By Crom!!
- Thread starter KaosDevice
- Start date
trancejeremy
Adventurer
More faithful to the original stories. That's a good thing (I would say it would be hard to be less faithful, but I have seen the TV show, so it can be done. )
Rodrigo Istalindir
Explorer
I never felt like the original was too out of tune with the source material.
It will be hard, I think, for them to keep the serious tone though. Everything nowawadys is so smug and nudge-nudge-wink-wink see how hip we are. It'll end up being, well, like Arnolds later movies, where it's all about the one liners, or they'll go over the top with wire-work action sequences. More Scorpion King than Conan (not that Scorpion King didn't have some enterntainment value).
Plus, they'll make it PG-13, so no real blood n guts, and no topless Sandahl Bergman wannabe, either.
It will be hard, I think, for them to keep the serious tone though. Everything nowawadys is so smug and nudge-nudge-wink-wink see how hip we are. It'll end up being, well, like Arnolds later movies, where it's all about the one liners, or they'll go over the top with wire-work action sequences. More Scorpion King than Conan (not that Scorpion King didn't have some enterntainment value).
Plus, they'll make it PG-13, so no real blood n guts, and no topless Sandahl Bergman wannabe, either.
Ranger REG
Explorer
Like how the 2000 version of Dracula (starring Gary Oldman as Vlad) sullied the original version (starring Bela Lugosi)?Darthjaye said:
Darthjaye
First Post
Ranger REG said:Like how the 2000 version of Dracula (starring Gary Oldman as Vlad) sullied the original version (starring Bela Lugosi)?
Very much so. The new version was just plain bad. Uh, but to correct you, the 2000 version was not Oldman. That version came out 8 years earlier in 1992.
(Dracula 2000 with Gerard Butler is the one your thinking of and yes it was quite bad too.)
Last edited:
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Yes, yes it was bad. I enjoyed the Howard stories, and hated the movie. We all did not enjoy it, no, not at all.Darthjaye said:
(If you enjoyed it then fine, but I dislike blanket inclusions that just are not true... and I really did not like the Conan movie.)The Auld Grump, scarily enough part of my dislike for the movie is because of the same reason I realized the Wendy's Chili Finger was a fraud...
KaosDevice
Explorer
I wasn't a big fan of Ah-nold's work either to be honest. Something that had our Howard black haired, higly intelligent outlander would suit me just fine. People seem to forget the Conan the theif phase...Conan knew there were people and things out there that could take him, he fought pretty smart really. Then of course general and king, dude also had a great military mind, after being a merc for a few decades. People think of Arnold and pec's flexin' and Conan as meat, he was a pretty crafty pulp hero imo. Well and yeah he could kick arse, but he had the chance of getting killed, there were times he was outmatched and hit the bricks.
Last edited:
Ranger REG
Explorer
No, not everyone.KaosDevice said:
