Why is that? I would really like to like this movie. The story just don't interest me. I felt totally bored watching this.
Can someone with knowledge about movie making explain to me why this is?
Because the movie was a perfect storm of everything that could go wrong.
- Retard exec producer that demands the story must be a new take on the føkking John Milius Conan-in-name-only movie rather than a proper reboot based only on the original Conan stories.
- Retarded basic story greenlit by an earlier director who left the production soon after
- Multiple other producers that all give conflicting notes, because they all have different movies in mind
- Multiple screenwriters who try to make the conflicting notes into one script
- Inept director who can make pretty pictures, but not tell a story with said pictures
- Lots of footage left on the cutting room floor.
Tesla was robbed!
Thanks. I'm curious, what basic story do you think would work better?
I'm trying to understand this. It really bugs me why attempts to make Sword fighting/fantasy movies almost always ends up with horrible results. Which is sad, because I love this genre. There are very few successful ones. Some of my favorites are Highlander and Ladyhawke.
For Conan, there are really three ways that you can go:
1. Adapt one Conan story, expand it to fill a two hour movie.
Here one just have to decide which period of Conan's life to focus on (young barbarian, adult mercenary, older king) and then decide which story the director/producers feel they can make the most out of.
2. Combine several Conan stories, risky but might work.
3. Write a brand new Conan story that fits in between and doesn't contradict Conan canon.
Between these three approaches, there are endless possibilities for a GREAT Conan movie, everything from Conan the inexperienced barbarian discovering the joys and perils of cilisation for the first time, to being a pirate, to being a mercenary, to going on various quests, to fighting ancient evils, to taking back his kingdom after being dethroned in a Coup d'Etat. Possibilities are endless.
However, there are some storyelements that are 100 % incompatible with a decent Conan movie, and thus must absolutely NOT be used, hinted at or referenced in any way what so over:
- Conan's family/tribe being overtaken or killed
- Conan being a slave
- Conan for whatever reason not growing up free, wild and untamed with his clan in Cimmeria.
The inclusion of any of the above will instantly reduce a Conan movie to Generic-sword-and-sorcery-but-not-Conan. Kind of like all three Conan movies made thus far. They'd all be better off changing the title, because none of them are Conan movies.
Tesla was robbed!
[deleted]
No, Conan has NEVER been a slave in canon.
He has been a prisoner, many times over, for limited periods of time.
Pretty damn big difference between that and being a slave.
Tesla was robbed!
Are the comics considered cannon?
"You are tearing me apart, Lisa!"" The Room..a cinematic masterpiece.
The comics are canon only within the continuity of the particurlar run of the comic, but they are all spinoffs mind you. And even in them, Conan wasn't a slave.
The only actual Conan canon however, is the original stories by REH.
Tesla was robbed!
[deleted]
Allow me to repeat my post of yesterday:
No, Conan has NEVER been a slave in canon.
He has been a prisoner, many times over, for limited periods of time.
Pretty damn big difference between that and being a slave.
[deleted]
That would still only make him a prisoner, one who is forced to work - which is worlds apart from being a slave.
Tesla was robbed!
[deleted]
Conan of the Milius movie was a bonafide slave, yes.
But nothing in that movie was inspired by Conan canon, nor does it in any way represent the actual Conan stories
Keep in mind that the character portrayed by Arnold in the Milius movie has nothing to do with Conan, nor did the movie as a whole.
If Milius had a shred of decency in him, he would have called that movie "Kalidor the freed slave", because the character portrayed by Arnold was neither Conan nor a barbarian. On the contrary, the Conan as portrayed by Arnold is the polar opposite character of the canon Conan.
The chief discrepancy is just that; the canon Conan is a barbarian.
The Arnold/Milius Conan-in-name-only is a freed slave.
The two are mutually exclusive.
Tesla was robbed!
[deleted]
Definition of slave:
1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence.
That's the difference.
A slave is broken to the point that he/she recognizes him/her self as the property of a Master, and will carry their Master's bidding without resistance.
Master says jump, the slave jumps.
A prisoner on the other hand is held captive against his will; he recognizes no master. He can't just be told to work, he must be forced. If the opportunity presented itself, he'll escape in a heartbeat.
The literary canon Conan, as well as the various comicbook adaptations, is a barbarian. An unbroken and uncivilised noble savage. Yes, he has been a prisoner for short periods of time, but he has never been broken, and never recognized any master. Each brief stint as a prisoner ends with Conan escaping and killing his captor. As well he should.
The Arnold Conan-in-name-only on the other hand, is a freed slave.
He seazed to be a barbarian, quite literally, the moment he submitted and recognized his captor as his Master. He was domesticated to the point that he never rebelled, and he never attacked his master. He didn't even get with the program when he was given his freedom, he literally had to be chased away by his Master. This, above all, is what precludes the Milius movie from being worth a damn as a Conan movie, despite its standalone merits.
Tesla was robbed!
[deleted]
There where characters in this Movie? :-o
-- Powerslide --