Schwarzenegger as "Conan"

[StarFuryG7]

Over at Blastr:

Forget that reboot—Ahnold is BACK as Conan the Barbarian

The classic, Robert E. Howard-inspired Conan the Barbarian flick essentially gave Arnold Schwarzenegger his start back in the early 1980s—and 30 years later, Ahnold is finally coming back.

MORE: blastr.com/2012/10/forget-that-rebootschwarz.php

[CRAMBAM]

I've never actually sat down and watched the Conan movies with Arnold. I think I may have to.

[captainbasil]

As preposterous as this may sound to some, it's actually a good idea that has been in the works for years. Like most men of my dotage I grew up with the original 12 ACE paperbacks of Conan The Barbarian featuring all the Howard stories and later pastiches written by L. Sprague DeCamp and Lin Carter. The later books cover Conan's later years and in Conan of the Isles, he questions being King and growing old. If done right this could work and I want to see it. I loved the original Conan movie, hated the PG rated sequel and was luke warm on the Moma flick that came out recently. Go for it, Arnold ! I'm in.

[StarFuryG7]

Oct 26, 2012 6:28:28 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

I've never actually sat down and watched the Conan movies with Arnold. I think I may have to.

Shame on you.

[StarFuryG7]

Oct 26, 2012 6:57:10 GMT -5 captainbasil said:

As preposterous as this may sound to some, it's actually a good idea that has been in the works for years. Like most men of my dotage I grew up with the original 12 ACE paperbacks of Conan The Barbarian featuring all the Howard stories and later pastiches written by L. Sprague DeCamp and Lin Carter. The later books cover Conan's later years and in Conan of the Isles, he questions being King and growing old. If done right this could work and I want to see it. I loved the original Conan movie, hated the PG rated sequel and was luke warm on the Moma flick that came out recently. Go for it, Arnold ! I'm in.

I don't understand why there's such resentment toward the sequel film, "Conan the Destroyer"; while not a great movie, it was an okay run-of-the-mill average B-film which had Arnold stepping into the role once again. It was the only follow-up film to the original, and I enjoyed both for what they each had to offer. There's no question that the first movie was vastly superior in terms of production values, writing, and so forth, pretty much on every level. However, had we not gotten the sequel that would have been one less Conan story with Schwarzenegger playing the role, and even though it's not as good, it held true to the spirit of the novels (yes, I would take issue with people who disagree about that).

As for the books, I love the original works written by Robert E. Howard, who created the character and the world he inhabits. The later novels by L. Sprague DeCamp were okay, though not as good, and I found the ones that he finished from incomplete Howard manuscripts rather uneven, given that the shift in writing styles between the two authors was so apparent. Later authors also failed to live up to the quality Howard was able to churn out when he wrote those books, which has always been something of a lingering disappointment to me through the years.

With respect to this new movie, my hope is that it will deal with Conan and his reign as King. In fact, I commented about this on the article Page (which has shifted back to Page 3 in the Comments section over on Blastr). However, there's no mention of that in the piece, so it's hard to know if the film will actually deal with that part of the character's saga or not at this point. As I commented there though, I would hope so given that Schwarzenegger isn't getting any younger and he won't be able to do this kind of thing for much longer.

And I haven't seen the Jason Momoa flick as yet, being that it had been so widely panned by the critics upon its release last year. I just haven't been in any rush to see the character tarnished in a sub-par movie, even though our absent old friend Bob (Capt April) stated he liked it after having seen it.

[captainbasil]

The Moma film isn't terrible. It has some good points. It's an okay rental. I saw Conan The Destroyer at the theater and I remember being very disappointed. In retrospect, I did enjoy Grace Jones and I think what bothered me most was the PG rating. It's Conan. You need blood and boobs. ;D

[Mel]

I love Conan. I love Ahnold. I'll watch it!

It's been five days since that article. The movie isn't on Ahnold's profile at imdb.com. He has many other things in the works! Maybe this one will be listed soon.

[StarFuryG7]

Over at Blastr:

Conan producer reveals what's next for Schwarzenegger's return

When word broke that Arnold Schwarzenegger would return as Conan the Barbarian, the series that made him a star in the '80s, fans were admittedly curious to see how the 65-year-old star would make it all work. Now we know.

MORE: blastr.com/2012/12/conan-producer-reveals-wh.php

[Mel]

Cram, I love the Larry Hagman photos above. Thanks.

I was going to write this under the topic about him, but it shows Lincoln, not these pictures.

[captainbasil]

I love the older Conan stories so I am actually looking forward to this. If done right it will work. Only time will tell.

Nice Hagman pics, Cram !

[CRAMBAM]

Hagman was tribute worthy.

I haven't seen any Conan movies. I guess I should look into them.

[StarFuryG7]

Dec 4, 2012 11:21:52 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Hagman was tribute worthy.

I'm not too keen on that last picture of him at the bottom. It looks like he's about to say something but the photo got taken just as he was about to open his mouth to speak.

More likely though, it's probably a still-frame from an episode of "I Dream of Jeanie".

Dec 4, 2012 11:21:52 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

I haven't seen any Conan movies. I guess I should look into them.

Shame on you.

[CRAMBAM]

I wanted to get a Jeanie picture of just him. That was the best one I could find at that size. You find a better one that small, I have no problem changing it.

As for Conan, the first one is not on netflix, but the second one is. The remake of the first one without Arnold is there, but instinct says that if you have a choice between Arnold or NOT Arnold, ALWAYS choose Arnold.

[StarFuryG7]

Dec 5, 2012 7:18:35 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

As for Conan, the first one is not on netflix, but the second one is. The remake of the first one without Arnold is there, but instinct says that if you have a choice between Arnold or NOT Arnold, ALWAYS choose Arnold.

www.amazon.com/Conan-Barbarian-Blu-ray-Arnold-Schwarzenegger/dp/B00509KXYO/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1354726302&sr=1-2&keywords=Conan+the+Barbarian

The Blu-ray is only $8.49 over at Amazon, even though the shipping fee sucks. But that's a great selling price for that movie, and you'll probably want it in your collection after you see it anyway.

[CRAMBAM]

I bet I could find it at a local store for a similar price, minus the shipping. I'll get to it. Netflix does fill in a lot of time. Still working furiously on Hercules and Xena.

Alias is going to be on the agenda too since I never saw it.

[StarFuryG7]

Over at Blastr:

Schwarzenegger promises Conan sequel will be insane 'spectacle'

We're cautiously optimistic about Arnold Schwarzenegger bringing Conan the Barbarian back to life all these years later, but now the aging action star wants to calm our fears with a promise—this sequel will not be a "B-movie" cash-in. Want a point of reference? How about 300.

MORE: blastr.com/2013/01/schwarzenegger-promises-c.php

[CRAMBAM]

Funny you mention this now. I'm actually working my way through the first Conan during my lunch. Two more installments and it will be finished.

Clearly, not a great movie in terms of dialogue, but not terrible by any stretch. So far, I enjoyed Arnold punching a camel.

[StarFuryG7]

Jan 8, 2013 19:14:55 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Funny you mention this now. I'm actually working my way through the first Conan during my lunch. Two more installments and it will be finished.

Clearly, not a great movie in terms of dialogue, but not terrible by any stretch. So far, I enjoyed Arnold punching a camel.

In order to fully appreciate the first Conan movie I think it should be viewed in one sitting, but that's just me. I think one would probably have an almost entirely different impression of the movie watching it the way you're watching it, which isn't to say it's a tremendously great film, but it certainly has an epic feel to it, especially in its first half, that I suspect would be lost watching it in pieces the way you're doing it.

That said, what did you get it on --Blu-ray or DVD, and how much did it set you back? I'm just a little curious, if you don't mind my asking.

I think that was a great vehicle to help make Arnold a movie star. It gave him the exposure he needed at that time, even though it received mostly mixed reviews back in 1982, and did fairly well, although not great at the box office. But then it hit the home video market, so he got exposure there too. It wasn't long after that that VCR's began selling widely across the nation. Movies were ridiculously expensive at first, but then rentals became all the rage.

And I hate that I can think back on all that as though it were just yesterday.

[captainbasil]

And I hate that I can think back on all that as though it were just yesterday.


Don't feel bad, I saw Conan at the theater ! ;D

[CRAMBAM]

It IS kind of amazing that movies were like $90 back when VHS came out.

Conan is under $10.

[StarFuryG7]

Jan 9, 2013 9:53:27 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

It IS kind of amazing that movies were like $90 back when VHS came out.

That was when the prices began to go down actually. Initially they were $100 and up.

[CRAMBAM]

Who would BUY a movie at those prices?

[StarFuryG7]

Jan 9, 2013 19:10:11 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Who would BUY a movie at those prices?

Exactly --and that's precisely why rentals became so popular, with stores opening up renting out VHS tapes all across the country.

[StarFuryG7]

Jan 9, 2013 7:49:51 GMT -5 captainbasil said:

Don't feel bad, I saw Conan at the theater ! ;D

So did I ...well, not quite. I actually saw it at a drive-in theater that no longer exists ...the last one to finally fold in this region of the country. I just can't recall for certain whether I saw it with my then-first girlfriend, or my then best friend, although I seem to recall both of them, which could well mean that I saw it twice, once with each of them there separately. I'm pretty sure that was the case back then as I think back on it.

[StarFuryG7]

I ordered "Conan the Barbarian" on Blu-ray last night even though I have an unopened copy of the movie on DVD. The sale price made it attractive, although as previously mentioned here, the shipping cost that gets tacked on sucks. However, I ordered it after reading a few Customer Reviews; apparently the Blu-ray transfer is very good, as opposed to the version released on DVD that i already have, so those two things being the case, I decided to 'upgrade' my library collection.

[captainbasil]

Jan 9, 2013 19:10:11 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Who would BUY a movie at those prices?

It's funny that you should mention this. Back then VHS tapes were priced for rental stores. I don't think the studios gave them much of a discount. Home Video was merely a concept. I remember answering the phone one night after work and the dude on the line wanted me to take a survey about video rentals. I hate surveys but for some reason I took the bait. They wanted to know how much I would be willing to pay to buy a video to have in my home. I picked a price of around 20 dollars. Within 6 months of taking this survey, video costs plummeted. Before this, Home Video cost a fortune. I remember that my wife bought me a copy of my favorite movie The Maltese Falcon, and paid close to 40 bucks for it. A while after I took this survey, it was 20 bucks.
I'm amused that the price of 20 to 30 bucks has continued to this day.

[StarFuryG7]

Jan 10, 2013 19:20:44 GMT -5 captainbasil said:

It's funny that you should mention this. Back then VHS tapes were priced for rental stores. I don't think the studios gave them much of a discount. Home Video was merely a concept. I remember answering the phone one night after work and the dude on the line wanted me to take a survey about video rentals. I hate surveys but for some reason I took the bait. They wanted to know how much I would be willing to pay to buy a video to have in my home. I picked a price of around 20 dollars. Within 6 months of taking this survey, video costs plummeted. Before this, Home Video cost a fortune. I remember that my wife bought me a copy of my favorite movie The Maltese Falcon, and paid close to 40 bucks for it. A while after I took this survey, it was 20 bucks.
I'm amused that the price of 20 to 30 bucks has continued to this day.

Generally movies cost between fifteen and twenty bucks, although new releases are higher and tend to stay that way for a while. But what they were surveying at the time is what would ne attractive to the average household and consumer obviously. I also don't think movies were priced for rental stores originally, but rather that rental stores became such an emerging business because the cost of movies in the early days of home video and VHS were simply too high for the average consumer to want to bother with. Why buy a copy of "The Wrath of Khan" for a hundred, or a hundred and twenty-five bucks (which I rather distinctly recall seeing back then) when it only cost you a small fraction of that--under ten bucks--to see it on a big screen in a theater? So they did some consumer research after a while obviously, and you were one of the people they surveyed because they were trying to determine how to make the sale of movies on cassettes profitable for them as well as attractive to consumers, and your answer fit with the majority of answers they received --but even then, twenty bucks or above was still a bit high. Between fifteen and twenty dollars ended up being more of the average I believe.

[CRAMBAM]

The thing is, that's all a movie would ever be worth. I know costs go up, but if a movie was $40, it's just not worth owning. It's interesting how theater prices have gone up so much, but actual DVD/blu rays have not.

Blu Rays have basically come down to DVD levels, and DVDs are now cheaper than they once were.

With VHS tapes, there was even less reason to buy because if you had HBO or a similar channel, you could just record the movie.

In other news, I finished Conan. Not a bad movie, not a great one. It was amusing how back then, they probably viewed Arnold's accent as a terrible handicap, and for that reason, didn't let him talk.

Fun trivia was that he only actually spoke 5 words to his girlfriend in the whole movie.

[StarFuryG7]

Jan 11, 2013 9:14:51 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

In other news, I finished Conan. Not a bad movie, not a great one. It was amusing how back then, they probably viewed Arnold's accent as a terrible handicap, and for that reason, didn't let him talk.

I think the movie was a great vehicle for him because his character was also supposed to be stoic by nature given the oppressed background that he came from, but he's more vocal in the second film.

Speaking of which, I ordered "Conan the Destroyer” on Blu-ray last night even though I already own a copy of it on DVD. But the remastered quality of "Conan the Barbarian" was so excellent that I want to the sequel on Blu-ray now as well. The only thing that really bothered me about it, having watched the movie on Blu-ray for the first time this past weekend, was how noticeable the makeup was on the actors who played Conan's father and Conan the boy in the opening scene of the movie.

Another piece of trivia for you. I listened to just the first couple of minutes of Arnold and John Milius of the Commentary Track on the movie, which I'll have to go back to at some point, and Milius revealed that he wanted to use Arnold as the film's Narrator also, but that the studio didn't like the idea because of his accent, so that was how Mako ended up being the Narrator of the film instead. This may be a fact that I had also long since forgot, or not, as frankly I don't recall. It's been thirty-plus years since I first saw it at this point after all.

So Marc, did you plan on getting the sequel as well? Don't let the criticisms of it sway you too much. As I've said here previously, I enjoyed it as well for what it had to offer. It was Arnold back in the role, playing the character even more confidently than he had in the first movie, and despite its flaws, it's an enjoyable romp as well. And they do take a more humorous approach in the sequel, which I don't think really hurt it that much, if at all. Given the characters, it worked out well enough, especially given the idiot that was his sidekick in the movie.

I also ordered the other movie which starred Jason Momoa in the role, who interestingly enough, looks more like the character in some of the art work inspired by the Robert E. Howard novels.

[CRAMBAM]

The sequel is on netflix, so when I watch it, I'll watch it there.