassment. it bad enough the plot sounds like crap, the characters are cliche, and the actors bottom barrel, but is there any selling point to this beyond the name, "C-OOOO-N-AAAA-N-!", that we might as well hear announced in a WWF rumble tone?

There have been a few unique movies in the last ten years... find those writers. However, I just watched Avatar, sherlock holmes, 2012, the road, and the book of eli, and they were all crap. "ooooooo look at our special effects!", "ooooo look at us reinvent a classic!", "ooooooo look at us rehash the same plot from three or more other films!" ect. So much potential in the film world, and yet so much crap.

AOster wrote:

Wow, he has sci-fi channel written all over him.

Maybe it will just go straight to DVD and spare us the embarrassment. it bad enough the plot sounds like crap, the characters are cliche, and the actors bottom barrel, but is there any selling point to this beyond the name, "C-OOOO-N-AAAA-N-!", that we might as well hear announced in a WWF rumble tone?

There have been a few unique movies in the last ten years... find those writers. However, I just watched Avatar, sherlock holmes, 2012, the road, and the book of eli, and they were all crap. "ooooooo look at our special effects!", "ooooo look at us reinvent a classic!", "ooooooo look at us rehash the same plot from three or more other films!" ect. So much potential in the film world, and yet so much crap.

Word.

I was running late for work, but i wanted to add this:

Personally I think Javier Bardem could pull it off great! Check out this pic:

Or

Now compare to frazetta's classic painting of Conan:


Instead we get this douche bag:


Am I missing something?

AOster wrote:

Am I missing something?

No. No, you're not.

Bardem is as ugly as sin and has no body, that other douchebag is chosen for his beachboy looks and body, too bad extremes.

The right balance of looks, acting and charisma is sadly lacking in today's Hollyweird.

In the new Predator movie they have fucking Adrian Brody and Topher Grace as the stars and killers,lol.

I don't think Conan attracts women because he's handsome, but because his energy. Actually similar to what women like about Bardem (besides the fact he's famous, I mean).

Conan is all about intensity, and that Frazetta painting is all about intensity too. A man that can kill a lot of other men with little effort, and he knows it. And everybody can say that just looking at him. Conan doesn't need to show what he can do to look dangerous. He can kill you with just one look.

Now that is what a good filmaker should look for in a casting for Conan. Maybe Bardem is not the best choice, but without a doubt he has that quality. Bardem, even not being the perfect Conan, would give an interesting character.


Besides this, hey guys listen, I'm actually creating a bunch of pscyho wackos to look for the responsibles of this PEES'&'SHIT movie, kidnape them, take them to the desert and go medieval with their asses before we peel their skins alive, then chop them into pieces with atlantean swords replicas and finally give the pieces to wild pigs. Anybody wants to join us?

bardem is ugly Turd, nothing remotely manly or intimating about him. He pulled off that role of the deranged coldblooded psychopath because he looks like a impotent unsuspecting simpleton, he's a steve Buscemi type.

He does not look anything like Frank's art let alone Howard's Conan.

Well, we'll all have our opinions.
I think that Christian Bale and Gerard Butler have shown us what a determined actor can do to their physique prepping for a film.

But I didn't deny Bardem's ugly or that he doesn't look like Conan. Besides that, dude, I'd PAY WITH MY SOUL to see Steve Buscemi playing Conan.

Bardem is an excellent actor. The debate isn't much about if he could be a good Conan or not. Yeah he can perfectly build up his body as Edward Norton or Bale, he is totally able to do that but I totally doubt he could ever be interested on playing Conan. I bet my balls he would say no. I totally know (too closely indeed, and I'm not exagerating) the kind of proffesional advisors he has and the kind of actor he is trained to be. He CAN'T choose to do a movie like Conan, still he can choose to make bullshits like Woody Allen's last one.

Fuck Bardem! The point of all this thing is choosing an actor that can act, Cromulus. Someone who prepares a character with method technique and gives a background and a deepness to Conan. Like Purefoy has done with Solomon Kane. That way even if the movie is crap still the main character can be watchable. That's all. I don0t think it's too much asking. But apparently it is...

Well, having just watched, "Spartacus Blood and Sand" I can say that I expect no better from what we'll be seeing of Conan's return. In the end, it doesn't matter what actors, producers, or directors they get; if it's written to be a pile of crap, it will be a pile of crap. Shine it, paint it, make ti do a dance, and it will still be a pile of crap.

If they go ahead with the crappy cliche' plot and cliche characters, then we're going to be better off ignoring it. People eat up the crap they are getting shoveled everyday, so it is no surprise that we keep getting it. Until the public stands up and makes Hollywood "get it right", we're gonna see historical butchery over and over. Hollywood doesn't care about historical time line abuse for props, plots, or presentation, not when you can throw some boobies on the screen and still get the ratings.

You can throw in Hugh Jackman or one of the Conan.com favorites Stifler from American Pie if we're going that route.

Sure any actor can starve themselves or take steroids and hit the gym for 4 months to 'get big quick'. Skinny guys getting ripped isnt Conan, but maybe a Windsor Smith version. Anyhow I dont think we want that, nor some over roided look-a-like Ahnuld either.

In the end best Conan was Arnold even if his face didnt match the character or Darkwolf from Fire and Ice. The scream is where Arnold/Dutch got it from in Predator:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8rjyzp3SA4

What pisses me the most is that they aren't making any more fantasy movies for audiences like us. We are totally ignored, like we don't care anymore. The only thing we can do is shut up and accept the crap they serve and eat it, and then be part of the rest, or bitch all around telling how bastards and idiots filmmakers are... But in the end, it's just that they don't care about us as an audience, therefore they will never make movies that we really like. Audiences are teenagers, potential buyers of merchandise... or parents of little kids who will determine if the picture is heartlighted enough to take their spawn to the movies. There's the money, not in us.

Our generation, who were bred on the 80's fantasy movies, KNOW the kind of crap modern fantasy cinema is and still, we are not listen. I insist: it's because we don't matter to them. Sad but true.

True on all counts.

The fact is that Generation X is of age to take over, so we need to make a stand somewhere. It's about time the dinosaurs in Hollywood are dethroned and the filthy capitalist theory of film school is burned.

AOster wrote:

The fact is that Generation X is of age to take over, so we need to make a stand somewhere.

Word again.

Being realistic, this should have been the choice.



I could have swallowed that.

That other guy, sorry, I cannot.

Appearantly, it seems that Bob Sapp has been cast as "Ukafa".
Dunno how big his role will be.

It's really very strange that they are buying REH's rights and aren't using any of his characters or storylines... I am sure paying for all that wasn't cheap at all. So, what the hell?? Why only using Conan (AND IN NAME ONLY!!)

In Milius' case, well, since at that time Conan's rights were owned by several different parts (Marvel among MANY others) and there was such a legal mess with that, he couldn't really use all of REH characters and situations so he came up creating Subotai for example. But today, If I'm not wrong, everything REH's belong to Conan Properties Inc. and they could perfectly have used his characters, plots and so.

So, what the hell??

I'm sure the release of the RPG and MMORPG also affect the plot, style, and general feel this film will have. Book fans are far on the list of consumers that film makers aim for.

Well I do not be grudge any type of fan nor do I think one type of fan is better than the other, or one median or such, even if I have my own taste. I grew up on the movie, marvel comic, and then later on the Lancers(late 90's), in that order for myself. For me the movies are still great, I liked the old Marvel series, and enjoyed the Lancers. I can respect the thought of basing movies or even animation more on Howard's direct stories, that would be fun to see, but probably far to unrealistic, this is Hollywood and big business.

The Lord of the Rings movies departed from source material quite drastically, but the movies made so much money nobody cared about the hardcore or pre-movie fans speaking up against it, they were drowned out. Maybe I would be one of them had I read the books before I saw the CONAN movie, same shit occurs with any book that turns into a movie. But back to LOTR for a sec, Christopher Lee only spoke up against the movie only after his scenes were cut and then was vocal about them bastardizing Tolkienes work which he supposedly was a HUGE admirer of for a great many years prior. He reminded me of DeCamp, that he praised the movie while it was being made and then later on pissed on it. So I guess nobody will ever be satisfied.

But back when I joined a certain CONAN site in the early there was an ingrained Anti-Milius/Anti-CTB/Anti-DeCamp/Anti-Pastiche cult which even some of the original Moderators/Administrators were sympathetic to or were in direct cahoots with altogether completely. Was hard to get a good discussion going without getting a PM and being told to behave because you're giving an asswhipping to the so-called "Purists". So it is rather ironic after all their rants that the new movie is a pastiche and the complete opposite of Paradox's promises. So for me this is poetic justice in a way.

Cromulus The Destroyer wrote:

Well I do not be grudge any type of fan nor do I think one type of fan is better than the other, or one median or such, even if I have my own taste. I grew up on the movie, marvel comic, and then later on the Lancers(late 90's), in that order for myself. For me the movies are still great, I liked the old Marvel series, and enjoyed the Lancers. I can respect the thought of basing movies or even animation more on Howard's direct stories, that would be fun to see, but probably far to unrealistic, this is Hollywood and big business.

Yeah, that is fair right, imo.

Yet this is not bastardizing Howard but not using his creations at all. I mean, there's not one character here that is a Howard character, not even bastardized. Not even from Marvel. That's what I find really really strange.

I mself consider being faithful to Howard is close to impossible, but Milius took what he liked from him and used it here and there, since Howard had really good ideas and situations all around enough to create a bunch of really good scenes for a script.

Why do you buy the rights to use them... and then... you not use any of them???

Well writers like to create, good or bad, so they will make it their own once they have the rights to the book or whatever. That is to be expected. So it is very difficult to get a verbatim transition, although it can be done(if they want it to).

As you said it doesnt make sense here, since they have complete access and control of ALL of Howard's material which IS the complete opposite of the case 27-35 years ago and such.

Having been familiar with the new movie's script, i can tell you it is more a loose remake of CTB(Marvel and DeCamp) rather than anything Howard.

I think it is simply the point no one in hollywood wants to accept: writers need to be creative, not rehash things that have been done before.

Why couldn't this simply have been something entirely new? A new hero to walk where Conan and others have walked before? Why does it have to be a "remake", a "pastiche", or even a continuation of the characters used in other films? Couldn't they have just given him an original name and walked without the crutch of an established name?

That would be the true test of a writers worth.

If they can't pass that, then no producer should have funded it.

Anyone can bastardize something that's popular, but a real writer creates something unique.

With the considerations of Rights back when CTB was done, I can live with what we got without being a roid-raging knuckle head about it. However, as stated already, if they have the ability to do it right, why the drifting off into WTF land?