Conan the Barbarian remake

[Dudebro]

Oh it's true and it's shaping up to be awful. First problem, the star.
Jason Momoa - IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0597388/)
The guy who played Ronon in Stargate Atlantis. Granted he is a big dude but he's still puny compared to Arnold or any stereotypical portrayal of a Barbarian. That and he's a terrible actor.

Next problem, it's designed for 3D. Do I really have to say anymore about why this is gonna be bad? If anyone is confused just think of how it worked out for the remake of Clash of Titans.

And lastly, the trailer is annoyingly lacking detail or even a good shot of any scene.
IMDb Video: Conan the Barbarian: Teaser Trailer (http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3903233305/)

I won't be seeing this even as a rental but I figured some of you might be interested.

[alohaex]

Jason Momoa is from Oahu the first time I saw him was Baywatch Hawaii then he was on North Shore just a bit of triva on him I know about

[Dudebro]

I've also heard that he's arrogant about his career(which is funny because he doesn't have much of one). Doing that thing where he's like, do you know who I am?
So far his biggest role was a cliche warrior with a name that's supposed to subtly play on the masterless samurai thing, a ronin, but the subtly is so ham fisted that it's insulting. Sorry to spit venom at the guy but I think he sucks and he helped kill the only serious show he was on.

[joz]

Yeah I saw the trailer a few days ago. Not impressed.

[Kong]

I agree, trailer sucks and he doesn't look like Conan.

The original Arnold Conan's were pretty good.

[warghoul]

Did anyone else read the Robert E. Howard Conan books? Those were superb.

[RU Joe]

I haven't read the original books but I'm a big fan of the Marvel comics {Savage Sword, Saga} and those stories kick butt!
The artwork still stands alone to this day.
Those truly were the days of high adventure!

But movies, movies, hmmm.
I'm not a big fan of Arnold, never was, but I admit the first movie is almost likable due to its uniqueness.
The second movie, Conan the Destroyer, seemed like the 'Muppet' version of Conan in some ways {the thief provided too much comic relief, and the rubber monster suits were silly} but the storyline surrounding the Sleeping God, Dagos, was pretty cool.
And the ending of the movie was the Star Wars award ceremony, only with Conan - that's my take.

I'll still watch them and enjoy them from time to time.
Let's see if the new one is any better.

[StarfoxFan2009]

I'll stick to the original movie thanks

[Dudebro]

It's gonna be hard to top this guy-
http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/conan-lift.jpg
Wilt Chamberlain, Arnie, Andre the Giant.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_D1ZZyTOG7tQ/S2Mp9Xye3JI/AAAAAAAAGdk/j8fcpSZito0/s1600/Arnold%2BSchwarzenegger%2BGrace%2BJones%2BConan%2B the%2BDestroyer.jpg

[joz]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_D1ZZyTOG7tQ/S2Mp9Xye3JI/AAAAAAAAGdk/j8fcpSZito0/s1600/Arnold%2BSchwarzenegger%2BGrace%2BJones%2BConan%2B the%2BDestroyer.jpg

She was great in Boomerang.

[warghoul]

It's gonna be hard to top this guy


yeah you cant top andre:p

[Demon-Mask]

This movie looks like it will be really terrible. I don't like 3D, and "Conan the Barbarian" was a movie that cannot really be remade and still be good. It would be like "Dirty Harry" without Clint Eastwood.

[Dudebro]

I don't agree with the idea of remaking a movie that is widely considered to be good and a classic. If a movie sucks then yeah, redo it.

[Demon-Mask]

Exactly, if they ever remade "Dirty Harry" I'd be mad to no end. Not a single other person can be Inspector Harold "Dirty Harry" Callahan.

I get remaking something that wasn't good or no one ever watched.

[jim5cents]

Sounds like a Cash Grab.

Forget saving money for your retirement, this should be everyone's life goal.

YouTube - Conan, what is best in life?

---------- Post added 03-25-2011 at 02:18 PM ---------- Previous post was 03-19-2011 at 12:10 AM ----------

Apparently...Schwarzeneggar is pumped. He got so excited that he decided to go out to the club...

YouTube - Arnold Rave

[StarfoxFan2009]

This will do no better than the True Grit remake that the Coens did.

[Dudebro]

Hey that remake was actually good. I think the problem is True Grit is kinda of a boring story anyways. Remaking a movie with such a following is automatically comparing it and die hard fans are known to be unfair to remakes.

That being said it did awesome with most fans. RottenTomatoes gives it high marks and the users did too.

[StarfoxFan2009]

well seeing as i'm a John Wayne fan, I find it appalling that they even bothered with it

[Dudebro]

I think John Wayne is overrated because he was given lots of good roles. Other actors were far better but people liked Wayne for whatever reason.

Also, who looks more like a drunk, no account cowboy?
http://www.accesshollywood.com/content/images/129/originals/129756_trailer-true-grit.jpg

http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/john-wayne-true-grit-image.jpg
John Wayne looks like an old man dressing up for a gay rodeo or something.

[jim5cents]

The Coen Bros account was much more similar to the book, including the ending, outcomes of several characters and so on.

The John Wayne version was definately, made for Hollywood hero movie. Much lighter in content, eased up on the harshness of the ending.

I still think Bridges' Cogburn > Wayne's Cogburn...Wayne's Oscar for it was basically a token award. End of a career, little token of appriciatation, especially considering who else was in the field that year.

@SFF, did you see the new version, or are you just hating because you are a Wayne fan?

[StarfoxFan2009]

i saw the remake,i didn't like it at all

[Dudebro]

But why didn't you like it? My wife likes the John Wayne version as well as the new one, you don't have to choose one over the other.

[Demon-Mask]

Hey that remake was actually good. I think the problem is True Grit is kinda of a boring story anyways. Remaking a movie with such a following is automatically comparing it and die hard fans are known to be unfair to remakes.

True Grit wasn't really a remake of True Grit.
Best way to explain it, the first True Grit was based on the novel True Grit, but it took a lot of liberties, and didn't take itself quite as seriously. This version of True Grit was not based on the older movie at all, it was based on the book, from what I hear it is much closer to the book and is more serious throughout.

So, True Grit != True Grit in terms of being a remake.
It's hard to explain.

It's like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory vs. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was based on the book Charlie and the Chocolate factory, but many liberties where taken, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was based on the book and stayed much closer to the book.
That said, I am extremely biased to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, I watched it hundreds of times when I was younger, and I prefer Gene Wilder over Johnny Depp.

[Dudebro]

They're not the same exact movie but they're both adaptations of the same story. To me that means they can be compared fairly.

I agree about Willy Wonka, Gene Wilder just did it so much better. The newer movie didn't feel right to me for some reason.

[joz]

I thought Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was a sequel to Willy Wonka.

[Demon-Mask]

They're not the same exact movie but they're both adaptations of the same story. To me that means they can be compared fairly.

I agree that they can be compared fairly, but the differences should not be looked at as poor treatment of the source material, as the differences are actually due to the fact that the source material is not the old movie, but rather the novel, and in that respect the differences are due to better treatment of the source material. Hell, even look at which eye Cogburn wears his eye patch, in the novel he wore it on the right, the old movie he wore it on the left, the new movie he wears it on the right.
Not only that, Cogburn was supposed to be scruffy and dirty, yet John Wayne looks very clean shaven and clean, while Bridges looks scruffy and dirty. You see, the thing is, the old movie may be a classic, but in terms of how well it handled the source material, the new one wins.

I agree about Willy Wonka, Gene Wilder just did it so much better. The newer movie didn't feel right to me for some reason.
There are several reasons the new one didn't feel right to me. First, was the changes in things like the kid who watched television all the time to making him play video games constantly. That really bugged me for some reason. Second, the fact that Willy Wonka was given flashbacks and explained rather well and made a character you feel sympathetic towards by the end, whereas in the book he was left enigmatic, as well as the first movie, he seemed sort of like a jerk and it was never elaborated upon and you never really felt he was totally justified in the book and first movie. Third, there was a magical feel to the first one, the tunnel with the bits of movies, that weird soap bubble vehicle, the Fizzy Lifting Drink, all of these things had a certain quality to them that I cannot explain. The Oompa Loompas were explained, whereas they should have remained enigmatic much like Willy Wonka should have.

Also, I just prefer Gene Wilder as an actor, he played eccentric characters in such a way no one else can ever match. Think of it, who else could have been a Rabbi journeying to San Fransisco in the company of a no-nonsense cowboy? Who else could play the grandson on Dr. Frankenstein, trying desperately to clear his family's name and teaching his monster to tap dance? And who else could be the Waco Kid, a once famous gunfighter turned into the town drunk after getting shot in the butt buy a little kid?

[Dudebro]

You don't have to convince me of Gene Wilder being better than Johnny Depp. I'm not a big enough fan or True Grit or Willy Wonka to really get into it though.

[Demon-Mask]

I know, I'm just bored out of my mind, so I tend to get really into things.
I haven't seen the new True Grit, and I haven't read the novel or seen the old movie within the past five years.

I didn't even mention Gene Wilder's character from Stir Crazy in the explanation of his mastery of playing eccentric characters.

Johnny Depp is good at playing eccentric characters, but I think Gene Wilder does it better when it is for comedic effect, whereas Johnny Depp does better when it is for something serious.

[Dudebro]

To me the problem with Depp is he's so over exposed and people just assume he's gonna do awesome at anything and everything.

[Demon-Mask]

Yeah, I can see that. He does have his good roles, like the guy in Secret Window, but he has his bad roles too. It isn't him that makes the roles good, it is whoever wrote and directed the movie that created the role, and all he did was follow directions.

Besides, I find the fact that, if he didn't have a beard, he'd look just as young as he did on "21 Jump Street" a bit creepy.

Every actor has his bad movies, even John Wayne wasn't awesome every singe time.

[Dudebro]

I've never been much of a John Wayne fan either. Clint Eastwood is where it's at. He even beat up Chuck Norris despite the being an old dude-
NSFW
YouTube - Clint Eastwood vs Chuck Norris

[joz]

Clint is awesome. That video was not.

[Dudebro]

Oh come on I just found it and thought it was pretty creative.

[joz]

Ok, so some person used their creativity to create crap.

[Dudebro]

I think you're being a tad hash but I agree it's not a quality video. To make up for it I'll post the video I was originally was gonna post before that other one distracted me. Like all the good scenes from Gran Torino this is NSFW-
YouTube - Gran Torino - Beating _HD
He's 80 and still pulls that off. John Wayne ain't got nothing on Clint.

[RU Joe]

So this is about Hero comparison now?

[Dudebro]

Sure why not. This movie will be about as appealing as hot garbage so might as well make the most of the topic.

[jim5cents]

Well, if there is a hero comparison, this dude takes the prize...

YouTube - Johnny 5 - I Need A Hero

[Demon-Mask]

He's 80 and still pulls that off. John Wayne ain't got nothing on Clint.
I agree with you there, no one can ever be more badass than Clint Eastwood.

[DrunkN]

I agree with you there, no one can ever be more badass than Clint Eastwood.
http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news/10736/_1225485239.jpg

[RU Joe]

On topic:

This is the real Conan, so far as I'm concerned:

http://images.wikia.com/marveldatabase/images/6/6f/Conan_Saga_Vol_1_46.jpg