|
|
Post by nddave on Aug 19, 2011 2:22:01 GMT
there's been alot of bad blood towards the new swords but aside from that I was wondering how many of you are planning to watch it tomorrow?
also what about the new fright night? anyone planning on watching it? from the previews it seems pretty good.
sounds like a good old fashioned 80's flashback/remake double feature to me! I personally loved both the original conan and fright night I hope the remakes make the cut.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Aug 19, 2011 2:28:41 GMT
...There's a new Fright Night?Dammit, why doesn't anyone tell me these things!?  |
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Aug 19, 2011 2:39:57 GMT
I probably won't be seeing it in theaters, but I do intend to see the new Conan as soon as I can.
|
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Aug 19, 2011 2:41:52 GMT
they just started advertising last week. first time I heard about it was in one ofmy wifes celeb magazines three months ago, and even then it was hush hush.
|
|
Sam H
Member
Posts: 1,099
|
Post by Sam H on Aug 19, 2011 2:42:52 GMT
Definitely won't be seeing either in the theaters but as soon as they're on netflix I'll be trying to get them. I loved the original Fright Night and I loved the old Arnold era Conans so both are a must see but not in the theaters for me.
|
|
Talon
Member
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,554
|
Post by Talon on Aug 19, 2011 4:57:05 GMT
a fright night remake  thats news to me,the original is a classic,ill most likely watch the dvd when it comes out,im actually looking forward to watching the new conan after seeing the trailers,anyway its got ron pearlman in it,thats reason enough for me  |
|
|
|
Post by Alexander on Aug 19, 2011 10:50:42 GMT
Seems to be trend with Hollywood, no originality. Look at how many movies are either remakes and sequels. And all they seem to do with remakes is to add a bunch of CGI.
|
|
|
|
Post by brotherbanzai on Aug 19, 2011 13:52:13 GMT
CGI is cool when it's done well, but it seems very often that it looks too cartoony and unrealistic. I'd rather just see a guy in a big rubber suit. Underworld did a really nice job with guys in big furry suits.
Might end up seeing the new Conan as we have a guest coming for the weekend who want's to see it. Otherwise I wouldn't bother. Wish I hadn't seen the second of the orginal two Conans. The very existence of that second movie taints the original.
Fright night looks pretty good, I liked the first one too. Anyone see the preview for the new John Carter of Mars movie? That looks worth watching.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexander on Aug 19, 2011 16:35:46 GMT
Your right CGI can be awesome. Just dont like when they rely on the special effects and forget about the other parts of the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Aug 19, 2011 18:49:05 GMT
Eh, since when has Hollywood ever been original other then in very exceptional cases? Since 1908, there have been at least 59 Robin Hood movies, with a 60th apparently coming along in the near future. That's an average of 1,7 Robin Hood movies a year over 103 years. Kind of a proud tradition, in other words. Put in that perspective, you'd think there's room for at least two Conan movies.  You know, I am entirely convinced that in just a few decades, when someone has finally invented something better then CGI, people will still go: "Man, I hate it when they stuff a bunch of Neospectric Eidolon Wavegrids in these new movies! Give me some good old fashion CGI instead." |
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Aug 19, 2011 19:15:04 GMT
good points. at least we don't have to deal with that horrible cgi from the early 90's...
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonely Wolf Forge on Aug 19, 2011 19:23:52 GMT
i liked he 80's-90's CGI, they didnt overdo it and it was cheesy enough to be mildy humorous. can we say THE QUICKENING, effect. Lol
|
|
Sean (Shadowhowler)
VIP Reviewer
Retired Moderator
No matter where you go, there you are.
Posts: 8,828
|
Post by Sean (Shadowhowler) on Aug 19, 2011 20:03:12 GMT
What second movie?  The sequel was so bad that when I went to buy a Copy of Conan on DVD, there was a boxed set of both movies for just a dollar more then the single copy... and I was unwilling to pay the extra dollar for the 2nd movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonely Wolf Forge on Aug 19, 2011 21:36:23 GMT
it was bad but it wasnt THAT bad IMHO. :lol:
|
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Aug 19, 2011 22:29:18 GMT
I'm mostly talking about the lawnmower man type stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by joeydac on Aug 23, 2011 1:35:33 GMT
So the new Conan movie flopped at the box office just like I imagine there swords will they're some movies and things you just don't remake and if you do you go bold not cheesy and plastic even Jason mamoa looked less than threatening long live Arnold
|
|
Sean (Shadowhowler)
VIP Reviewer
Retired Moderator
No matter where you go, there you are.
Posts: 8,828
|
Post by Sean (Shadowhowler) on Aug 23, 2011 2:26:04 GMT
I hate to tell you this... but your Wrong. It was, in fact, THAT bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Aug 25, 2011 23:09:35 GMT
First of all: I only barely understood half of that post.
Second: You can't see it, but right now I'm using every muscle in my body to keep myself from writing a long rant about the definition of the word "remake" and my views about comparing the new Conan movie to the old one.
Third: I know it has had negative reviews, but it's been, what, a week since the movie premiered? Isn't it a bit early to talk about flopping?
Oh well. I'm still going to try to see it when I get the chance, and I will do my best to like it, dammit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neil G. on Aug 26, 2011 15:51:43 GMT
I went and watched it and I think that overall it had a lot of potential, but it just kinda fell short... on pretty much all of the fronts. Rose McGowen's character was the most distinctive and memorable, and at time Jason Momoa did a decent job, and the BBEG (that's Big Bad Evil Guy) had motivations that were far more complex than the usual "GRRR, CRUSH THE WORLD!!!" reaons for doing what he did... But the story felt rushed. It's like they were skipping over the story line stuff to get to the action sequences. Characters would just suddenly be traveling from one place to another or engaging in a certain type of activity without any real justification as to why. And to me the action sequences themselves weren't all that. Many had a bit of a "Pirates of the Caribbean" type feel to 'em that just left me going "awww, c'mon... really???"
So yeah, it was a typical b-grade fantasy action movie, having more in common with Kull the Conqueror and Chronicles of Riddick than it did with Lord of the Rings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonely Wolf Forge on Aug 26, 2011 17:12:46 GMT
Kull the Coquerer was way better than this steaming pile of....excrete.
|
|
thats news to me,the original is a classic,ill most likely watch the dvd when it comes out,im actually looking forward to watching the new conan after seeing the trailers,anyway its got ron pearlman in it,thats reason enough for me 
