CONAN!

I loved Arnold as Conan...but not as the real Conan lol. He definitely took the part and made it his own. The real Conan, from the books...was nothing like the oafish, constantly surprised, relatively slow (thinking and moving), dense looking Arnold (again, remember I did love him in those movies!). The Conan from the books was a predator. He did have sheer physical strength, but it was more a function of his body following the example of his will and spirit than what Arnold portrayed. Arnold's Conan was a force of nature due to his strength, the literary Conan was simply a force of nature =).

To be honest, James Earl Jones...eh...not so big on him. I mean, I guess he fit the part, but his voice always brought a little 'Star Wars' into a movie that should have been anything but, you know? I think they could have done better there. His acting however, was impeccable. I think without that he never would have been able to fit even as well as he did.

Cris

Excellent idea Bloodwraith, Buliwyf could play Conan. Talk about screen presence. I always had hoped he would end up playing Thor.

You are not alone, my friend... I LOVED him in the first Conan. The second one... well... I try to forget about it. Much like I try to ignore any Highlander movie after the first.

cris - i don't think arnold came off as oafish and constantly shocked in the first conan film. i really think his portrayal is of a private but intelligent, hulking killer and pillager. i think there's a good arc of character development, really, from his naive beginnings to his world-weary finale. mako's narrative doesn't hurt, either.

and i've always thought james earl jones' acting was amazing in conan. he can be so expressive with so little outward action. and he's also able to fill a screen the same way arnold does (subconsciously, not so much physically). if you haven't seen him in the great white hope, i suggest you find a copy of that film as soon as possible. sidenote: did you know the he was an army ranger? sweet.

the second film really suffered from horrible writing and directing. a damned shame.

jason

When you put it that way I kind of agree, on both counts. And, I totally agree on the third lol. I just never pictured the Thulsa Doom type character (which is a Stygian) as a pot bellied elderly black man =). More Egyptian, or Middle Eastern. I will say James Earl Jones did a great job with the part he was given. He is a great actor after all! On the Conan aspect...without Mako's narrative I don't think the movie would have been anywhere near as good as it was. Arnold's Conan just didn't have enough breadth of scope to pull off a whole feature film. That's one thing that made it a great movie though...all of the pieces worked together, and without any one of them, the whole thing would have been a failure.

I did love the movie, and Arnold in it, as I said. I mean, that Conan movie was one of, if not the original, sparks that has fueled my interest in all things fantasy and sword related since. I even like Arnolds Conan enough to watch the second movie anytime I watch the first =). Sometimes I even toss in Red Sonja as a finale, and what a HORRIBLE movie that was lol...I always sort of thought of Kalidor as the evolution of Arnold's Conan, since we never got a final movie =D. It's just that Arnold's Conan...well, isn't Robert E Howard's Conan is all. Which is what the new movie is supposed to be true to. REH's Conan is a totally, TOTALLY different creature than Arnold's Conan. In the beginning of his development he's little more than a lightly civilized wild predator, with his own moral compass which only vaguely follows what we would consider right and wrong. Through the years he becomes more outwardly civilized, but never loses that wild, predatory, instinctive edge. It's very, very hard to compare that to Arnold's portrayal, they're just not the same.

I just can't wait to see what they DO decide to do with the movie...both in props and casting. There's hundreds of Conan stories...if they pulled it off right, and picked the right actor, they could make them for YEARS and have an appreciative audience. You and I both know if thy made good movies we'd be up for a 'Conan vs. Jason' lol. Or would that be, 'Conan vs. Predator'?

Wait, they already did that didn't they =).

Cris

I agree lol.

Matter of fact, one reason I probably loved the movie so much is I was very young when it came out...and hadn't read any of REH's work yet. By the time I got into the Conan books, it was BECAUSE of the movie =).

Worked out nicely for me...since I can happily enjoy them both now lol. You should read the books, they're very good, in a simplistic, quick reading sort of way. Like a literary comic book almost. Each book has five or six short stories. There's also a book based on the Arnold movie, which actually does it credit if I recall. I own it but haven't read it for years. Sort of meshes the two characters (Arnolds and REH's) nicely.

Cris

Aaahhh....a Conan discussion....

The movie was WAY off from Howards creation and was actually a mix of Conan stories....Thulsa was originally in a Kull story and was supposed to a tall "skull-faced" man (not a skull for a face, just not much meat on his frame). when Conan met him, he was a slave looking for the "Ring of Set" so he could get his powers back.....still my favorite movie tho.

They've reprinted all of Howards Conan stories recently.

Just remember, if you read the Howard stories, they were written in the '30's, so they're full of sexist and racist remarks.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled sword programming....

Revealing exclusive interview with the movie's producer:
www.tentonhammer.com/node/52001

As we feared: a comic movie.
Will be terrible and won't have anything to do with Conan.