Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/885-meet-the-new-conan


Well this is unexpected. Did anyone know this was happening?

Since 2009, yes.

Oh, I was not aware of that. sweet I guess.

It's been kept under fairly tight wraps, to be honest.

They made an announcement in early 2009 that they'd cast Jason Momoa, and then in late 2009/early 2010 they released some promo pics of him as Conan brooding over some ale wearing chainmail, one of him on horseback with a sword drawn, and a few other various shots.

Kanluwen wrote:It's been kept under fairly tight wraps, to be honest.

Not that tight, we've has several threads about it on this very board since it was announced and even had leaked photos posted hear before.

Ahtman wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:It's been kept under fairly tight wraps, to be honest.

Not that tight, we've has several threads about it on this very board since it was announced and even had leaked photos posted hear before.

I know, I posted a few of those threads

The photos, however, weren't leaked. They were released by the production company.

I have fairly low hopes for this movie. It just won't be the same without Basil Poledouris to be honest.

Will still go see it

I won't. The success of Conan was not due to Arnie. The film ran this whole Teutonic Siegfried undertone that I doubt they would be smart enough to replicate. It was like Wagnerian opera with swords and boobies."

Plus it won't have James "Hug me I'm Darth Vader" Earl Jones.

CONAN!

*hits stuff with sword*

To be honest if they just have Conan beating stuff up, raiding a temple (priestess) or two and stealing loads of gold I think I would be happy

SilverMK2 wrote:CONAN!

*hits stuff with sword*

To be honest if they just have Conan beating stuff up, raiding a temple (priestess) or two and stealing loads of gold I think I would be happy

That's pretty much everything I've been told about it

Plus, there is apparently--according to several sites that have run photos...and had to edit them beforehand due to "lots of bare boobage" and "severed limbs".

I am very much okay with this. It definitely disproves the constant whining from people that "Oh it's going to be PG-13!".

I won't. The success of Conan was not due to Arnie. The film ran this whole Teutonic Siegfried undertone that I doubt they would be smart enough to replicate. It was like Wagnerian opera with swords and boobies."

Plus it won't have James "Hug me I'm Darth Vader" Earl Jones.

Actually, the success of the earlier Conan movies was mostly due to Arnie. They had nothing really to do with the novels, Arnie was a ridiculous typecast(who was riding high off some earlier successes and just becoming a common name), and they relied upon the starpower of the cast to really get anything done.

That aside: they're not bad movies at all when taken for what they are--fantastic hack'n'slash movies with an element of sorcery & swords in there.

Kanluwen wrote:I am very much okay with this.

Me too

Might have to find out when it is being released and go to opening night in a loin-cloth.

Edit: Though on second though, perhaps not

Kanluwen wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:CONAN!

*hits stuff with sword*

To be honest if they just have Conan beating stuff up, raiding a temple (priestess) or two and stealing loads of gold I think I would be happy

That's pretty much everything I've been told about it

Plus, there is apparently--according to several sites that have run photos...and had to edit them beforehand due to "lots of bare boobage" and "severed limbs".

I am very much okay with this. It definitely disproves the constant whining from people that "Oh it's going to be PG-13!".

I won't. The success of Conan was not due to Arnie. The film ran this whole Teutonic Siegfried undertone that I doubt they would be smart enough to replicate. It was like Wagnerian opera with swords and boobies."

Plus it won't have James "Hug me I'm Darth Vader" Earl Jones.

Actually, the success of the earlier Conan movies was mostly due to Arnie. They had nothing really to do with the novels, Arnie was a ridiculous typecast(who was riding high off some earlier successes and just becoming a common name), and they relied upon the starpower of the cast to really get anything done.

That aside: they're not bad movies at all when taken for what they are--fantastic hack'n'slash movies with an element of sorcery & swords in there.

What earlier success? He was a bit actor in Ten, but that was about it, unless you count that juicehead documentary.
Compare Conan with the sequel and you'll understand the suckage potential.

Kanluwen wrote:Actually, the success of the earlier Conan movies was mostly due to Arnie. They had nothing really to do with the novels, Arnie was a ridiculous typecast(who was riding high off some earlier successes and just becoming a common name), and they relied upon the starpower of the cast to really get anything done.

I think what made it full of win was part casting (not just Arnie) and part putting together John Millius (very very conservative Director) and Oliver Stone (do I have to say it?). The chocolate and peanut butter of the two of them together made a delicious Reese's Peanut Butter cup.

Agreed.

And don't forget bad ass sound track.

Ahtman wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Actually, the success of the earlier Conan movies was mostly due to Arnie. They had nothing really to do with the novels, Arnie was a ridiculous typecast(who was riding high off some earlier successes and just becoming a common name), and they relied upon the starpower of the cast to really get anything done.

I think what made it full of win was part casting (not just Arnie) and part putting together John Millius (very very conservative Director) and Oliver Stone (do I have to say it?). The chocolate and peanut butter of the two of them together made a delicious Reese's Peanut Butter cup.

Also very true

With Conan, it was all those things coming together to make something delicious. But the only thing that always made me not 100% love those movies is having read Conan books from a young age and growing up on Frazetta's paintings.

Ahnald just wasn't the 'right fit' for Conan with that mental image/artistic portrayal of Conan in your head. He was perfect for some of Conan's adversaries, but not really Conan himself.

Frazzled wrote:I won't. The success of Conan was not due to Arnie. The film ran this whole Teutonic Siegfried undertone that I doubt they would be smart enough to replicate. It was like Wagnerian opera with swords and boobies."

Plus it won't have James "Hug me I'm Darth Vader" Earl Jones.

I take it you only like the 1 movie then since James Earl Jones wasen't in all of them.

Personally I'm not to excited about this and haven't been back when I first heard about it, there are some movies that they shoulden't really re-do or continue with and if they do then they all need to be given to Peter Jackson I'll probably watch it just for kicks but I'm about as excited for this as I am for Mad Max 4

Frazzled wrote:What earlier success? He was a bit actor in Ten, but that was about it, unless you count that juicehead documentary.
Compare Conan with the sequel and you'll understand the suckage potential.

Possibly his successful role in the Jayne Mansfield documentary? Conan was just a blip in a series of long successful films starting with Hercules in New York.

Also, I was able to spell Schwarzenegger correctly the first time on IMDB. Awesome.

biccat wrote:successful films starting with Hercules in New York.

I have that film and my god it is terrible

Kanluwen wrote:

I won't. The success of Conan was not due to Arnie. The film ran this whole Teutonic Siegfried undertone that I doubt they would be smart enough to replicate. It was like Wagnerian opera with swords and boobies."

Plus it won't have James "Hug me I'm Darth Vader" Earl Jones.

Actually, the success of the earlier Conan movies was mostly due to Arnie. They had nothing really to do with the novels, Arnie was a ridiculous typecast(who was riding high off some earlier successes and just becoming a common name), and they relied upon the starpower of the cast to really get anything done.

That aside: they're not bad movies at all when taken for what they are--fantastic hack'n'slash movies with an element of sorcery & swords in there.

What earlier success? Arnold barely spoke any english when they filled the originals which is why his character had so few lines, I mean think about it Conan wasen't exactly the most eloquent character he mostly just yelled everything. I'm also pretty sure that the Conan movies where some of his first movies because his success was from his body building

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

I won't. The success of Conan was not due to Arnie. The film ran this whole Teutonic Siegfried undertone that I doubt they would be smart enough to replicate. It was like Wagnerian opera with swords and boobies."

Plus it won't have James "Hug me I'm Darth Vader" Earl Jones.

Actually, the success of the earlier Conan movies was mostly due to Arnie. They had nothing really to do with the novels, Arnie was a ridiculous typecast(who was riding high off some earlier successes and just becoming a common name), and they relied upon the starpower of the cast to really get anything done.

That aside: they're not bad movies at all when taken for what they are--fantastic hack'n'slash movies with an element of sorcery & swords in there.

What earlier success? Arnold barely spoke any english when they filled the originals which is why his character had so few lines, I mean think about it Conan wasen't exactly the most eloquent character he mostly just yelled everything. I'm also pretty sure that the Conan movies where some of his first movies because his success was from his body building

You really need to read the books.

Conan was always considered to "just be an ignorant barbarian"... but he was fluent in more languages than most people these days are, familiar with a great many cultures, and more besides.

He wasn't stupid by any measure. He just didn't like learning when he could be out slaying.

Kanluwen wrote:You really need to read the books.

Conan was always considered to "just be an ignorant barbarian"... but he was fluent in more languages than most people these days are, familiar with a great many cultures, and more besides.

He wasn't stupid by any measure. He just didn't like learning when he could be out slaying.

Very true. Conan was massively well educated in language, tactics and so on. A lot of his opponents never saw past the barbarian to see exactly what they were up against. Conan commanded armies, ruled countries and cities, as well as working as a common "heavy", sailor, merc and other various low jobs.

I will only be satisfied if they redo the scene where Conan drunkenly punches a camel after insulting women of the night. The rest of the movie doesn't matter to me.

Kanluwen wrote:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

I won't. The success of Conan was not due to Arnie. The film ran this whole Teutonic Siegfried undertone that I doubt they would be smart enough to replicate. It was like Wagnerian opera with swords and boobies."

Plus it won't have James "Hug me I'm Darth Vader" Earl Jones.

Actually, the success of the earlier Conan movies was mostly due to Arnie. They had nothing really to do with the novels, Arnie was a ridiculous typecast(who was riding high off some earlier successes and just becoming a common name), and they relied upon the starpower of the cast to really get anything done.

That aside: they're not bad movies at all when taken for what they are--fantastic hack'n'slash movies with an element of sorcery & swords in there.

What earlier success? Arnold barely spoke any english when they filled the originals which is why his character had so few lines, I mean think about it Conan wasen't exactly the most eloquent character he mostly just yelled everything. I'm also pretty sure that the Conan movies where some of his first movies because his success was from his body building

You really need to read the books.

Conan was always considered to "just be an ignorant barbarian"... but he was fluent in more languages than most people these days are, familiar with a great many cultures, and more besides.

He wasn't stupid by any measure. He just didn't like learning when he could be out slaying.

I have read the books, I wasen't talking about the character of Conan I was talking about Arnold himself.

He spoke quite a bit, and in places quite eloquently--even in the Ahnald movies.

Well it's not like I'm lying, he barely spoke english when the movie was filmed and started learning it so he could do his lines. There are quiet a few actors who didn't speak english (at all or well) yet learned their lines and spoke them "eloquently" as you put it and I assure you this is an example of it.

Do any of you remember the live action Conan TV series which ended up being 'Conan and his Merry Men'? It was true and utter schisse. Anything is a step up from that.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:Well it's not like I'm lying, he barely spoke english when the movie was filmed and started learning it so he could do his lines. There are quiet a few actors who didn't speak english (at all or well) yet learned their lines and spoke them "eloquently" as you put it and I assure you this is an example of it.

He was apparently dubbed over in some of his early films. He is barely understandable in my "undubbed" copy of Hercules In New York