[Movie] Conan the Barbarian

On May 14 2011 04:46 Shockk wrote:
Dunno. The trailer wasn't too impressive, and without Arnie, it isn't Conan.

I'll probably watch it anyway, but it's not neccessary to remake / reboot every single movie/franchise :/.

On May 14 2011 04:53 Narwhal wrote:
I sense a bad remake, lot like most remakes of classics.

It will be

* Very corny.
* Mediocre acting.
* Over-blown visual effects and fight scenes.
* Aimed towards people that like WWE
* Shallow and predictable story.
* Nothing like the original.


Just sayin.

On May 14 2011 04:57 Doppelganger wrote:


well the overblown effects can already be seen in the trailer... so i guess you are right.

On May 14 2011 04:57 clusen wrote:
I haven't even seen the original movie..Do I have to be embarrassed now?

On May 14 2011 04:53 Narwhal wrote:
I sense a bad remake, lot like most remakes of classics.

It will be

* Very corny.
* Mediocre acting.
* Over-blown visual effects and fight scenes.
* Aimed towards people that like WWE
* Shallow and predictable story.
* Nothing like the original.


Just sayin.

On May 14 2011 05:00 Liquid`Tyler wrote:

I think your last prediction contradicts some of your other predictions!

On May 14 2011 05:00 Liquid`Tyler wrote:

I think your last prediction contradicts some of your other predictions!

On May 14 2011 05:00 Liquid`Tyler wrote:

I think your last prediction contradicts some of your other predictions!

On May 14 2011 05:14 Shinobi1982 wrote:

Spot on.

It's not like you are ever going to re-watch the original for whatever reason. Some older movies (<1990) you can re-watch and still be awed by it's brilliance. Conan the Barbarian (1982) is defiantly not one of those.

On May 14 2011 05:29 SonicTitan wrote:
I'm not saying I know anything about the rating, and I may be wrong, but I'm guessing...PG-13.

And I know you're saying to yourself, "But Sonic, what does a movie's rating have to do with anything?!?" In this case, goddamned everything.

Listen, I'm not against a remake of Conan. What I want, though, is a real director with the balls to make a real Conan film. What I mean is cut the cheese from the 1982 original, slather on the gore, tits and irresponsible violence. Have a scene where Conan cuts off a king's head (doesn't matter which, any king will do) burns his castle to the ground, salts his fields and then impregnates the former king's queen-cum-love-slave. (See what I did there?)

Once again, I may be wrong, because I don't know anything beyond the trailer, but from what I've seen they're turning Conan into some sort of hero figure, which is completely bass-ackwards: Conan was the coolest anti-hero ever. You know what made R. E. Howard's pulp fiction so deliciously, sleazily, under-the-radar awesome? It was the fact that Conan was a total amoral jackhole. He did what he wanted, and he mostly did it out of three motivations: hungry, angry, or horny. And by making this complete degenerate the main character of a story, Howard was implicitly saying that this was cool by him, at least in fantasy.

Dear GOD don't turn Conan into a pussy.

On May 14 2011 05:29 SonicTitan wrote:
Conan was the coolest anti-hero ever.
Dear GOD don't turn Conan into a pussy.

On May 14 2011 05:14 ELA wrote:


What a joke, why the fuck is Conan wearing eye liner??? So cheesy, so lame.. I hate this movie already, some treasures should just be left burried

On May 14 2011 07:14 CannonFodder wrote:
I get the feeling Conan is going to be more like a feral beast in this movie; and won't be talking as much as Arnold did. I'm going to give this a chance while praying it doesn't use excessive CGI or somehow ruin the previous films.

BTW,
I thought it was understood that Conan the Barbarian was an amazing film. There are people out there who think it's bad?

Even the sequel, despite being pretty ridiculous and campy, has it's charms.

On May 14 2011 05:08 Gorg wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZY2mRG5mzg&feature=related
nuff said.

they will never reach the epicness that is the old classic.

On May 14 2011 05:14 Shinobi1982 wrote:

Spot on.

It's not like you are ever going to re-watch the original for whatever reason. Some older movies (<1990) you can re-watch and still be awed by it's brilliance. Conan the Barbarian (1982) is defiantly not one of those.

On May 14 2011 07:38 Bosko wrote:
I watch both Conans every year. I watch Predator like every 3 months. I can't imagine paying to watch some random guy try to be Arnold. Rose McGowan as Red Sonja though...that I'll be at opening night.

It's not like you are ever going to re-watch the original for whatever reason. Some older movies (<1990) you can re-watch and still be awed by it's brilliance. Conan the Barbarian (1982) is defiantly not one of those.

On May 14 2011 11:44 zocktol wrote:
The corny acting and all is the only reason Conan was and will be good. With CGI and "epic" things it will just be boring for the likes of me who grew up with the old movie. Nothing compares to conan killing a vulture with his teeth and knocking out a camel with one punch while in a drunken haze :D
To commemorate some of the greatest moments, i would like to present to you, this awesome musical in which i had not part whatsoever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBGOQ7SsJrw

On May 14 2011 07:30 cursor wrote:
Stupid. He sounds like that terrible voice Christian Bale did for Batman ffs.
It's actually THAT bad...

... and part of Conan's original charm was its cheap/low budget feel. You almost had to use your imagination to fill in the gaps while watching it. This is just another overdone bullshit wannabe epic movie that wants to be the next LoTR. I'm so glad I don't watch movies or TV anymore... thanks for the reminder of why ^.^

On May 14 2011 08:15 Syracuse wrote:


I've definitely caught one Conan movie or another on cable at least a dozen times and happily sat there and watched them. It may be a fine "Conan-ish" type of movie, I'm just hoping that they don't cameo Arnold in it, at least not without a sufficient degree of awesome.

Based on Conan canon I would have to say that the movie is going to be completely terrible, and that's why we're going to watch it. It should have at least one scantily clad woman, and will offer gratuitous violence. It will be popular, for the entire five minutes it deserves. (the pun was too strong to resist.)

On May 14 2011 04:45 Herrk wrote:
but but... arnold? ...

why do they have to remake everything?

On May 14 2011 19:51 ULTRAmarine wrote:
i kind of got a problem with the conan actor for not being white enough

i don't mean that in any racist way, it's just that shit dudes, conan is cimmerian. he dont look like no mascara wearing arab warrior. it's wrong, just saying it

other than that, first movie is completely fucking awesome. i watch it at least once a year. of course the acting is quite bad but that's not really the point. the conan universe IS the most bad ass fantasy stuff ever made and that film actually captures that well, even with bad actors.

On May 14 2011 05:14 Shinobi1982 wrote:

Spot on.

It's not like you are ever going to re-watch the original for whatever reason. Some older movies (<1990) you can re-watch and still be awed by it's brilliance. Conan the Barbarian (1982) is defiantly not one of those.

On May 14 2011 20:49 Rabiator wrote:

They should instead make a "Conan's grandchildren" movie where Arnie can be an old Conan to introduce new characters. That way the color of their skin doesnt matter really since it is 30 years later and Conan might even have gotten a tan and muscles arent needed that much since he is older (but wiser and still respected). I think that solution would solve several problems at once.

On May 14 2011 21:24 x2fst wrote:
howie scream at .50. bonus pts for pointing out where it featured in sc1

On May 14 2011 22:30 johanngrunt wrote:


Read the comics. He's always been dark skinned.

On May 14 2011 22:51 Horiz0n wrote:
Arnold killed Robert E Howards Conan, I hope Jason will do a better job, to bad they aint using one of Howards stories for inspiration :<




Yepp, Conan is described as being bronze-skinned.

On May 14 2011 23:02 Manit0u wrote:


How did Arnold kill REH's Conan? The only things that were wrong: hair and eye colour. REH was a big bodybuilding fan (that's why he made Conan so) and who better to portray his character than a former bodybuilding champion?

I just wish someone would go a bit further and give him a badass beard. That's the only thing Conan is lacking.
Just look how badass Stella Skarsgard looked as Cerdic in King Arthur:

*Removed Huge picture*

On May 14 2011 04:59 Geo.Rion wrote:
oh hy there Khal Drogo!

On May 15 2011 00:27 Horiz0n wrote:


I absolutely agree with the bodybuilding thing (Howard trained bodybuilding and boxing) but Arnolds Conan feels stupid mostly by his inability to form coherent sentences.
Arnold as Conan feels to me like casting Arnold as James Bond.

On May 15 2011 03:07 Manit0u wrote:


*cough*

True Lies

*cough*



Arnie is very flexible. And his english improved over the years.

On May 14 2011 05:00 Liquid`Tyler wrote:

I think your last prediction contradicts some of your other predictions!

On August 20 2011 08:31 heroyi wrote:
such a terrible movie.

storyline was weak, acting was sub par...

I could write more but I just don't give a shit anymore...terribad.

On August 20 2011 08:49 Disarray wrote:
are you people serious ? Saw this movie a couple days ago, and thought it was a great action movie. If you were expecting some Chris Nolan plot movie, wtf is wrong with you ? This was the first action movie I've seen in a long time that held nothing back, from start to finish.

On May 15 2011 00:18 HeIios wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSqnFxVaIx4
The commentary track for conan the barbarian is required viewing.

On August 20 2011 08:50 Arkless wrote:





Lol...... it just came out in theatres today. If you actually did see it (which you didn't) You wouldn't be sayin what you just said.......

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

On August 20 2011 08:57 Risen wrote:


You're an idiot if you think theaters don't do early release.

That said, movie was trash :<

On August 20 2011 10:25 kudlaty_true wrote:
Speaking of remakes of Arnie's films:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1386703/

Kate beckinsale I'm up for. Very up. But Colin Farell as Arnold? HAH!!!!

On August 20 2011 08:50 Arkless wrote:





Lol...... it just came out in theatres today. If you actually did see it (which you didn't) You wouldn't be sayin what you just said.......

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

On August 20 2011 14:08 Disarray wrote:


A radio station gave away early screening tickets, are you really that dense ?

Also, if anyone LIKED the new rambo movie that came out, but HATED this new conan movie, i'd like to know why

On September 03 2011 08:50 Truedot wrote:
They'd better not skimp on the female nudity where he's "fed" women who are basically there to get inseminated by him to make more of him, or the part where he bangs a soul sucking spirit chick, etc etc.

In other words, it'd better be Game of Thrones status and not get neutered by the retarded PC culture of the world.

On September 03 2011 08:54 Xiphos wrote:


There was.....no nudity as far as I remembered lol
And if you are comparing this to GoT, you will be GREATLY disappointed, try to compare it to.....Clash of the Titans!

On September 03 2011 08:59 Truedot wrote:



wtf hollywood. who's running it now? some PC butchers from MADD?

On September 03 2011 09:04 Xiphos wrote:


Dude if I am you, I would see Final Destination 5. At least the creator of that show KNOW that they are doing this for the graphics and explicit material. Conan did have GREAT 3D but it wasn't like in your face. I HATE how nowadays they have this 3D where everything sinks in and like you are looking through a box to see what's inside. OR wait until Dark Knight Rises come out.

On September 03 2011 09:23 Jerubaal wrote:
I am so desensitized. There must have been...13 Grade A tits on screen at the same time. Nothin'.

Also, the bad guy looked like Willie Nelson. I kept expecting him to start singing The Rainbow Connection.