Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

For the first time, we will see what a fat, out of shape Conan looks like.

Ungh!
Arnie ruined Conan for me growing up & now he's back to haunt me again!

I hope this time round, he doesn't play a dumbwitted version of Conan like the first 2 movies.

I'm glad that they're ignoring those two movies.

was grace jones in conan? she makes me laugh.. perhaps she can be in this one too.........I wonder?

I always thought Grace Jones seemed rather manly to me, she looks like she'd beat the crap out of me...never understood why James Bond slept with her

Originally posted by steverules_2
I always thought Grace Jones seemed rather manly to me, she looks like she'd beat the crap out of me...never understood why James Bond slept with her

Bond sleeps with any woman who falls into his missions. Grace Jones is a beast though and the idea of Bond and her going at it is a brutal vision indeed.

might pass unless there is a good female lead.. loved the original conan, sequel was atrocious, reboot was horrendous

Um, Conan isn't a "Nordic Viking", he's a Cimmerian and lives in a fictional time and land.

Having said that, I loved the first film; hated the second. Can't see Arnold reprising the role now. Too old, too fat and too face-lifted.

Yeah, the whole "Nordic Viking" shit threw me off too.

Speaking of Vikings though, Mel Gibson needs to get his alcoholic racist ass in higher gear and give us 'Berserk' already.

Originally posted by Robtard
Speaking of Vikings though, Mel Gibson needs to get his alcoholic racist ass in higher gear and give us 'Berserk' already.


hahahahaha.. thanks for the laughs Rob

I see no reason to ignore the first two considering that the end of both sets up the story of Conan as an older king, which is a good role for Arnold at this point.

The second certainly wasn't as good, but I still love to watch it.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
I see no reason to ignore the first two considering that the end of both sets up the story of Conan as an older king, which is a good role for Arnold at this point.

The second certainly wasn't as good, but I still love to watch it.

It doesn't ignore Conan, it ignores Destroyer and the Conan reboot, which is a good thing.

Originally posted by Robtard

Having said that, I loved the first film; hated the second. Can't see Arnold reprising the role now. Too old, too fat and too face-lifted.

He should go to Stallone for help to get back into shape.

Rather watch dogs ****.

Originally posted by Robtard
It doesn't ignore Conan, it ignores Destroyer and the Conan reboot, which is a good thing.

Alot of blame was put on Dino Dilaurentiis (producer) for killing the original franchise.

His deeply religious beliefs forced the script writers to tone down any references to priests & sects & ultimately just have the finale of Conan fighting & defeating a monster. Dino also refused to invest money into a cgi monster so in the end it came down to Andre The Giant in a rubber suit.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn

. Dino also refused to invest money into a cgi monster so in the end it came down to Andre The Giant in a rubber suit.

That end scene with that demon is alot better in the Comic book movie adaptation.

Update, plan is to shoot later this year, possibly in New Zealand

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/174435-arnold-schwarzenegger-updates-on-the-legend-of-conan

I liked Conan the Destroyer....

And the third film was always supposed to be King Conan.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Update, plan is to shoot later this year, possibly in New Zealand



Ha ha they should just film 2 hours of Conan destroying & plundering Jackson's Hobbit village.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Ha ha they should just film 2 hours of Conan destroying & plundering Jackson's Hobbit village. Conan ain't shit compared to LOTR.

Conan is just as epic as LOTR.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Conan is just as epic as LOTR. Not even close. The films couldn't tie the Lotr boots.

Of course the films wouldn't but the Stories from the books would.

Y'know it's always bother me about the LOTR movies...why didn't they use the bloody eagles in the 1st to get to the mountain?

At least with the Conan novels, it was a different adventure every time.

The eagles thing something to do with Gandalf holding out on them all i think.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Of course the films wouldn't but the Stories from the books would. This is the movie board so why would I talk about the books ?

Well i am

and i don't see how that's any different to bringing up comic book comparisons.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Well i am. This is the movie forum though. It makes no sense to reference the books.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This is the movie forum though. It makes no sense to reference the books.

We have when it comes to talking about Sin City 2.

Originally posted by Kazenji
We have when it comes to talking about Sin City 2. Speculation is fine but I just meant in terms of the movies Conan isn't shit compared to LOTR. I have no idea about the comics.

Well the books/Novels came before the comics anyway.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Well the books/Novels came before the comics anyway. Well at least you agree the movies LOTR rape Conan.

Only redeemable Conan movie so far is Conan the barbarian (1989) imo.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Only redeemable Conan movie so far is Conan the barbarian (1989) imo. The remake was horrible.

I hear Jason Momoa as Conan was great in the role, everything else not so much.

Momoa might've looked like Conan but he lacked the charisma Conan had in the novels.
There was several scenes in the movie where Momoa was surrounded by other warriors & he just sadly lacked the presence to stand out as the mian character.

Movie gets a writer... Andrea Berloff (World Trade Center)

Producer on the movie thinks the film will be Schwarzenegger's Unforgiven

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/legend-of-conan-producer-says-the-film-will-be-schwarzeneggers-unforgiven

Hrm, interesting. I had no idea they were doing such a thing. Pretty sure Arnold's washed up though. His recent roles have been lackluster, and he's entirely out of shape, not counting his heart condition.

I think the first film is really really good. Destroyer was alright, but doesn't deserve some of the hate it gets; neither did the reboot.

I hated Destroyer, Just didn't have the same feel as the first one.

A woman is writing Conan? It's doomed. Arnold is in good enough shape to play an old king going out for one final battle though.

http://imgur.com/JWd0Mje

Whats wrong with a woman writing the story?

Originally posted by Kazenji
Whats wrong with a woman writing the story?

Conan is an uber-masculine swords and sorcery movie. Women aren't good with any of that.

Guess you haven't read many stories then.

I'm speaking of the movies.

Still doesn't the fact.

Which fact?

None to my knowledge.

So you agree?

Originally posted by Psychotron
Conan is an uber-masculine swords and sorcery movie. Women aren't good with any of that.

Alot of people complained that Punisher: Warzone was too violent & hardcore.

Did you know that a woman directed the movie?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Alot of people complained that Punisher: Warzone was too violent & hardcore.

Did you know that a woman directed the movie?

Lexi Alexander (born 23 August 1974) is a German-born film director and former World Point Fighting and Karate Champion. At the age of 19, she became world champion in both, retired from professional fighting and moved to the US, where she landed the part of Kitana in Mortal Kombat: Live Tour

She's a German fighter, and so gets a pass. (Or is it fight-ress?)

Also, Warzone was written by three dudes, which is still the consideration here. There's no general argument that women can't write a male-oriented flick; rather, there's serious doubt that any woman can identify enough to emulate what the original film created. Hell, there's leagues of male writers who can't do that.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

there's serious doubt that any woman can identify enough to emulate what the original film created.


I think, maybe you're holding the original in too much a high esteem.

It was good for its time but hardly did the novels justice.

I'm not in ignorance of the novels and the differences. However, Conan the Barbarian is an epic piece and defined sword and sorcery in the early 80s. It has a very definite energy and atmosphere which is not easily replicated. The sequel utterly failed to capture the same thing, and the reboot didn't even try.

There's a lot below the surface, and I'm not the first to say as much.

Conan the Barbarian and Psychoanalysis.

That's just one viewpoint. I've read others, but I can't find them easily at the moment, which go into more detail, or talk about Conan (man) killing Thulsa Doom (God) and replacing him. The film, despite its flaws, speaks to people on many levels, and specifically men.

So the point remains, for a woman to successfully write a sequel to this film, it would be rather surprising. Writing is directed by individual thought patterns, and it takes a considerable amount of self control, introspection, and empathy to write someone who isn't anything at all like yourself, especially if that person is amoral by your standards.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose


So the point remains, for a woman to successfully write a sequel to this film, it would be rather surprising. Writing is directed by individual thought patterns, and it takes a considerable amount of self control, introspection, and empathy to write someone who isn't anything at all like yourself, especially if that person is amoral by your standards.

But by those standards, a writer can only write about murder, if they've murdered themselves.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Conan the Barbarian and Psychoanalysis.

That's just one viewpoint.

Too much emphasis on Conan's silence meaning repression & uncertainty to trust...?

We're talking about Schwarzenegger, whose early films had little dialogue due to his lack of english speaking skills.

There's nothing to psychoanalyse about that!

Originally posted by Psychotron
So you agree?

Agree that your wrong?....then yes.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
But by those standards, a writer can only write about murder, if they've murdered themselves.

My post implied nothing of the sort. Reread it again.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Too much emphasis on Conan's silence meaning repression & uncertainty to trust...?

We're talking about Schwarzenegger, whose early films had little dialogue due to his lack of english speaking skills.

There's nothing to psychoanalyse about that!

Do you even know what psychoanalysis is about?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Do you even know what psychoanalysis is about?

Y'know sometimes an image on screen is quite simply that.
It's called screen-filler.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Y'know sometimes an image on screen is quite simply that.
It's called screen-filler.

I'll take that as a no.

Conan the Barbarian was pretty much amazing. It sounds like a bad idea to get back to acting now for Arnold, he can't get back to former shape,age is taking its toll quite a bit.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I'll take that as a no.


Considering the analogies of the link you provided, I can't work out if it's Conan or you with the mother issues.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Considering the analogies of the link you provided, I can't work out if it's Conan or you with the mother issues.

http://i.imgur.com/8tv626q.gif

Like I said, you clearly don't understand the methodology. But this is the internet; you can educate yourself if you want. It would certainly prevent you from having to come up with lame comebacks instead of admitting that you don't understand or don't want to understand the concept I introduced.

I'm just saying the psychoanalysis link you provided is laughable.
It's a sword & sorcery movie....the sword may be phallic in shape but there's no hidden metaphor because a scene depicts it being held up in the air.

Conan's parents were a race of warriors, so depicting his mother as a woman of submission is pointless & wrong.

Conan doesn't speak much because of the actor's limited grasp of English, in real life. Same as his role in Terminator & the sole reason too that Arnie is famous for his one-liners.
There's nothing to psychoanalyse about that.

The film bastardised & simplified at least 4 different novel plots. It was also subjected to Dino De Laurantiis's personal views of how religion & cults could be depicted in film.

At the end of the day, all I'm saying is that Conan The Barbarian may not be the most ideal film to break down & analyse every minute scene.

Honestly, does there really need to be a hidden meaning to Conan punching a camel????

Or underlining latent homosexuality when he "entices" a priest into the tent to steal his robes???

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I'm just saying the psychoanalysis link you provided is laughable.
It's a sword & sorcery movie....the sword may be phallic in shape but there's no hidden metaphor because a scene depicts it being held up in the air.

Conan's parents were a race of warriors, so depicting his mother as a woman of submission is pointless & wrong.

Conan doesn't speak much because of the actor's limited grasp of English, in real life. Same as his role in Terminator & the sole reason too that Arnie is famous for his one-liners.
There's nothing to psychoanalyse about that.

The film bastardised & simplified at least 4 different novel plots. It was also subjected to Dino De Laurantiis's personal views of how religion & cults could be depicted in film.

At the end of the day, all I'm saying is that Conan The Barbarian may not be the most ideal film to break down & analyse every minute scene.

Honestly, does there really need to be a hidden meaning to Conan punching a camel????

Or underlining latent homosexuality when he "entices" a priest into the tent to steal his robes???

Alright, let me back up a step and retackle this position:

I am not endorsing psychoanalysis as an objective or entirely meaningful way to analyze everything. I am using this analysis of the film to showcase how it changes in meaning to people, even on strange levels. To one person, it's all about being the superman, overcoming society, morals, etc. To another, it's just a sword and sorcery flick. To yet another, it's all about underlying sexuality.

Psychoanalysis, especially the field centered around Freud's original intentions, often uses sex in particular to change or give meaning to otherwise benign or mundane actions in a film, with the intent of 'indicating' the id or inner repressed desires of the medium creator. The reason why sex in particular was probably such a big deal for Freud was that most of his patients during its development process were sexually repressed females in Victorian society. Latter proponents of the theory modified it to include or omit some of the more wild sexual themes and clarify that sometimes, meaning is entirely unintended and unjustified for speculation.

To you, the film is just that; a film. No intention was behind every little detail. To someone using the psychoanalytic theory (regardless of intent; academic or personal), the film is layered in meaning.

You could probably apply a lot of philosophical and analytic tools to the film and glean a bit, since the story has a lot of mythical motives, macho shows of strength, dominance, and gore, and is a darkly amoral tale about an outsider of society.

Bottom line? You can say "that's ridiculous", but my point was that the film is more than just a simple fantasy film; it speaks to people, in a very unique way. And because of how it was filmed, written, and portrayed, this leads back to my initial point that a female writer would not easily emulate this style.

Make sense now?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

To you, the film is just that; a film. No intention was behind every little detail. To someone using the psychoanalytic theory (regardless of intent; academic or personal), the film is layered in meaning.

You could probably apply a lot of philosophical and analytic tools to the film and glean a bit, since the story has a lot of mythical motives, macho shows of strength, dominance, and gore, and is a darkly amoral tale about an outsider of society.

Bottom line? You can say "that's ridiculous", but my point was that the film is more than just a simple fantasy film; it speaks to people, in a very unique way. And because of how it was filmed, written, and portrayed, this leads back to my initial point that a female writer would not easily emulate this style.

Make sense now?

For starters, I'm glad we can have a "grown-up" banter, rather than calling each other "idiots" for not understanding or accepting the other's view point.

I guess we both agree to disagree as we're approaching the subject of psychoanalysing a film from different angles....
I simply state, you can't truly analyse a film from just what you see on screen, you NEED to know more about the back-ground motives & politics that went into making a film. The decisions that were made behind-the-scenes & more importantly the editing of certain scenes that, if included, might've change the whole perception of a character, much less the story.

3 examples come to mind.

i) You can psychoanalyse the mythos of Connor Macleod in the 1st HighLander...THEN comes the sequel & you find out he's actually an alien! Your psychoanalyse gets blown to pieces.

ii) The 1st Mission Impossible went through numerous directorial & script writer changes resulting in a very convoluted movie whose story line made little sense.
How can you even begin to analyse Ethan's character?

iii) Blade Runner. You walk away thinking Deckard gets the girl & happy ending, despite knowing she's a replicant with x-amount of life left. You could write a thesis on Deckard based on that movie. THEN comes the Director's Cut where it hints that Deckard is also a replicant...well once again, your analyse falls to pieces.

But ultimately, your point is that you don't feel a woman is up to writing a male dominated role as Conan. I just think that's a bit old fashioned to say so. If a female actress can act in gritty roles, written by men, then I can't see why the opposite can't happen.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
For starters, I'm glad we can have a "grown-up" banter, rather than calling each other "idiots" for not understanding or accepting the other's view point.

Me too. I guess I forget there are other old people on this forum.



True, from my own personal viewpoint I always consider the director's intentions, writer's, etc when they're known. This doesn't mean I can't speculate on what is not explicit.



IIRC, that movie isn't canon, and the original creator even said as much. It has been largely ignored by everything else in the series.



True, but his character and the films weren't deep drama. John Woo directed a film or two in the series. Conan, despite being fantasy, has drama overtones, and symbolism, as well as myth motives.



Actually, I did a lot of work on the symbolism in Blade Runner in college, and I could attest that even without the explicit nod that he is a replicant, it can be inferred and indeed was inferred by others. Hell, Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford both disagreed on the subject, and they were directly involved.

Remind me sometime to share the symbolism in that film regarding animals, emotions, and eyes. It's ridiculous the stuff I gleaned from the film. It's a classic.



Well, what gritty action roles for women have been written by men and haven't been full of shallow tropes, over-sexualization, and so on? I'm not saying it's impossible; I've indicated many times it's extremely unlikely. If I said offhand "men can't write women very well", the comment would be agreed with more often then not. If I say " a woman probably can't write or capture Conan as well as the first film did", I'm old-fashioned. That's quite the double standard.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn


i) You can psychoanalyse the mythos of Connor Macleod in the 1st HighLander...THEN comes the sequel & you find out he's actually an alien! Your psychoanalyse gets blown to pieces.


He's not an alien if its the Renagade version, Which Russell Mulcahy made.

Never seen or heard of a Renegade version....
What changes did Mulcahy do?

Removed all references to the planet Zeist and the Immortals are explained as coming from Earth's distant past

Some scenes were re-sequenced, e.g., a long swordfight was broken into two separate fights and the opening scenes in the Quickening were turned into flashbacks in the Renegade version. Scenes that did not make it into the Quickening version were restored in the Renegade version, e.g., Louise and Connor's climb to the hole in the shield and a fight scene between Connor and Katana on top of a truck.