THE BOOKS VS. THE MOVIES
Have any of the people calling the 1982 version better actually read the source material? And if you did,did you do so prior to watching Arnie`s film.Just wondering what your point of reference is.
shareHave any of the people calling the 1982 version better actually read the source material? And if you did,did you do so prior to watching Arnie`s film.Just wondering what your point of reference is.
shareThe 82 movie is a better over all Movie, that being said of course this is alot closer to the novellas...
shareI prefer to examine each as a standalone exhibit, as it were.
So very rarely do books and moving pictures match up, mainly because they are very different mediums of storytelling. With that comes artistic licence and with that comes a lot of stretches...
As is, I greatly preferred 1982 over 2011 as I felt it was more engaging. Not once did I give so much as a toss about any character in 2011 after Ron Perlman had left the screen. I felt like I was watching a clip show on Stargate, but one made of all the dull moments like characters just walking down a corridor.
If 2011 is considered 'true to the book', then I'd not even bother reading the back!
The Spacehunter Forum:
http://spacehunter.phpbbhosts.co.uk/
Before the 82 film I never thought they could find an actor with the right kind of body to make a live action Conan (imagine Conan played by Ron Ely). That said based on the book version Jason Momoa is much more like the character I read.
shareI have read all of Howard's novels after watching the 1982 movie, love the Conan character, and I'm a fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Nevertheless, I think this 2011 movie is better as it truly depicts "Conan" as the original author intended him.
What we see in this movie is exactly what a Conan story is like: fast paced and full of action, gore and a little sorcery!
People criticizing so harshly probably looked for a story that is not the TRUE Conan.
Why bring down something you don't understand?
This movie made me want to read the books all over again!
I read books after seeing the 1982 film. Both of which made me disgusted with the 2011 adaption. While the film itself might have been faster paced that in no way made it more faithful to the books. Also the Zym sword fights reeked of Darth Maul, and no director should take that as his inspiration. There are a number of the stories where the hack-and-slash goes on hiatus for just as long as the 1982 film depicted. Comparing the two film's temple infiltrations, with the one from "The Hour of the Dragon," the 1982 version seemed far closer, with the major action happening at the end rather than continually. In regards to a detailed list, apart from fighting a wizard, killing a snake, and rescuing a girl, where are the great similarities? Not only did the 1982 film feature all these components, with much better results, it had actual moments from the stories: breaking into a tower to steal a jewel ("The Tower of the Elephant"), crucifixion and killing a vulture ("A Witch Shall be Born"), the resurrection and rescue by a tough love interest ("Queen of the Black Coast"), wizard's transformation into a snake ("People of the Black Circle"), and other less-comparable bits (a friendly wizard ["The Scarlet Citadel"], a future-seeing witch ["The Hour of the Dragon"] ). Others mentioned that the 1982 film also shows us more versions of Conan--as a thief, mercenary, king--whereas the 2011 version gives us merely a revenge plot--calling his humanitarian rescue of the slaves or his time on the boat as a passenger going to Zym's island comparable is pretty weak.
shareI like all three of them 1982 Conan the Barbarian, The Destroyer and the 2011 Conan the Barbarian. Of course it is hard to find good High Fantasy and sword and sorcery films. I can't wait for King Conan coming soon.
shareI loved the Arnold movie before reading the source material. Then I read REH's stories and I didn't love the movie anymore, but I still think it's better than the 2011 one. It's just a better movie, source material aside. If you factor the source material both versions are equally lacking. The 2011 movie still gave Conan a generic "hero wants to avenge his family" origin story; it followed only the more clichéd aspects of REH's works and completely missed the themes that set the original stories apart, flaws and all, from the rest of the fantasy genre.
shareHow is this at all close to the books? The 1982 version captured the spirit of Howard's yarns, and that's the most important thing (aside from the terrible, anticlimactic ending).
As for my point of reference: I started with the ace books copy of Queen of the Black Coast in around 1979, when i was about six. I still own the complete set of Ace books, though i prefer the Wandering Star versions published a few years ago.
This movie was terrible. A different director would have made a difference, but i don't know what anyone could have done with that screenplay. Jason was the only good part.
Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?
~Groucho Marx
Also: The Witch he runs into that gives him the prophecy for a price is lifted directly from a story about another Howardian hero: Bran Mac Morn, "Worms of the Earth."
Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?
~Groucho Marx