Conan Film Photos

Well, gosh, if I was wouldn't I be disappointed!

Conan's creator specifically states that Conan's eyes are blue and that his hair is black (and square-cut). If the movie guys can't even be bothered to get that much right...

It's like someone making a Tarzan movie and neglecting to put the scar on Tarzan's forehead.

Or making an X-men movie in which Wolverine towers over Storm.

Movie guys... /e shake_head

So you mean none of them so far.

I know a girl who was furious that Hermione wore a pink dress at the dance in Goblet of Fire instead of a blue one (or green or whatever). Same level of silliness as displayed by the above comment.

It's the performance and the persona that matter, not the minute details. Black Kingpin, two different actors playing Rhodey, David Banner instead of Bruce Banner. It's all about the impression that the audience takes home. The wow factor.

If you want to nitpick you might as well complain that Arnold's Conan didn't have skin that was burned dark bronze by the time he spent in the desert. That Thulsa Doom wasn't a black man and should have had a skull like face.

If you choose to reject the Conan movie before it ever comes out just because of the color of his eyes then you might want to consider suing the Simpson writers because they probably based Comic Book Guy on you.

!. You seem to be taking this far more seriously than I am. In fact, you seem almost offended. Why? And why did you feel it was necessary to insult and belittle me? That's not very nice of you.

2. Thulsa Doom was King Kull's enemy, not Conan's. Pesky details.

How could you not love Season of the Witch? It was like someone recorded all of the dialog from a Saturday night D&D session, and then made a screenplay out of it. Then someone read the screenplay and said "Wow, this is some of the worst dialog and plot I've ever seen... We should make this movie, but only if we get the cheesy awesomeness of both Nicolas Cage and Ron Perlman"

Best crappy movie evar!

As to Conan, I think it has the potential to be awesomely cheesy, too. As a fan of bad movies, I look forward to it with great anticipation.

1. Not offended nor taking it seriously. I just like mocking and shooting down the arguments of those who become outraged over the tiniest of details. I know it's not much of a hobby but it amuses me.

2. Yep, fully aware of this. But he was in the first Conan movie. I could have brought the Kull argument up but since your primary post was about eye color I thought I would stick to the physical appearance theme.

3. Scythus is right. You need a sarcasm disclaimer.

I am really looking forward to this movie though. Momoa is kind of one dimensional as an actor but I suppose that describes all action stars. However he is charismatic and actually a very good stage combatant.

The Electric-Knight ______ Malfaz _____ Zox'Oculox

@Zethustra

"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan

www.pauldamonthomas.com - Original Music

This is the Internets. It's serious business!

Supperman...making sure the right forks are used for the right course! Faster than a speeding scathing glance across the table, more powerful than too-hot soup, it's Supperman!

The Electric-Knight ______ Malfaz _____ Zox'Oculox

@Zethustra

"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan

www.pauldamonthomas.com - Original Music

haha!

The Electric-Knight ______ Malfaz _____ Zox'Oculox

@Zethustra

"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan

www.pauldamonthomas.com - Original Music

Well, I don't know if it's true, but I keep hearing rumors that Peter Jackson is interested in directing a Supperman movie, and he wants to cast TWO actors in the starring role: David Hyde Pierce as Supperman, and Chuck Norris as Supperman's rough and tumble auto mechanic secret identity, Roscoe Smith.

It could work, I guess, but IMO they look too much alike and movie-goers who aren't familiar with the comic books might be confused by the retractable beard.

Then take a break and then come back when you're ready.

.. just saying..
..

In case you're wondering, 74% for Arnies version.

.

Eh, Hudson Hawk is at 23% and I love that movie.

Likewise with Kung-Pow at 11%.

So apparently, I really like ****y movies.

the Arnold version of Conan was never the version in the comics.. what happend to respecting the source material people? we (Most of the Comic Book internet fans) are looking like hypocrites here.. we claim to want source material all the time.. but now it seems like people want this movie to be like the arnold movies instead of the true version of the comic book.

Its like no one here ever read the comic from its creater Robert E Howard.
His version was gritty when he first wrote the book..

Arnold killed the whole Conan franchise with his dumb acting, he made the character one-dimensional. In the first film he had a better supporting cast to make it almost watchable, the 2nd film had nothing and both flopped!

The "real Conan" from the novels isn't an ancient Irishman, that's a common misinterpretation. He's from a "Mythical" race from a "Mythical" race that resembles the Proto Celts and is bronzed in his skin from many travels from his youth, blue eyes and black hair.

His race settles to a "Mythical" land where Northen Ireland and Scotland will later be after the Destruction of "Mythical Atlantis".

Despite the vast lengths Robert Howard went through to not assign his character to any place or region definitive to our map of the known world, people keep calling him an ancient Irishman due to the mythical setting of where his people would later settle, not where they came from nor the fact his physical description is not a-typical Irish whatsoever. Howard simply describes him as big, muscled, black haired and blue eyed, wearing whatever clothing suited where he was wandering and stronger than any man although not taller (Howard later described him as 6'0 when he was 15years old so in adulthood anything from 6'2 to 6'6). Sullen and brooding in expression and sometimes wearing a horned helmet and agile as a panther despite his great size.

Arnold isn't tanned, never was as Conan and although blue eyed has brown hair and actually 5'10 in height instead of the 6'2 he constantly lies about being for impressions sake. Heavily muscled Arnie is but agile as a panther...? No chance, Arnie is far from fighting physique.

Jason Moma is tanned, isn't blue eyed but has black hair (browns in the sun) and is 6'4 and has bulked up but not over the top so as to remain agile (agile as a panther remains to be seen) Has sullen features to replicate the brooding aspect of Conan.

In short, Jason has more in common with the character description than Arnie did plus he can act which Arnie could never do.

Frank Frazetta has pretty much influence the whole look of Conan in art with this one picture that hits the brooding look on the nail! But other artists today kinda get closer to the Robert Howard description.


Jason has the look in the face of the sullen, brooding Conan that Arnie never could perform despite his great physique, nice costumes and props.


Arnolds problem is his goofy acting which leads to him pulling clueless faces like this no matter what character he's playing..



While Jason as an actor will keep that crap in check hopefully and stay in character for more like this..




To attempt to capture the essence of this..


So in truth they're getting more right than wrong with this latest version and it's looking a lot more like the world Howard describes with the creatures and characters they've been unveiling in photos. The production looks good so far and we should wait and see how well they deliver before shooting it down as another prop fest like the Arnold films that literally flopped massively at the box office and just became cult faves for fanboys due to Arnolds popularity despite the lack of quality in the features.

The Conan from the books looks a lot more to be given some justice with Jason Momoa, the clever, cunning warrior who is huge but fast and athletic and can read many languages and has a sense of humour unlike the way he's done in those terrible Marvel comics and Arnie's muscle-headed version.


This new film hopefully will portray the smarter cunning Conan from the books and not Arnies dumb version.

Rotten Tomatoes also gave:

Superman Returns a 76% (most consider this movie total fail and yet there is the review)

Batman (1989) a 71% (while Batman returns got a 79%) which wasn't as good as the first one.

But we are supposed to believe that Superman Returns was better than it too? Also Watchmen was only 64% too on that site, and many nerd fans worship that movie as the perfect comic book adaptation. According to Rotten tomatoes... Superman Returns was better than that too! total hog wash I say.


IS the transformers series a failure too?

Transformers 1 = 57%
Transformers 2 = 20%
Transformers 3 = 36%

each movie made over 400mill.. and was a summer block buster success each time.

same goes for the last two pirates of the carribean flicks.. it ranked 33% & 45% and was still one of the biggest block busters of the year each time..

Same goes for Blade 1 (55%) and Blade 2 (59%)

in short..(I can go on and on) that site shouldn't be the end all be all that some of us make it out to be. Different strokes for different folks... I think people care less and less about what Rottentomatoes thinks based on what movies make the most money every year.(see above for some examples) I wish people would stop using it as a measuring stick and form their OWN opinion after seeing it.

• The new smarter cunning Conan 26%

• The original dumb Arnie version 74%

Don't get me wrong critics are not always the best indicator of how entertaining an action or comedy flick will be for the masses, but the first time I saw this Conan's trailer I knew it would end up around the mid twenties.

Yeah I can completely understand how frustrating it can be when the "respectful of the source material" version of something turns out to be the WORSE version critically than the "stupid derivative Hollywood" version.

In the case of these Conan movies I think I'm familiar enough with the source material to realize that the Arnold version of Conan is probably not the best representation of the character. But when it comes down to simply whether a particular movie is enjoyable as a piece of entertainment or not I think I'd rather a movie be a GOOD movie first regardless of how close it follows the source.

Sometimes there's basically no way to translate a story directly to a movie without some modification to make it work better. Just being "true to the source" will not always guarantee success no matter how cool the source is.

Sales don't validate, or condemn a rating for it. My often used example is Britney Spears since her first two albums sold over 32 million copies. I don't care if Transformers 2 sold over 400 million. It still was nowhere near a good film. The first one was decent. The first Pirates film was good, but anything I have seen from the following ones did nothing for me. People want entertainment. Critics want art. Sometimes those come together, ie new Planet of the Apes, LotR, etc... Sometimes they don't, ie Transformers, Iron Giant, Almost Famous, etc...