The new "Conan" movie

[Michael]

Mohammed wrote: "Jim wrote: "Sully25ah wrote: "...I will never understand why they don't follow the original stories...."

I agree completely. With the CGI tech they have today, they could recreate some of the fan..."

The problem is that the Conan movie isn't getting big box office takings. Last I read it hadn't made back its money. So, while I agree with what you're saying, it's such a shame that the Hollywood money-men seem to have more control over the final product than the creative team.

[Mohammed]

Michael wrote: "Mohammed wrote: "Jim wrote: "Sully25ah wrote: "...I will never understand why they don't follow the original stories...."

I agree completely. With the CGI tech they have today, they could recreat..."

Even the best review diss the director, the script. They dont deserve better.

Its refereshing that every badly done film isnt Box office hit. There is punishment if you fail creativly.
Dont blame hollywood money men, blame the creators too. Ultimatly its their film, no one changed the film afterwards.

[Jim]

It depends on the film, but often neither the director nor the script writer is to blame for the horrible scripts - it's the money men. I was surprised to find out just how badly some faceless, clueless executive team can screw up a film when I read If Chins Could Kill: Confessions of a B Movie Actor.

[Michael]

Same goes for Blade Runner- the reason why Ridley Scott has released so many versions of that film is that when he went over budget, his financial backers got the right to edit film as they saw fit - hence the voice-over, which both Scott and Harrison Ford thought was awful.

[Michael]

Hollywood studios like to do copy cats. They don't like to be too original as they want to do something that has worked in the past. The Revenge plot often works well so they try to stick to something like that. The original CtB worked so they stuck kind of close to the same type of story. When something original does well then they all jump on the bandwagon.
Romantic comedies are the same way. We keep watching the same type stories over and over. The only thing that makes them entertaining "or not" is usually the chemistry of the actors.
That's my take on it anyway. It's too bad really. There's so much money riding on these movies that they are afraid to take chances.

[Michael]

Ó Ruairc wrote: "I've been reading a little about the new "Conan" movie coming out in 2011. Based upon what I've seen, I think this movie is really going to suck. They got some Hawaiian actor/model playing Conan ..."

I finally watched the new movie on DVD and Ó Ruairc's opening post on this topic was prophetic.

Conan was portrayed as a sadistic thug, barely less objectionable than the cardboard villain he was pitted against.

There were some half-decent fight scenes, but nothing you won't have seen before. There was no real tension or thrust to the "plot" and the film just limped from one scene to another. That said, my 14 year old son enjoyed it, so maybe that's the age it was aimed at.

It's a pity the film-makers didn't watch the Solomon Kane movie first which, despite some dilution of the REH spirit, is definitely the closest thing the silver screen has got to authentic.

Another thing that niggled me through the whole film was the pointless non-use of Hyborian names and places. You've bought the rights, so why not use them? Those that know would appreciate it and those that don't won't care. Sigh :-(