Conan

The previous trailers didn't look all that good but this one remind me of the Conan I read about when first read those books back in the day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8VAXSQqDKQ

I hope the movie doesn't suck

I haven't been that impressed with earlier ones but now that was a really cool trailer.

I'm quite a big Conan fan, and I'd really like the movie to be good, but most things I've seen so far make me think of the Kevin Sorbo Kull movie or the Scorpion King. It's a hard one to movie-fy, really, since most of the stories are so short, and the long ones tend to be from his later life and don't fit the public idea of Conanness very well.

That link doesn't work for me, but I assume this is the same trailer?

It looks decent enough, and I'll probably pay to see it, but I don't expect it to surpass the 1982 film in any way (for me).

Ya'll need to watch Conan the Barbarian DVD with director and Arnold commentary turned on. It's so funny - brand new movie!

Originally Posted by JDR13
That link doesn't work for me, but I assume this is the same trailer?

No it is not. I think the first link gave me a better feel than the link you are referring too

Originally Posted by JDR13
That link doesn't work for me, but I assume this is the same trailer?

It looks decent enough, and I'll probably pay to see it, but I don't expect it to surpass the 1982 film in any way (for me).

No its not, the link does work for me, not sure why its not working for you.

Trying googling "Conan The Barbarian - When Blood Is Spilled", thats what the new trailer is called.

Ah ok.. you mean this trailer. Your original link is blocked in the US for some reason.

That's a hell of a beard Ron Perlman is sporting.

So a young boy without training takes out several experienced warriors, simply because he's Conan?

Ridiculous. The gore was also too much, even for a film like this.

Unless, of course, there's some logical background for his skill.

The original 1982 Conan was great, because his skill was plausible and made sense given his experiences.

This looks like Hollywood dreck.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
The original 1982 Conan was great, because his skill was plausible and made sense given his experiences.

Not to mention it also had one of the most spectacular soundtracks ever made for a movie.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Not to mention it also had one of the most spectacular soundtracks ever made for a movie.

Very true.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
So a young boy without training takes out several experienced warriors, simply because he's Conan?
.

The simple answer to that is "yes"!

On serious note this is Conan, and this is what people call "pulp" fantasy so it does not have to make sense as long as its "bad-ass" and that's what the above trailer is

Originally Posted by JDR13
Not to mention it also had one of the most spectacular soundtracks ever made for a movie.

I second that! It still gives me goosebumps!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LANHWwEjOAU

Originally Posted by lostforever
The simple answer to that is "yes"!

On serious note this is Conan, and this is what people call "pulp" fantasy so it does not have to make sense as long as its "bad-ass" and that's what the above trailer is

The trailer is silly Hollywood brainless crap.

I know there are many who don't mind turning off their brains when Hollywood is baking using their tasteless recipes - but I'm not one of them.

The best approach to pulp is to not treat it like pulp. Pretty much exactly what Howard did, and why people love him so.

Pulp treated like pulp is known as crap.

Well, that's my take on it - but I hope you enjoy the movie for what it is

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
So a young boy without training takes out several experienced warriors, simply because he's Conan?

Ridiculous. The gore was also too much, even for a film like this.

Well this is a first. I agree with DArt… Some 12 year old kid rushing headlong to grunt at several marauding picts is no better than watching the latest Hollywood schlock with the newest babyfaced 18 year old chick saving the world.

And the blood packs are indeed excessive to the point of absurdity, further drawing you out of the movie instead of in.

Pulp treated like pulp is known as crap.

It's also one of the reasons Conan the Destroyer (the sequel with the wizard and naive princess) sucked.

Originally Posted by lostforever
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8VAXSQqDKQ

I hope the movie doesn't suck

Terrible costumes, music as generic as it gets, bland cinematography in general. This has nothing on the original, but obviously sucks regardless to comparisons with it. Superfluous.

I see the Conan movies as entertainment, like the books. Howard's books presented a man that could concur everything was smarter than everyone else and could get any woman he wanted. It was all about conan everything else, especially woman and emotions, are insignificant.
There is not muvh realism in the books of Howard and the things Conan could survive were certainly not plausible. But it was fun to read and it was pulp.

Yet a movie about Conan has to be plausible and make sense. That amuses me.

Originally Posted by Myrthos
Yet a movie about Conan has to be plausible and make sense. That amuses me.

It doesn't have to be, if what you want is Hollywood crap.

I just like another take on such a thing.

By the way, I don't see "entertainment" as some kind of crap-greenlighter.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
It doesn't have to be, if what you want is Hollywood crap.

So any movie that is not plausible and makes sense is by your definition crap?
When is something plausible then? In my view the character of Conan is not plausible or realistic, but maybe our definitions differ.

Originally Posted by Myrthos
So any movie that is not plausible and makes sense is by your definition crap?
When is something plausible then? In my view the character of Conan is not plausible or realistic, but maybe our definitions differ.

Plausible within its established universe, yes. If a movie is a comedy or something you're obviously not supposed to take seriously - I can usually deal with it.

Unless plainly stated, I always assume I'm supposed to be engaged and take what I'm seeing seriously. If you add profound music and a lot of pretentious dialogue - then I get the sense the makers of the movie want me to immerse myself.

What's plausible depends on each individual movie. For instance, in a fantasy movie like Conan - I can accept concepts like magic - and I can accept that he's tougher than the average dude. But if there's no underpinning or no attempt at an explanation for why that is - then I lose interest.

In the first Conan film - they took the kind of approach I prefer. They established his background and his training - which made his abilities much more plausible - even if he's still a heroic character.

To have an obviously untrained and inexperienced boy utterly destroy seasoned warriors - using very adept moves - removes any semblance of plausibility to me. If he can do such things, then the element of danger is lost already at an early stage.

When you couple that with the obscene amount of gore for EVERY SINGLE impact - you get a movie that's desperately trying to get attention. Pathetic and juvenile.

It goes from a larger-than-life character to a lazily-written and boring character. Something that doesn't engage me at all.

I don't know what your take on the original Conan movie is, but to me it was a great fantasy movie with just he right mixture of realism and the lack of it.

The same can be said of Lord of the Rings. There are certain unnecessary things in it, like Legolas using his shield as a skateboard, but on the whole - they try to establish plausible characters within a fantasy environment.

If you still don't get this concept, then I suggest you look up the word verisimilitude. I believe the dude who directed Superman used that to explain the same thing to the people on the film making the same case as you're making.