I agree I think Marketing was an issue and that may just be something for which Lionsgate as a whole has a problem. I rarely see solid marketing campaigns from them on films.
Conan The Barbarian(2011) -- Discussion/Grading ***Spoilers***
- Thread starter Cmndr J Crichton
- Start date
Forget the marketing. I rarely see solid films from them.
DarKush said:
It could be diminishing returns from people who were less than satisfied from lackluster movies like that. I know after shows like Spartacus and Game of Thrones I've viewed some projects differently. With people mentioning sloppy quick cut action as well my interest in the project isn't as high as it should be.
Speaking to marketing, I wonder about the effectiveness of these genre trailers with rock/pop songs.
Last edited:
Most movies are movies nobody wants to see. Even Star Trek XI falls into that category - it wouldn't have been a hit if it had only appealed to people who were chomping at the bit for more Star Trek.
The marketing campaign and quality of the film are supposed to generate demand, even if it's a property nobody has heard of, or a genre nobody cares about (such as pirates before the original POTC). The smart thing to do with any movie or any new product is to assume, "nobody wants to see this, and it's up to me to convince them."
Interesting remarks here from one of the screenwriters:
http://www.quora.com/Whats-it-like-to-have-your-film-flop-at-the-box-office
http://www.quora.com/Whats-it-like-to-have-your-film-flop-at-the-box-office
Ok, why do they feel the need to slaughter Conan's people, and leave him the last one in these movies? In the books, he's captured in battle. I was hoping that when Young Conan was fighting those scouts, he was captured, and I would've been like, 'ok. These writers know what they're doing.' But nope. It's the same ol' thing they did in '81.
It was done better then. It's kind of like Planet of the Apes, where they never really adapt the books, and do their own thing. 7 movies, and they never adaped the actual novel into a movie! But that is another story. (See what I did there?
Also, Jason Mamoa acts more like Hercules from the TV Series than what Conan would. I like Mamoa from Stargate, but Conan he is not. Conan IS ssupposed to be as big as Arnold was in '81. Look at the poster of Conan '81, and look at the covers of the books. I heard that Roland Kirkinger was up for this part. He can also act! He's also the spitting image of Arnold back then. The problem with this movie, is the title, and the size of the actor playing him.
I guarantee, if Roland was Conan, it would've been at least Number 2 in the box office. If you're gonna have a movie called Conan the Barbarian, you'd better have someone that's at least equal to Arnold, or better so people don't laugh!!
Don't get me wrong. Mamoa is in great physical condition, just not Barbarian condition. Ron Pearlman was bigger than Mamoa! Just sayin...
In terms of story, it is a fuse of Conan the Barbarian '81, and Conan the Destroyer '84.
Barbarian '81
Conan is a Child when Thulsa Doom's army wipes out his village, and enslaves him. He is freed, and then begins a quest to avenge his peoples murder!
Barbarian '11
Conan is a child when Kylar Zym's Army wipes out his village, he escapes (The only difference) and begins a quest to avenge his people's murder!
Destroyer '84
Conan guards a woman who is the key to reviving a demi-god, whom must be sacrificed if the god is to live again.
Barbarian '11
Conan guards a woman who is the key to reviving Kylar Zym's wife, whom must be sacrifised if his wife is to live again.
Of all the books, of all the different writers stories situations, villains etc., why go back to that character if they aren't gonna do anything different? All they'd have to do, is do it like Bond did it! Take at least two of the books, take out what was interesting in both books, and the book that gets the most story time is the title of the movie! They didn't even try. Well, I think I will. Im gonna write a Conan movie worthy of the character, and submit it to Millenium Fims! Ive already started reading the books, something of which the writers failed to do!
It was done better then. It's kind of like Planet of the Apes, where they never really adapt the books, and do their own thing. 7 movies, and they never adaped the actual novel into a movie! But that is another story. (See what I did there?
Also, Jason Mamoa acts more like Hercules from the TV Series than what Conan would. I like Mamoa from Stargate, but Conan he is not. Conan IS ssupposed to be as big as Arnold was in '81. Look at the poster of Conan '81, and look at the covers of the books. I heard that Roland Kirkinger was up for this part. He can also act! He's also the spitting image of Arnold back then. The problem with this movie, is the title, and the size of the actor playing him.
I guarantee, if Roland was Conan, it would've been at least Number 2 in the box office. If you're gonna have a movie called Conan the Barbarian, you'd better have someone that's at least equal to Arnold, or better so people don't laugh!!
Don't get me wrong. Mamoa is in great physical condition, just not Barbarian condition. Ron Pearlman was bigger than Mamoa! Just sayin...
In terms of story, it is a fuse of Conan the Barbarian '81, and Conan the Destroyer '84.
Barbarian '81
Conan is a Child when Thulsa Doom's army wipes out his village, and enslaves him. He is freed, and then begins a quest to avenge his peoples murder!
Barbarian '11
Conan is a child when Kylar Zym's Army wipes out his village, he escapes (The only difference) and begins a quest to avenge his people's murder!
Destroyer '84
Conan guards a woman who is the key to reviving a demi-god, whom must be sacrificed if the god is to live again.
Barbarian '11
Conan guards a woman who is the key to reviving Kylar Zym's wife, whom must be sacrifised if his wife is to live again.
Of all the books, of all the different writers stories situations, villains etc., why go back to that character if they aren't gonna do anything different? All they'd have to do, is do it like Bond did it! Take at least two of the books, take out what was interesting in both books, and the book that gets the most story time is the title of the movie! They didn't even try. Well, I think I will. Im gonna write a Conan movie worthy of the character, and submit it to Millenium Fims! Ive already started reading the books, something of which the writers failed to do!
Last edited:
I gave it a B-. I liked it well enough and thought several of the scenes, such as the titty bar, the boat raid, sneaking into the fortress and the final confrontation sequence were very much like the stories. The shout-outs to people, places and adventures from the stories were also much appreciated. "This is the guy who stole the heart of the elephant god!" Momoa and Nichols were good and worked well together. Lang was OK, as was McGowan. I was kept entertained throughout, but I'd really lowered my expectations by showtime.
Negatives I noticed during or on reflection:
Their henchmen weren't anywhere near as cool as they could have been. I missed the brothers from the original flick. The action was a little too jump-cutty for me and I wish movies would stop mixing CGI blood with prop blood, it's jarring. I wish they had saved the money from 3D and put it towards better integrating the backdrops and tentacle monster. Wasn't a fan of the sand warriors: took too much time and the execution was simply off. There should not have been a non-magical explosion in a Conan movie.
In the end, I kind of wish this had been filmed like Pathfinder, the film that probably got the director this gig. That movie felt and looked more like a Conan movie. I'll still get it on DVD, cause I'm a Conan/Rachel Nichols fanatic and I want to help out the chances of a take two on the franchise.
Whatever failings there were, they were definitely not Momoa's. He more closely resembles Howard's Conan than Arnold ever did. The script and direction let the cast down on this one, I'm afraid.
The sex scene was pretty decent, so bonus there. Too bad about the body double. Rachel should wait till she's the only naked hot chick in a movie, anyway. She's certainly worth the focus.
-------
Not to discourage anyone from seeing it or anything, but it just occurred to me that this movie feels equivalent to AVP. They go R, but its CGI R for the most part. The parts are all there and the actors do their best, but the writer sucks and the director fucks shit up. Individual scenes work, but the movie overall isn't that great.
Course, I own that one on DVD too, so there you go.
Negatives I noticed during or on reflection:
Their henchmen weren't anywhere near as cool as they could have been. I missed the brothers from the original flick. The action was a little too jump-cutty for me and I wish movies would stop mixing CGI blood with prop blood, it's jarring. I wish they had saved the money from 3D and put it towards better integrating the backdrops and tentacle monster. Wasn't a fan of the sand warriors: took too much time and the execution was simply off. There should not have been a non-magical explosion in a Conan movie.
In the end, I kind of wish this had been filmed like Pathfinder, the film that probably got the director this gig. That movie felt and looked more like a Conan movie. I'll still get it on DVD, cause I'm a Conan/Rachel Nichols fanatic and I want to help out the chances of a take two on the franchise.
Whatever failings there were, they were definitely not Momoa's. He more closely resembles Howard's Conan than Arnold ever did. The script and direction let the cast down on this one, I'm afraid.
The sex scene was pretty decent, so bonus there. Too bad about the body double. Rachel should wait till she's the only naked hot chick in a movie, anyway. She's certainly worth the focus.
-------
Not to discourage anyone from seeing it or anything, but it just occurred to me that this movie feels equivalent to AVP. They go R, but its CGI R for the most part. The parts are all there and the actors do their best, but the writer sucks and the director fucks shit up. Individual scenes work, but the movie overall isn't that great.
Course, I own that one on DVD too, so there you go.
I rate this movie somewhere between Sword And The Sorcerer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7OekQOkeN0
, and Hawk The Slayer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8Ra6TsdEts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7OekQOkeN0
, and Hawk The Slayer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8Ra6TsdEts
Champing at the bit.
This is disappointing, I was looking forward to the movie, one of my co-workers is a HUGE Conan fan, at least of the original movies, and a bunch of us were going to make a night of it next week. But after the opening and horrible word of mouth, they decided against seeing the movie.
Maybe I'll get a chance to see it on the small screen and can decide for myself then.
Duuuude! That's an insult to Sword and the Sorcerer! Sorcerer had some weight to it. It was still way more magical than this movie.
The thing about this and the original movie is that every thing in the original had a purpose. There wasn't just action for the sake of action. Everything felt more at stake. When Valeria was killed, it you felt Conan's anguish, even though he said very little. The villain, while not of Conan lore, was still more engaging with his icy stare than Kylar Zym's cartoony portayal. Mamoa's Conan seemed like he's be apart of Arnold's Conan's band of followers. Arnold said a lot with saying very little as Conan.
You're kidding right? Everywhere that was filmed in the original was a real location shot. Barbarian '11 had a LOT of blue screen shots. '81 had some as well, just not nearly as many. In Barbarian '81, you felt every blade crossed, and every flesh torn. Mamoa didn't closely resemble Conan at all. Look at the covers of the books. Arnold looked like he stepped out of the artwork! All they needed to do was dye his hair, and give him blue Contacts, and there you go. Actually, Im suprised some crackshot editor hasn't done that already with photoshop! So many fan editions of the Star Wars movies, and no definative fan edition of Conan the Barbarian '81 yet! (It sucks I have to put a year now next to that title. Kind of like I hate now I have to refer to the original Karate Kid as Karate Kid '84. What's next? Die Hard '87? First Blood '82? Back to the Future '85? You get where Im going with that!)
Also, don't get me started on the music. I have the original soundtrack playing right now on my computer. That was another element that made the original so special. The new movie's music was just so stock. It could've been in any fantasy movie. Play a few seconds of Anvil of Crom, and play a few seconds of this score and see the difference.
Also Morgan Freeman's narration at the beginning was waaaaay out of place. It lacked passion that Mako had in the original. Freeman sounded like he was just collecting a paycheck. Mako sounded like Akiro telling you Conan's story. It felt just as out of place in War of the World's as it did here. Why didn't Cruise do the narration? Im getting away from the topic--sorry 'bout that!
Im actually in the story finding phase, now reading the books, doing research for my own Conan script. I fully intdend on submitting it to Millenium Films. Sounds crazy, I know. A man can dream, right?
Last edited:
Sarcasm alert! Sarcasm alert! You missed the sarcasm!
I agree about the music - it was meh - so much so that the first time a fight popped up on screen I was subconsciously playing the original fight music in my head!
The villains were just so lacklustre - Rose MgGowan's character looked cool but had loads of opportunity for comic one-liners - I was writing them in my head as I watched but in the actual dialogue - nothing.
Momoa was fine - very magnetic. Nicholls was fine although her character was unexceptional. How I longed for Mako!
It was entertaining but inferior - like a mid-week scy-fy movie but with a big budget. While it drags a bit at the beginning, the original was epic and left with a sense of awe at the end. This one was more on par with the Destroyer.
The villains were just so lacklustre - Rose MgGowan's character looked cool but had loads of opportunity for comic one-liners - I was writing them in my head as I watched but in the actual dialogue - nothing.
Momoa was fine - very magnetic. Nicholls was fine although her character was unexceptional. How I longed for Mako!
It was entertaining but inferior - like a mid-week scy-fy movie but with a big budget. While it drags a bit at the beginning, the original was epic and left with a sense of awe at the end. This one was more on par with the Destroyer.
