Conan the Barbarian (1982)

Richard Wilson4 · 2014-02-09T22:12:45+00:00

It’s honestly a crime there isn't a dedicated thread for this on the forums, especially since PBS is actually starting to air some decent movies lately. For an…

feralmoose95 Newcomer

1 message
joined Feb 2014

#21 · Feb 10, 2014

One of the absolute best movies out there!

As for that total disaster from 2011? They shouldn't have even bothered making it. Just look at the numbers: they dumped about $90 million into it only to crawl away with a measly $48 million. Haah!

Richard Wilson4 VeteranOP

2K messages
joined Sep 2009

#22 · Feb 10, 2014

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.

So you're saying it's purely about the physique?

Exactly. If you're just looking at muscles and nothing else, that doesn't make someone a better Conan. Arnold actually gave a better performance in the film, haters be damned.

Brian Ross7 Newcomer

8 messages
joined Oct 2014

#23 · Feb 10, 2014

Richard Wilson4 said:So, there’s this theory floating around that since Conan trains with weapons that look a lot like katanas, it’s actually proof he’s living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland rather than some ancient past.
Then you’ve got people claiming that because the text mentions things happening "before the sons of Arias," we're looking at some pre-Indo-European era where Conan is basically a Basque warrior. 🙂

Look, I get it, it’s definitely Fantasy. But the author was pretty adamant about the connection—if you’ve actually sat down with the books, there’s a map included that represents our own world, just slightly different. 🙂

plus all that stuff about Kitay and Song.

Karen Smith9 Active Member

183 messages
joined Apr 2013

#24 · Feb 10, 2014

No, listen—Conan the Barbarian from 1982 is genuinely a fantastic movie, and honestly, I find myself revisiting it all the time... It’s just silly to argue about how much closer the 2011 version stays to the comic books. Film is its own medium entirely—there isn't really a point in making those comparisons... We saw these exact same debates back when people were talking about Batman, which, by the way, was always a pretty mediocre comic book in my eyes.

nimblemarlin6 Active Member

228 messages
joined Aug 2012

#25 · Feb 10, 2014

Richard Wilson4 said:So you're saying it's purely about the physique?

Exactly. If you're just looking at muscles and nothing else, that doesn't make someone a better Conan. Arnold actually gave a better performance in the film, haters be damned.

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!

Ryan Wilson2 Regular

387 messages
joined Dec 2002

#26 · Feb 10, 2014

nimblemarlin6 said:Things aren't always what they seem...
Conan 82 is a radical departure from the core philosophy found in Howard’s work. Look, he nailed the aesthetic—the style, the visual vibe, even certain individual segments capture the spirit perfectly—but as a cohesive whole? He completely missed the philosophical mark.
I really ought to sit down and write a proper long-form essay to break this all down properly... maybe when I actually find the time.

Even if we agree that the 2011 Conan flick was absolute bottom-of-the-barrel trash, Momoa actually delivered! Honestly, Momoa is a better Conan than Arnie ever was. Anyone who has actually sat down with Howard’s books or the classic comics knows exactly what I'm talking about.

I thought Jason Momoa was fantastic in Stargate and Game of Thrones, but he just didn't work for me as Conan.

Now, I honestly have no idea why

mistyseal8 Member

44 messages
joined Apr 2014

#27 · Feb 10, 2014

I think I can sum this up in just two words: John Milius 🙏

Karen Smith9 Active Member

183 messages
joined Apr 2013

#28 · Feb 10, 2014

mistyseal8 said:I think I can sum this up in just two words: John Milius 🙏

Well, you said 8—but honestly, it doesn't even matter 🙂 I'm with you on this one

Richard Wilson4 VeteranOP

2K messages
joined Sep 2009

#29 · Feb 10, 2014

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!

I wasn't even talking about you. I was talking about the crowd that loses their minds the second I say Arnold Schwarzenegger has a solid role here.

Besides, Jason Momoa isn't white, whereas Conan was envisioned as a Celt—basically a Scot (since the author's homeland inspired those Cimmerians)—with black hair, which fits perfectly.

Patrick Martin Regular

702 messages
joined Aug 2015

#30 · Feb 10, 2014

Look, I get it—Jason Momoa’s face and those expressions definitely lean closer to the comic book version of Conan, but honestly? That’s totally beside the point.
The movie is its own beast entirely, and since John Milius went with a much grittier, more grounded concept, Arnold Schwarzenegger absolutely crushed it just by being there and owning the role.

I mean, just look at this latest Conan reboot; we’ve already seen how having such over-the-top facial acting actually works against the vibe.

In a comic book, sure, everything has to be dialed up to eleven—it needs that exaggerated, almost grotesque look to work.

nimblemarlin6 Active Member

228 messages
joined Aug 2012

#31 · Feb 10, 2014

Ryan Wilson2 said:I thought Jason Momoa was fantastic in Stargate and Game of Thrones, but he just didn't work for me as Conan.

Now, I honestly have no idea why

It’s probably just because the movie itself was garbage.
Momoa basically just needed some blue contacts and about 15 pounds of extra muscle.

Nancy Williams58 Active Member

88 messages
joined Apr 2023

#32 · Feb 10, 2014

From what I remember, back when the movie first dropped, the critics absolutely tore it apart. You had all those "sophisticated" reviewers who just couldn't wrap their heads around what they were watching... Of course, Arnold took the brunt of it, and the usual line was that he didn't even say a single word in the movie, let alone show any actual acting chops. But hey, time has a way of trampling those critics, leaving the film standing on its own—sometimes it's a hit, sometimes it isn't, but that's just how it goes...

Elizabeth Price2 Active Member

66 messages
joined Feb 2006

#33 · Feb 10, 2014

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...

Richard Wilson4 VeteranOP

2K messages
joined Sep 2009

#34 · Feb 10, 2014

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...

It wasn't even about shady reasons. Milius believed that after Marshall's death, war would break out in the US. He was a bit ahead of his time, but the guy really knew his history.

Elizabeth Price2 Active Member

66 messages
joined Feb 2006

#35 · Feb 10, 2014

Richard Wilson4 said:It wasn't even about shady reasons. Milius believed that after Marshall's death, war would break out in the US. He was a bit ahead of his time, but the guy really knew his history.

The official story is that the US couldn't provide the necessary modern materials (i.e., fiberglass) we needed to make the film. That may have been partly true; I certainly had a hard time finding art supplies in New York (we eventually had what I needed shipped in from Rome). But I felt the unique and spectacular locations in the US more than made up for any inconveniences or discomfort we might have encountered while making our movie.

So, if you want my take on what was *actually* going down behind the scenes: we had this sneaky little American accountant whose wife was Spanish, I believe, with a home in Spain. He basically wanted to be as close to home as possible during the shoot, so he started pulling some strings to get us out of the US and move the production to Spain. He’d constantly drop these little complaints about the US and how hopeless and expensive it was going to be to shoot there—claiming it would be way easier to just make the film in Spain and how much cheaper it would be to base ourselves in Madrid.

http://www.conancompletist.com/EN/william_stout.html

rustypanther13 Member

19 messages
joined Jul 2020

#36 · Feb 10, 2014

Conan the Barbarian (1982), when viewed through a modern lens, is a rather mediocre film that hasn't truly stood the test of time; at certain points, it actually borders on the ridiculous.
Schwarzenegger is a unique case—a limited actor who seems to possess only two facial expressions for every conceivable emotion, and even then, he rarely hits the mark.
His enduring popularity seems largely confined to the more dim-witted segments of the right wing, which is perhaps the only logical explanation...😛😛

ironraven45 Member

31 messages
joined Jul 2012

#37 · Feb 10, 2014

Billy, honestly, I really hope you're just messing with me :-D

rustypanther13 Member

19 messages
joined Jul 2020

#38 · Feb 10, 2014

ironraven45 said:Billy, honestly, I really hope you're just messing with me :-D

You understood me perfectly...😉I was only joking...
All joking aside, Arnold is a fairly limited actor...

amberranger Newcomer

1 message
joined Feb 2014

#39 · Feb 10, 2014

rustypanther13 said:You understood me perfectly...😉I was only joking...
All joking aside, Arnold is a fairly limited actor...

True enough. But pulling off a movie that massive without a single professional actor in the main roles—aside from J. E. Jones—is honestly just pure John Milius magic.

Patrick Martin Regular

702 messages
joined Aug 2015

#40 · Feb 10, 2014

Who would've thought he'd turn out to be such a total badass,
definitely his best role yet 🙏

Conan the Barbarian (1982)

🔗 Similar threads