"Conan the Barbarian" Jason Momoa SPOILERS

anyone who thinks Arnold was a good Conan has never read any of the original Robert E. Howard Conan stories. Off to see this one in an hour or so, despite the negative feedback from critics and some members on here I am still hoping to enjoy the film. We shall see.
 
I have read many of the original Robert E- Howard stories and always though Arnold was perfect for the role, specially because of his 'glance'. He looked serious, menacing, silent, focused on his goals and not caring at all about the rest of the world. Momoa looks like he's trying to be cool and please everyone, even the bad guys. He spent so much time talking to every enemy like 'remember me please,I want you to know I'm a fully grown man and will have my vengeance so my dad would be proud!'. He just doesn't look dangerous, looks like a calvin klein model trying to be cool. Man, he doesn't even believe in Crom in this movie.
 
anyone who thinks Arnold was a good Conan has never read any of the original Robert E. Howard Conan stories. Off to see this one in an hour or so, despite the negative feedback from critics and some members on here I am still hoping to enjoy the film. We shall see.

Wow! Your as wrong as a person could possibly be. :lol I have read Conan novel after Conan novel as well as howards other novels. Arnold was an awesome Conan.
 
I agree, I've read every Conan book there is, I thought Arnold was fine, in fact the accent added a little. Not having him talk much was perfect as well.

I'm just not going to make it past Ronon the Barbarian.

Never should have watched Atlantis. Damn.
 
By the way, here in Spain, we always hear Arnold's characters dubbed, and they always use really good voice actors for him. They should've made the same in America, you'd see that he really looks like a good actor if you change his voice!
 
How the hell is Arnold a good Conan? Let's see no Black hair, too big and clumsy not pantherish at all like the character is described by Howard, not to mention he seems mentally slow not naturally cunning at all! And the only true Conan Stories are by Howard none of the other stuff counts as far as I am concerned not the pastiche books by other authors and not the comics or cartoons.
 
I remember Conan being described in Robert's books as blue eyed (like Arnold), very, very big and muscular (like Arnold), and surprisingly agile and fast for his size (well, Arnold wasn't precissely a ninja in the movie, but he didn't look clumpsy). He also had black hair, that's true (but a completely black hair would have looked really fake on Arnold, his brownish fits him better in the movie). He also was supposed to have a tanned skin (which arnold really hadn't, that's true). He was also supposed to be very clever and a good strategist. This is maybe the worst part of Arnold, because his Conan is not really a clever person, but he doesn't really do anything stupid. He can still arrange a good set of traps in the end of the movie, which shows his strategic side.

Still, Arnold has a lot of points in his side to be considered a very good Conan adaptation, still the best one ever made (and I'm talking about the first movie, not the second one which is as bad as the new one but with worse special effects and fights).

Momoa has the darker hair (but wrong hair style) and darker skin, as well as hairier torso. He does move fast and agile (his sword moves are kinda cool), but he seems to fail at everything Arnold did right. And he doesn't really look smarter than Arnold at all. He looks too young and naive for Conan. And he looks really small in the movie, because they placed a lot of bigger actors next to him. In the books, he might as well have been the strongest man in the whole world. In this one, he just seems to be a regular guy with a sword, there's nothing special on him. You might like Arnold's performance or not, but at least he looks exactly like I've always envisioned Conan in the books, but with lighter hair.

Of course, characters from books have that 'problem'. Everyone imagines his own character. The same happens with Bond. None of the actors really match the description from the book, but everyone seems to think that one of the actors is the only one who really feels like he is Bond.
 
See I think a lot of people's vision of Conan comes more from the Artwork associated with it over the years, which I would agree doesn't necessarily say Arnold.

But damn that movie is good. I'll watch it just to hear the soundtrack and the immortal William Smith, delivering his speech to young Conan.
 
I just want to know if the new Conan is worth the $$ to see on screen,or should I just wait it out until it arrives on the DVD shelf...which should be in about 2-4 months from now considering how fast movies go to DVD these days.
 
I guess that depends on how important Conan is for you. I don't regret paying because I really wanted to watch the movie, but I believe it would be more enjoyable if you can watch it with a group of friends on your tv with some beers and laughs
 
If Conan walked into a room with us...
There should be a massive presence, a strong sense that
this guy is not of our time.
Cimmerian.

"He stood like an image of the unconquerable primordial" -REH

There should be a sense of an extinct race.

"The origins of the Cimmerians stretch back to the Thurian Age. The Cimmerians are the descendants of colonists from Atlantis. Living on the main Thurian continent, the colonists survived the great cataclysm which submerged Atlantis and destroyed most of the Thurian civilizations. The survivors, at this point reduced to a stone-age level of sophistication, eventually found themselves locked in multigenerational warfare with survivors of a Pictish colony. This prolonged conflict caused the Atlanteans to further devolve into little more than ape-men. With no memory of their history or even of language and civilization itself, these beings eventually redeveloped into a people known as Cimmerians."

They fought their way back tooth and nail from a near beastworld existance and conquered their way back onto the map of human existance.

Conan is the product of all that.

Arnolds funky shaped head and that accent worked enough at the time,
and I was not versed in the character then.

It is now thirty years on from then.

I have much higher expectations as much as I love the Milius film.

This Momoa guy is not even possible for me to imagine as the character.
It's a major fail from the second I saw him.

Manscara and all the savagery that Chippendale's can muster.


Today this is possible......

conancloseup1.jpg


Why not???!!!!
 
I gotta go see this because the g/f is in lust with Jason Momoa after seeing him in A Game of Thrones. I hope I'll like it. I'm starting to doubt it. :unsure
 
I could care less what Robert Jordan wrote, Robert E. Howard's Conan is the only one that counts to me. I thought Momoa was a damn good fit, way better than Arnold. As for Conan's size there are numerous times in the various Conan stories where he goes up against much bigger opponents. He was supposed to be large but not a giant and the description of his musculature never brings to mind a bodybuilder. But to each their own, I never cared for the 1982 film over all and I saw it in the theater back when I was 7 and have seen it a few times since and it didn't work any better for me especially after reading the Original Conan as written by Robert E. Howard.

Anyway saw the new film tonight and loved it! Thought it captured the feel of a Robert E. Howard story while doing am original tale. Howard's stories were all about the action and energy and visuals they brought to mind and this movie brought that in spades!
Jason Momoa was great as Conan and I enjoyed the rest of the cast as well for the most part and loved the look of the film and thought the battle scenes were damn good. Have to see this one again!
 
I saw the 1982 Conan in the theater way back when. Love the movie for the music, the production designs, and the whole macho bloody attitude. After reading all of Howard's Conan stories I now realize it was not the best adaptation of the source material.

Howard's Conan learned many languages and spoke quite a bit not one or two words here or there. His reputation as a fierce fighter started before he was fifteen years old. His people were not slaughtered and in fact repelled potential invaders in such a way as to make the more civilized races stay far away from their lands. Conan chose to wander the land looking for adventure, he did not leave because he was forced or to seek revenge. He was quick and described as being stealthy as a panther. He was not exactly described as looking like a Vallejo or Frazetta figure. His people were mentioned to be hairy as well as barbaric.

Arnold made a pretty good alternate universe Conan but he was a nimrod compared to Howard's character. The Conan in the movie was dumb enough to walk in a circle for years. He barely spoke and was far from the stealthy fighter described in the stories. He was a victim and trained puppet only freed because he was let loose. If he wasn't released he probably would have grown old and died still in captivity.
 
Last edited:
You know the Arnold movie was supposed to be his first real adventure. His origin if you will. So he would not know a bunch of languages yet. But the Narrator does say "language and writing was made known to him."
 
This thread is more than 12 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top