MovieChat Forums > Conan the Barbarian (2011) Discussion > Do the reviewers live in a parallel univ...

Do the reviewers live in a parallel universe?

posted 11 years ago by azuregrimoire535
1 reply | jump to latest

In this universe did Robert E. Howard write another Conan? Because I've read most of the reviews by people claiming they read the books and those guys don't have a single clue what they are talking about.

It's fine they didn't like the movie but to say this wasn't a good adaptations to the books? Those guys either didn't read the books or didn't watch the movie because this movie makes such a large effort to stay true to the books that it just can't be unnoticed if you read them.

Everything from the little tidbits that we are given in the book about what Conan looks like (Howard never gives a full description) but from a few clues that we do have, Momoa's character and physical characteristics are spot on. How Conan fights, what he says, you know that comment "I live I love, I slay and I am content." that most people tend to dislike, that's straight out of the book! Don't tell me how big of a fan you are of the books and then proceed to tell me a line of dialogue straight out of there doesn't fit Conan.

Arnold was an awful Conan, nothing like the books, I wasn't even a big fan of the movie but it was entertaining. Which movie is better is strictly opinion and I have no issue with someone saying Arnold's movie was better but don't proceed to tell me that you read the books and Arnold was a better Conan, because he doesn't fit Conan's character in the slightest. Not looks, dialogue or how he acts in the movie, what I see is an attempt.

I am not going to list all the things that Conan does in this movie that are true to the books because simply it is large ALL of them and would take forever to write in an already lost post. To me, a person that has been a fan of Conan since 12 (first time I read it as well many more times later on), I watched one of my favorite childhood heroes come to life in this movie.

[–] rcdf 10 years ago

Where is anyone getting the idea that the 2011 adaption is in any way more faithful to Howard's stories? 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.
From looking at the DVD's special features it seemed like the producers were more in love with the comic books and other NON-Howard material than the 1930's stories.

Apologies to all who see this text in other posts.