52 replies to this topic

[simon skelton]

Hmm... How many times did someone lift something and yell incomprehensively like Shatner screaming 'Khan'?

-and get this, the first thing they lifted was baby Conan!

I get the feeling I'm gonna enjoy this a lot more on tv, its a bad movie with good bits in it.

Momoa does a good savage Conan and I like Rachel Nichols in anything, you could paint her green and I'd still like her.
The bad guys scooby gang of punks for Conan to slay was nicely rendered.
Liked the magic sand ninjas.
I liked some of the imagery, the hero shots, the skull cave and the cities.


The epic journey wasn't epic because there was no journey, I mean Conan gets on a horse then he's at the skull cave next frame, he gets on a boat and hes at the fabled city and so on...
Oh... and the requisite unnecessary really bad exposition voiceover at the start that characterises all failed fantasy films that aren't Lord of the Rings... its in there.
Zim spends the whole film and twenty years trying to get this magic mask to work so he can take over... then, after he gets the mask to work, it doesn't do anything, and Conan kills him... heh

[steveuk]

An interesting "Autopsy" from Deadline;

Lionsgate execs today are despondent as they try to figure out what went wrong for Conan The Barbarian to only earn a dismal $10.5M from 3,015 theaters. “It’s one of those weekends that gives me a stomach ache,” one Lionsgate exec told me Friday night. “It’s a headscratcher, but it won’t kill us.”

<SNIP>

This R-rated 3D reboot of the 1930s Robert E. Howard original source material, portraying the character as the Cimmerian warrior, was supposed to have a devoted fanbase. And tracking showed strong interest from African-American and Hispanic male moveiegoers. There seemed to be a ton of interest when Deadline’s Mike Fleming broke first news of the remake. That is, until Conan was cast. Even Lionsgate admits that the film absolutely hinged on finding the right Conan, and fanboys reacted horribly to then virtual unknown Jason Momoa even though he has since become a break-out star from his role on HBO’s Game of Thrones. Problem: “There’s so much history with this character and this brand they needed someone who could both really ‘own’ Conan (making him feel relatable for this generation), but also who offered continuity with what fans already know and love. Because there’s no competing with Arnold, Jason’s performance bypasses all of the comparisons, playing the character in a very different way than Arnold did and instead taking inspiration from the written source,” a Lionsgate exec emailed me. I happen to think the studios should have bet on a wrestling The Rock-style star with a ready-made fanbase.

The concensus among Avi Lerner and Joe Drake, who had successfully released The Expendables together, is that Conan The Barbarian didn’t have the “brand equity” they hoped it would. The pair had convinced themselves that the brand was ripe for a reboot and that the fans were ready for it, so they rescued the film from the major development purgatory it had been caught in for so long. The backstory is that Paradox Entertainment bought the rights in 2002 when the brand was hitting rock-bottom, with a bevy of licensed products in the marketplace but also quality and consistency issues at every turn. The duo’s first move was to take everything off the market. Then they connected with select partners to introduce the rehabilitated Conan via just three laser-focused licensed products that appealed to a core demo of young adult males (comics, toys, and a computer game). Marketing generated considerable awareness, with a significant Comic-Con presence (which included: talent appearances, bar invasion promotions, interactive fan experiences at the booth). They targeted Hispanic outreach with Momoa traveling to Miami. They also released an online redband clip to reassure young males fearing this reboot would be sanitized. But it was all for naught. In the end, the execution was just poor, poor, poor. Rotten Tomatoes showed only 26% positive reviews. The director was remake specialist Marcus Nispel (Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the 13th) and the credited screenwriters were Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer, Sean Hood, and Andrew Lobel.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/08/autopsy-report-lgs-conan-the-barbarian/

Was the casting really an issue? I wouldn't have though this was a film that needed a "name", it's concept driven?

I think that in a summer of spectacle, you have to give people something else as well to encourage them to choose your film over the other eye candy out there, and 'Conan' only had it's R-rating and it's genre. There didn't seem to be any substance, not even a really basic one, to the film?

Give me a reason to care about Conan himself.

[jamon g]

An interesting "Autopsy" from Deadline;


http://www.deadline....-the-barbarian/

Was the casting really an issue? I wouldn't have though this was a film that needed a "name", it's concept driven?

I think that in a summer of spectacle, you have to give people something else as well to encourage them to choose your film over the other eye candy out there, and 'Conan' only had it's R-rating and it's genre. There didn't seem to be any substance, not even a really basic one, to the film?

Give me a reason to care about Conan himself.

the original had arnie and james earl jones, but more importantly the influence of oliver stone in the script writing. it was essentially a silent film and gave audiences something not seen before. the following films were generic romps that had none of the skill of the original, and this film basically took it's influence from those lame attempts at fantasy rather than the classic original.

[garjones]

It's made $16.6 million in 10 days in America. It's a pretty massive flop.

The bad news is the international take of $5.5 is making those numnbers look good.

I think Steve has a good point on making people want to see a Conan film, I think the star name may be a red herring. I looked at the trailer and thought it doesn't look bad but nothing's grabbing me so passed, not sure what the plot was meant to be other than a big bloke with a sword. I think there's been a massive reaction along the same lines, a big collective disinterest rather then recoiling in disgust.

[Robert B]

The bad news is the international take of $5.5 is making those numnbers look good.

I didn't include the international tally as it hasn't opened in some major markets yet. The US numbers were more plain: $16 million on 3000 screens in 10 days. And it was in 3D!

(That comes with the disclaimer that there was a massive hurricane on the eastern seaboard for its second weekend, but I don't know that it mattered).

EDIT: This may sound crass, but I would have been more interested in if there had been rampant nudity. Not that I'm some kind of perv...well I am, but I have internet access...but Conan without nudity seems like it would be a watered down piece of crap. As opposed to the non-watered-down piece of crap that I was hoping for.

Edited by Robert B, 29 August 2011 - 12:58 PM.

[steveuk]

the original had arnie and james earl jones, but more importantly the influence of oliver stone in the script writing. it was essentially a silent film and gave audiences something not seen before. the following films were generic romps that had none of the skill of the original, and this film basically took it's influence from those lame attempts at fantasy rather than the classic original.

Arnie wasn't Arnie at that point, 'Conan' was one of the films that made him, and James Earl Jones has always been "that great actor it's cool to see in something with other people". He doesn't sell that many tickets himself.

Oliver Stone is more important, he's a very good writer when the mood takes him, but again, he wasn't anybody back then. He didn't sell any tickets either.

This film definitely did look pretty generic though. There was nothing special in the trailers.

I didn't include the international tally as it hasn't opened in some major markets yet. The US numbers were more plain: $16 million on 3000 screens in 10 days. And it was in 3D!

(That comes with the disclaimer that there was a massive hurricane on the eastern seaboard for its second weekend, but I don't know that it mattered).

EDIT: This may sound crass, but I would have been more interested in if there had been rampant nudity. Not that I'm some kind of perv...well I am, but I have internet access...but Conan without nudity seems like it would be a watered down piece of crap. As opposed to the non-watered-down piece of crap that I was hoping for.

I was under the impression that it wasn't watered down? Hence the R rating?

The whole "piece of crap" aspect would seem to be a seperate issue?

[Mark Peyton]

The brand's fine. Momoa's fine. It's the director and what they did to the script that's the problem. Oh and 90 million. 30 million tops if you wanted to make good money on it.

[Robert B]

I was under the impression that it wasn't watered down? Hence the R rating?

I'm pretty suspicious of movies that lay on the graphic violence and hint at oodles of sex but then pussyfoot (pun intended?) around it.

[Johnny Henning]

Arnie wasn't Arnie at that point, 'Conan' was one of the films that made him, and James Earl Jones has always been "that great actor it's cool to see in something with other people". He doesn't sell that many tickets himself.

Oliver Stone is more important, he's a very good writer when the mood takes him, but again, he wasn't anybody back then. He didn't sell any tickets either.

This film definitely did look pretty generic though. There was nothing special in the trailers.

Yeah, I think the executives scratching their heads must not have seen the movie. Looking for answers, they should start there.

When CONAN came out, actors really didn't sell action movies the way they would just a few years later after RAMBO and THE TERMINATOR. They were important, but you went for the genre thrills more than anything. Everyone likes to cite Oliver Stone's screenplay, but the real storyteller on the original film was John Milius. CONAN fits much more easily into Milius' filmography than Stone's. Also, the story was actually pretty damn good. I mean, crucifying your hero halfway through the movie - that was something I hadn't really seen before.

[David Chapman]

The bad news is the international take of $5.5 is making those numnbers look good.

I was quite astonished when Conan 3D opened with one screening per day in my local cinemas. That's second or even third week territory for a movie which has been pushed this hard.

[AlexRead]

If you want a good epic, not conan but the plot made me think of it is Mongol, obviously about genghis khan, it was supposed to be a trilogy but im not sure if he's going through with it anymore, either way awesome movie!!!

[Patrick A]

I wonder how much all the 3D bs cost them.

[steveuk]

I wonder how much all the 3D bs cost them.

Post-production costs or box office income?

It's pretty clear that 3D certainly wasn't an asset for the film's performance.

If you want a good epic, not conan but the plot made me think of it is Mongol, obviously about genghis khan, it was supposed to be a trilogy but im not sure if he's going through with it anymore, either way awesome movie!!!

This one?



I liked it but it doesn't stand alone very well. It'll need the other two parts to really work, I think?

[Todd Gross]

An interesting "Autopsy" from Deadline;


http://www.deadline.com/2011/08/autopsy-report-lgs-conan-the-barbarian/

Was the casting really an issue? I wouldn't have though this was a film that needed a "name", it's concept driven?

I think that in a summer of spectacle, you have to give people something else as well to encourage them to choose your film over the other eye candy out there, and 'Conan' only had it's R-rating and it's genre. There didn't seem to be any substance, not even a really basic one, to the film?

Give me a reason to care about Conan himself.

The actor playing Conan just did not look like Conan to me. He looked more male model than brutal warrior to me. He turned me off from wanting to see it.

[Johnny Henning]

True - if he hadn't been in GAME OF THRONES, I would have felt the same way.

In all, though, the trailers presented a very crap production - like with SOLOMON KANE, actually. Very mediocre and unimaginative. Most of us imagine Frank Frazetta's covers when thinking of Conan, but I wonder if that was how REH actually envisioned the character and his world.

[steveuk]

The actor playing Conan just did not look like Conan to me. He looked more male model than brutal warrior to me. He turned me off from wanting to see it.

How's this?



It's a prosthetic;



There's more at the link, but there's a bit of boob in there so I haven't posted the pic here; http://www.chud.com/...OULD-HAVE-BEEN/

I think something like this could work in a '300' or even a 'Sin City' version, but I get why they cast Momoa and didn't mess up his face.

[John Strachey]

Conan.



Not Conan.



End of.

[steveuk]

Apart from one being a sketch I don't see the argument.

Without seeing the film I can't be sure, but I don't think Momoa is going to be my problem with the movie.

[Mark Peyton]

Particularly not after Game of Thrones.

[Blank Ed Boy]

As I said up thread, Momoa is good. It's the script and direction that make this movie suck.

Seems a shame people are trying to hang the blame on the casting, or that audiences didn't want a new Conan/fantasy movie, both of which are total rubbish. Making out that people didn't go to see the movie because they didn't cast The Rock is disingenuous, people just didn't want to go and watch a shit Conan movie.

And, honestly, I am staggered this movie cost $90 million, as pretty much none of that cash shows up on the screen. Some of the effects at the end are so cheap and nasty looking that they are almost laughable. District 9 and Monsters prove you can make a little budget go a long way if you have a decent vision for the movie, Nispel achieves the opposite by actually making a movie that looks cheaper than it actually was.