2540 posts shown.
brighteagle39 said:Mel Gibson is quite an underwhelming actor. He’s really only tolerable in Mad Max, where he doesn't have to rely on much dialogue to get his point across.
Henry Myers3 said:Exactly. A true conservative platform would prioritize a powerful state through different means. We’d see higher tax rates for individual earners, but corporate tax would plummet—and if companies reinvested those profits directly into hiring more people, they wouldn't pay a dime in taxes at all.
The safety nets would vanish. Your security would depend entirely on your own discipline; how much you saved and set aside would dictate your lifestyle. Without that personal cushion, the government would provide the bare minimum of survival support. Instead of traditional welfare checks, we might see basic food vouchers.
Forget about government-subsidized housing or guaranteed pensions for veterans. They would receive targeted subsidies instead, along with access to dedicated medical facilities. Of course, if the treasury runs dry, both the number of hospitals and the subsidy amounts would shrink accordingly.
Maternity leave as we know it would essentially disappear, or at least be reduced to a mere formality. Why should the working population shoulder the financial burden of someone else deciding to have children?
Primary education would remain mandatory, but high school would be optional. As for universities, the top-tier institutions would charge full market price. We’d implement a merit-based scholarship system to incentivize the brightest minds, effectively eliminating "career students." Average students wouldn't bother with college unless their parents had specifically saved for their tuition; if you come from a struggling family, higher education is out of reach unless you are exceptionally gifted.
Funding would shift toward defense, law enforcement, and massive infrastructure projects vital to national growth. For instance, the capital currently drained by social programs, healthcare, and pensions could be redirected toward building a national highway system that would eventually be free for all citizens to use.
Now, actual conservatives would sign off on this vision in a heartbeat. Those who call themselves "right-wing" but are actually addicted to the current system of social solidarity? They wouldn't stand for it.☕
Patrick Martin said:Look, those guys are straight-up legends, regardless of how they did things or the fact they were technically on the wrong side of history.
Back then, it was the Wild West—total lawlessness where everyone walked around with a gun strapped to their hip. Just absolute madness.
It’s kind of like how people still obsess over old-school outlaw types here in the States, like Billy the Kid or something. People still harbor this weird sympathy for characters like that even today.
Karen Richardson3 said:(btw, awesome tip on HBO. I just started the first episode and it’s a bit of a head trip, but I knew it had to be good since all the smart people swear by it. I'll get back to her once I finish Shameless, which is a total must-watch if you haven't seen it yet..)
nimblemarlin6 said:Well, don't leave me hanging—be more specific! I love reading different people's takes on Conan. If you're feeling inspired, please, by all means, write a manifesto. 🙂
When it comes to newer films that actually manage to portray warrior morality and values that are fundamentally different from what we see today, you've got Apocalypto and 300.
Personally, I find "300" a bit stylistically shallow—it leaned so hard into that comic book aesthetic, with the over-the-top violence and that pixelated blood that seems to vanish from the screen the second it hits the floor.
If "300" had been shot with a bit more realism, it would have absolutely crushed it.
nimblemarlin6 said:That’s what I’m telling you, Richard Wilson4.
Conan the Barbarian works because of Milius’s sheer genius—his style is just superior—it pulls you right in, making you think there’s some deep, masculine philosophy at play. That’s the Milius touch, really. In reality, if a "beautiful woman" is the go-to for the girls, then Milius’s "Conan" is the equivalent for the guys.
Lisa Chase3 said:Pretty well put.
Conan hits different for me too, I guess. It reminds me of this guy who used to quote it all the time—someone with "real insight" who fought to protect those old-school principles of being an undefeated man, which feels pretty rare nowadays...
Frank Moore4 said:Are you talking about the one starring Ralf Moeller? 😁 😁
Here is my deep dive into that flick.
granitecanyon172 said:This is easily one of my all-time favorites. James Woods is a straight-up genius.
Grace Edwards said:If it turns out to be an adult movie, like Sabotage, it’ll probably be good enough.
Regarding the mediocre acting—it seems like a lot of supposedly high-quality actors just don't have the guts to step out of their comfort zones.
Every time I see Amy Adams on screen, she's playing some emancipated character who thinks they're a big deal when, honestly, they're nobody.
BTW, I love the soundtrack—it immediately makes me think of the final fight from Serious man. Ah, good times.😁
Jamie Nelson10 said:Conan the Barbarian is a great one, honestly one of those rare gems from my childhood that I still hold dear today... though I have to admit, Basil Poledouris's score makes up about 80% of the whole experience, so it's really just pure magic...
Elizabeth Price2 said:Hey guys, do you actually seriously think everyone is built for Mr. Olympia? Like, that you can just slap on 15 kg of muscle onto an already decent frame and call it a day while pretending to act (like Arnold).
As for the movie—it’s a total cult classic, but if I'm being honest, I always found it a little bit boring 🤷
Oh, and here's a fun little fact for anyone who hasn't heard it: they were actually supposed to film this right here in the US, but for some shady reasons, they bailed and moved the production to Spain. Man, if only that had worked out for us... imagine the scenery we could've had... instead of those dusty old sets...
nimblemarlin6 said:And hey, let's not throw the word "hater" around so loosely! Hate is a pretty heavy word. Just because someone is breaking something down and evaluating it doesn't mean they're acting out of malice—it's just a multi-layered analysis!
nimblemarlin6 said:Forget the movie itself and just look at the casting.
Think back to those Marvel comics by John Bucceme and Erni Chan, or even the original Howard stories. In those, Conan isn't just some hulking meathead; he’s actually quick on his feet, agile, and surprisingly chatty and social. That's what I'm getting at—not the actual movie, which was a total train wreck, absolute bottom-of-the-barrel stuff...
Basically, if this new Conan had a decent writer and director who actually respected the source material, Jason Momoa would've been a better fit than Arnold Schwarzenegger.
nimblemarlin6 said:Conan 82 is an untouchable masterpiece...
I'm not trying to compare the movies directly—because comparing those two is basically impossible—but I am talking about the acting and the actual presence of whoever is playing Conan.
Arnie is fantastic in the '82 Conan, but let's be real: that version isn't Howard's vision, it's more like Milius's Conan.
As for the 2011 Conan, there isn't a single redeeming quality or good scene to be found. Except—maybe—for Momoe as Conan!
He's missing maybe 10 or 15 pounds of pure muscle, but he actually got closer to the character as he's described in the Howard stories and the comic adaptations than Arnie ever did.