Jason Momoa

What does everybody think about STARGATE: ATLANTIS Star Jason Momoa as the new Conan?

Jason Momoa has been offically cast as Conan in the 2011 Remake.

To be honest with everybody, I think Momoa is a terrible choice for Conan.

Yes Dan, here we don't like the choice for him as Conan either.

Which actor would have you prefered?

I see either Paul Telfer or Paul Levesque as Conan. Jason Momoa is not as muscular and well-build like Schwarzenegger. But he does look the part.

Here is my ideal CONAN cast which I cast on the Imagine Casting website which I am a member.


Conan ... Paul Levesque
Tamara ... Krystal Forscutt
Corin ... Arnold Schwarzenegger
Khalar Singh ... Stephen Lang
Ukafa ... Bob Sapp
Marique ... Robyn Malcolm
Young Conan ... Logan Lerman
Islene ... Lucy Lawless

His pitures seem very good so far, have impressed me at times, especially his long black maine, hopefully he pulls it off. I can only think of one guy that I saw recently a few years back that could have played an older Conan. It was the dude in Outlander, he just needed a mane and he would fit the bill. I hear people comparing Monoas size to Arnolds Conan and the size is not really an issue, girth wise, Conan was a wild barbarian that carried himself well, no matter his size the charisma knows no bounderies.

But I hope they do a good job, but I think it will be a vehicle for Age of Conan game more than the fans of Robert E.Howard.

I don't think Momoa was a bad choice. In the stories, Conan was sun bronzed early on once he made his way down south. Physique-wise, he is closer to how REH described Conan. He was described as large and powerful, but always in terms of panther-like and wolfish grace and moves. When they cast Schwarzenegger, they were working off of Marvel Comics and Frazetta.

If they ever do a King Conan, when he is older, Gerard Butler (with his 300 look) would be perfect.

Actually, the film is not a re make, but a different Conan adventure, which totally rocks!

Manu Bennett wouldve made a better choice for Conan, he's good on that silly program Spartacus.

Wulfgar wrote:

I don't think Momoa was a bad choice. In the stories, Conan was sun bronzed early on once he made his way down south. Physique-wise, he is closer to how REH described Conan. He was described as large and powerful, but always in terms of panther-like and wolfish grace and moves. When they cast Schwarzenegger, they were working off of Marvel Comics and Frazetta.

Actually, the film is not a re make, but a different Conan adventure, which totally rocks!

I think you are pretty optimistic there, my friend.

It's true, I am being optimistic. They would not be the first to spend money and time and produce garbage. I suppose that a lot of it has to do with being more of a fan of the books as opposed to the movie. I love the movie, I always have a great time watching it, but my fanboy side really comes out in the books. From the stills I have seen, it seems more reminiscent of them.
Will it be a disappointment if it's lousy? Yeah. But I've survived through every Highlander sequel and the Star Wars prequels, not to mention the TV abortion that was "The Mists of Avalon". I'm pretty sure I'll get through this..lol

Wulfgar wrote:

It's true, I am being optimistic. They would not be the first to spend money and time and produce garbage. I suppose that a lot of it has to do with being more of a fan of the books as opposed to the movie. I love the movie, I always have a great time watching it, but my fanboy side really comes out in the books. From the stills I have seen, it seems more reminiscent of them.
Will it be a disappointment if it's lousy? Yeah. But I've survived through every Highlander sequel and the Star Wars prequels, not to mention the TV abortion that was "The Mists of Avalon". I'm pretty sure I'll get through this..lol

Haha, I see, you are a hardened viewer. Yes this new Conan definitely cannot be worse than the Highlander sequels.

I am not sure about the StarWars prequels, though. It can be as bad as those, and also cheaper...

Anyway, I personally think that same as happen with Lovecraft, you can find more true to REH's spirit movies on productions that aren't oficially based off REH. For example, not Milius' "Conan" not the "Kull" movie not the last "Solomon Kane" flick were actually Howardian. In the best case of the Milius' film, it was a Miliuesque story with some loose Howardian elements, but the nature of the characters and the premise of the story was not Howardian. In the case of "Solomon Kane" it was just a videogame character and universe with no relation to Howard beyond the hero's costume.
Meanwhile other movies like "Spartacus" or Fleisher's "The Vikings" or Balkshi's "Fire and Ice" or "Apocalypto" or maybe even "Predator" (change the alien for a demon) could have totally been written by REH. The authors of these movies could not actually know REH, but they had stories with the same themes, characters, motivations and premises as a REH yarn. Would you agree?

Adapting Howard is sort of impossible in a superproduction. It's too politically incorrect and mature-oriented for an industry wich today only makes movies for teens. On the other hand, it's also considered not-enough-sophisticated for other filmmakers more interested in author's pictures -they want other kind of stories-.

And even if Fortune smiles to you and you manage to find a producer who accepts to invest on a REH movie project, then you can be sure that producer will do anything to change your script and force you to do what he wants. And the Howardian spirit is something extremely fragile, if you change character's motivations, change them into something less rageful or psychotic, if you mutate the original soul only a little then you are not Howardian anymore. And tell me what producer doesn't think on what he believes will sell, instead of worrying on being respectful to REH.

To make a REH film you need to know and love the writter and his work, and overall WILLING TO BE RESPECTFUL TO WHAT REH WANTED TO SAY WITH HIS STORY. If you instead choose to do your own version of the REH story as Milius did, then it's not Howardian, it's yours. This can also make a great movie, obviously. But then it's not Howardian. REH had a very specific phylosophy on life and he poured it in his stories. Every story has a theme (savagery being more real than civilization -- confronting demons being more digne than running -- visceral passions being more honest than inthelectual listlessness -- some people's gods being actually monsters -- the unquestionable right for killing to survive -- the rage as a part of male nature -- etc)

So you must take the risk to do something with no money so you can assure no producer is gonna fuck everything -they are born to fuck screenwritters and directors, they simply cannot help it, bunch of moronic assholes-.
But of course, with almost no money, how the hell are you gonna build an eerie ancient ruin, or a credible hideous monster, or the Shadizar streets, or the clothes for the cast.....

The circle is definitely a vicious one, you certainly are not wrong. We need someone like Zack Snyder who is edgy yet well funded. I would hate for it to be all shot in front of a green screen though. it worked for 3oo, but it is not a trend I want to see.

Momoa is simply terrible...