Conan the Barbarian (reboot)

JP Liz V1

Mickey Rourke has officially has offically signed on to the Conan The Barbarian remake.
The Wrestler star will portray Conan's father Corin in the action-adventure project
Directed by Marcus Nispel, the film will star Jason Momoa as the title character. Actor Leo Howard, 12, has been cast as the young Conan.
Production is set to begin on the film in Bulgaria this March.

:cool:

Kess73

plays











Hope he is planning to really bulk up for the role.



What is interesting is that the new film is meant to stick much more closely to the Robert E. Howard storylines than the Arnie films.

me-skywalker

This is NOT cool.. not not not Cool!!!

Im not usually such a big hater or lover of remakes but come on I think films need to be over 30years old before they even touch it!!

I definitly will not be going to see this or will ever see it on DVD, TV even PC

Pride Fighter

me-skywalker wrote: »

This is NOT cool.. not not not Cool!!!

Im not usually such a big hater or lover of remakes but come on I think films need to be over 30years old before they even touch it!!

I definitly will not be going to see this or will ever see it on DVD, TV even PC

It may be over 30 years old after its released. Conan was made in 1981. If this film is released next year that'll be 30 years.

fonecrusher1

Kess73 wrote: »

Hope he is planning to really bulk up for the role.

I hope so as well because yur man looks as much like a raging barbarian as twink does.
Good old arnie really was born to play those roles.:)

me-skywalker

Pride Fighter wrote: »

It may be over 30 years old after its released. Conan was made in 1981. If this film is released next year that'll be 30 years.

Quite the chronologer there my friend. But its from 1982... but thats jsut being pedantic.

Still at least wait until Arnie croaks it then they'll have a frenzy....... Woahhh... UNlesss they know something we dont about Mr. Schwarzenegger don don don...

It's not a remake, it's an adaptation of one of the most popular pulp stories of all time. Do the people accusing this of being a remake feel that any Sherlock Holmes film made after the Basil Rathborne films are remakes?

Kess73

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not a remake, it's an adaptation of one of the most popular pulp stories of all time. Do the people accusing this of being a remake feel that any Sherlock Holmes film made after the Basil Rathborne films are remakes?

. I already said that it was going to be sticking to the original books more than the Arnie films did.

Although the more recent news about the film may now go against that as it seems that they will be bringing in new main characters as the villans of the piece, with Bob Sapp signed on to play the main bad guy, Ukafa.

Worse still is the talk that Lionsgate are now looking at the possibility of making it in 3D.

PirateShampoo

This has straight to dvd writen all over it.

Ridley

PirateShampoo wrote: »

This has straight to dvd writen all over it.

I dunno... the fanbase is pretty big.

Duggy747

To be fair, this guy might be fine for the role. This film is supposed to be closer to the real Conan storyline which means he isn't a walking mountain of muscle but more of a slimmer and athletic character.

Kess73

Duggy747 wrote: »

To be fair, this guy might be fine for the role. This film is supposed to be closer to the real Conan storyline which means he isn't a walking mountain of muscle but more of a slimmer and athletic character.

Hard to tell. There was never a given size for Conan in the Robert E. Howard tales. But he was often called huge or a giant, and regarded the strongest man in his world, so it is fair to say Howard had a pretty powerful looking individual in mind. But Conan was also regarded as being quite agile in those tales which is what you are getting at.

Had a quick google for more info on the size of Conan and it seems that Howard compared Conan loosely to another of his characters, Cormac Fitzgeoffrey, who was about 6'2 and 210lbs, which would be a much slimmer build. But the same wiki page also uses Howard's own words about Conan that loosely describe him as being massive in build and this next bit is a quote taken from the Conan wikipage with how Conan was describe during his time as the King Of Aquilonia, which does suggest a pretty big dude in terms of build.


"... a tall man, mightily shouldered and deep of chest, with a massive corded neck and heavily muscled limbs. He was clad in silk and velvet, with the royal lions of Aquilonia worked in gold upon his rich jupon, and the crown of Aquilonia shone on his square-cut black mane; but the great sword at his side seemed more natural to him than the regal accoutrements. His brow was low and broad, his eyes a volcanic blue that smoldered as if with some inner fire. His dark, scarred, almost sinister face was that of a fighting-man, and his velvet garments could not conceal the hard, dangerous lines of his limbs"


I am still curious as to how this pans out though, as if it is done in a manner that stays within the Robert E. Howard take, then it could be a good film, but if, as it now seems, it starts to go down the route of 3D and creating new major characters, then it runs the risk of becoming as poor a Conan film as Conan The Destroyer was, just with CGI this time.

robby^5

Watch an episode of Stargate Atlantis (if you dare), he is a pretty big fellow. He may not be all muscle, but he'll definitely look the part and I've no doubt he'll be in top shape for Conan.

Kess73

robby^5 wrote: »

Watch an episode of Stargate Atlantis (if you dare), he is a pretty big fellow. He may not be all muscle, but he'll definitely look the part and I've no doubt he'll be in top shape for Conan.

If he is kept covered up like he mostly is in SGA, then he can be made to look big like he is on that show.

That could work in his favour as in a lot of the original Conan tales, Conan dressed in outfits that matched the relam that he was in.

The thing is would the audience accept a Conan who was in armour or similar most of the time? A lot of those going to see it would have the Arnie version of Conan in mind, and may not buy into the new look.

But as I said earlier it is an interesting project that may hit the bullseye if done right.

I am less worried about the casting in this film than I am with the casting for Thor.

Kess73

Kess73 wrote: »

. I already said that it was going to be sticking to the original books more than the Arnie films did.

Although the more recent news about the film may now go against that as it seems that they will be bringing in new main characters as the villans of the piece, with Bob Sapp signed on to play the main bad guy, Ukafa.

Worse still is the talk that Lionsgate are now looking at the possibility of making it in 3D.

It's not going to be sticking to the original novels but rather taking aspects of Howard's work as well as elements from some of the dozens of other works based on it.

I don't see the problem with Momoa, he has the build need to be imposing yet still believable as an athletic figure. A lot of the controversy surrounding his casting reminds me of the whole Danial Craig fiasco, how many sites shot up damning the casting of a blonde Bond only for them to end up praising the casting once the film was released.

3D isn't a bad thing, when used correctly it can really enhance a cinema going experience. Films such as My Bloody Valentine, Avatar, Coraline, have used it to the films advantage and it's inclusion only enhanced the experience.

Kess73

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not going to be sticking to the original novels but rather taking aspects of Howard's work as well as elements from some of the dozens of other works based on it.

I don't see the problem with Momoa, he has the build need to be imposing yet still believable as an athletic figure. A lot of the controversy surrounding his casting reminds me of the whole Danial Craig fiasco, how many sites shot up damning the casting of a blonde Bond only for them to end up praising the casting once the film was released.

3D isn't a bad thing, when used correctly it can really enhance a cinema going experience. Films such as My Bloody Valentine, Avatar, Coraline, have used it to the films advantage and it's inclusion only enhanced the experience.

As I already said, the casting in Conan does not put me off the film in the way that the casting for Thor has. Momoa needs to bulk up, but he has the height to carry it and still look agile.

3D is something I would disagree with you on though. I just don't think it would work well with the Conan mythology without being overly obvious or corny. I hated it in the new version of My Bloody Valentine, and Ice Age 3D.

It just strikes me as a technology that although far advanced on when it was pushed in the late 80's/early 90's, it is no less a marketing gimmick than it was then, and I think that the 3D angle often comes at the expense of the film quality.

Kess73

Kess73 wrote: »

As I already said, the casting in Conan does not put me off the film in the way that the casting for Thor has. Momoa needs to bulk up, but he has the height to carry it and still look agile.

3D is something I would disagree with you on though. I just don't think it would work well with the Conan mythology without being overly obvious or corny. I hated it in the new version of My Bloody Valentine, and Ice Age 3D.

It just strikes me as a technology that although far advanced on when it was pushed in the late 80's/early 90's, it is no less a marketing gimmick than it was then, and I think that the 3D angle often comes at the expense of the film quality.

I don't understand why casting can put someone off a film. How many times have we seen fanboys go mad over casting decisions only to begrudgingly admit later on that the film makers were correct in their decision. I would much rather a decent actor cast for his talents than a hack who looks the part.

THe use of 3D is a gimmick though in the case of Avatar it's an integral part of the film. My Bloody Valentine utilised the format in a very believable manner, rather than constantly in your face it was more subdued. The scene with the clipboard subtly flicking back and forth out of the screen was really well implemented and fun. The biggest shame is the fact that we won't see a part 2 which is a shame as the rather underwhelming Friday the 13th remake is now being turned into 3D.

JP Liz V1

Ron Perlman Replaces Mickey Rourke as Conan’s Dad

Ivan

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Ron Perlman Replaces Mickey Rourke as Conan’s Dad

Epic fail. If it wasn't doomed for direct to dvd, then Ron Perlman just put the finishing touches to make that the case...

gandalf

TBH I don't have a problem with the casting of Momoa as Conan, what will decide this for me is who is the main bad guy. What made Conan for me was not Arnie it was James Earl Jones as Thulsa Doom who was absolutely excellent and really made that film for me.

I believe Stephen Lang is pencilled in as the bad guy in this and while he has a presence I am not sure he will measure up to James Earl Jones from the original film.

Ivan

Ivan wrote: »

Epic fail. If it wasn't doomed for direct to dvd, then Ron Perlman just put the finishing touches to make that the case...

Perlman is a superb actor and after the success of Hellboy and Sons of Anarchy, Perlman is on the rise.

norrie rugger

Deleted User wrote: »

Perlman is a superb actor and after the success of Hellboy and Sons of Anarchy, Perlman is on the rise.

But Mamoa is bloody terrible TBH.
I know people will say that Arnie is not the "greatest" but he at least had that frame going for him

Watch Atlantis, Mamoa's Ronan is terrible

norrie rugger

norrie rugger wrote: »

But Mamoa is bloody terrible TBH.
I know people will say that Arnie is not the "greatest" but he at least had that frame going for him

Watch Atlantis, Mamoa's Ronan is terrible

I don't think he's that bad a choice. He can play the barbarian type and he does have a few months to bulk up. People are putting far too much emphasis on his psychical appearance. I'd rather they chose an actor who can work on looking the part rather than someone who just looks the part.

norrie rugger

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think he's that bad a choice. He can play the barbarian type and he does have a few months to bulk up. People are putting far too much emphasis on his psychical appearance. I'd rather they chose an actor who can work on looking the part rather than someone who just looks the part.

I do not mind that he can bulk up but he really is boring, on screen. He has no real presense, for a huge guy especially

JP Liz V1

Said Taghmaoui and Rachel Nichols are in also and Stephen Lang has now officially signed on as the movie’s main bad guy, an unpleasant fellow by the name of Khalar Singh.

Kess73

Ivan wrote: »

Epic fail. If it wasn't doomed for direct to dvd, then Ron Perlman just put the finishing touches to make that the case...

Must say that I go the other way on this casting change. I think Perlman will be much better as the father of Conan than Rourke would have been. Perlman is a good actor and has a good physical presence onscreen.

Karl Hungus

Honestly, Jason Momoa is one absolutely dreadful actor. All the charisma and prescence of a lump of wood. Not looking forward to this film at all, and he's the main reason.

Kess73

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand why casting can put someone off a film. How many times have we seen fanboys go mad over casting decisions only to begrudgingly admit later on that the film makers were correct in their decision. I would much rather a decent actor cast for his talents than a hack who looks the part.

Of course casting can put a person off of a film. If it is an actor that you do not regard as being much of an actor, then you will have serious doubts about his or her ability to make you believe in the character being played.

The look can be important sometimes, depending on whether they are playing an iconic character or a character that comes with certain physical characteristics taken for granted.

norrie rugger

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Honestly, Jason Momoa is one absolutely dreadful actor. All the charisma and prescence of a lump of wood. Not looking forward to this film at all, and he's the main reason.

watched a bit of Atlantis last night. I have absolutely no doubt that Momoa can physically pull off this part but damn, he has zero presence on screen. There is not a trace of emotion, in his voice, and no facial expressions at all.

Not having high hopes, for this project

paddyismaddy

straight to dvd no doubt :rolleyes:

me-skywalker

new Empire article on Conan some really interesting reveals about the whole Conan experience in the past and bust ups and disagreements and Oilver Stone doing an Oliver Stone. The trouble the screenwriters/scriptwriters who were thrown out and others turned away and the production companies turning away from the dark undertones to a more direct barbaric adventure.

What intrigued me most about the new film was this last quote here

"Howard was an extraordinarily visual writer: the stories are virtually screenplays already,
It's hard to understand how the movie guys can screw ut all up so badly."

I think this is the fundamental problem with rehashing any body of work from page to film, fans will appreciate it more if you even attempt to align the original piece of art with your own interpretation, but studios dont, they take the bits they like and throw it together maybe even written by someone that doesn't either a) like the original work or b) understand the original work.

Duggy747

Some sneak peak pics of the Conan movie: http://www.latinoreview.com/news/first-look-at-jason-momoa-as-conan-9941

These could be down, pretty quickly.

me-skywalker

me-skywalker wrote: »

new Empire article on Conan some really interesting reveals about the whole Conan experience in the past and bust ups and disagreements and Oilver Stone doing an Oliver Stone. The trouble the screenwriters/scriptwriters who were thrown out and others turned away and the production companies turning away from the dark undertones to a more direct barbaric adventure.

What intrigued me most about the new film was this last quote here

I think this is the fundamental problem with rehashing any body of work from page to film, fans will appreciate it more if you even attempt to align the original piece of art with your own interpretation, but studios dont, they take the bits they like and throw it together maybe even written by someone that doesn't either a) like the original work or b) understand the original work.

That quote from Empire is exactly the reason why I put absolutly no creedence in anythign they write. How can the film have been screwed up all ready when so far the script has recieved some very good feedback and is suppsoed to be quite loyal to the books. Though the biggest problem with the quote is that with the film not being finished shooting yet noone has come close to seeing the finished thing, so any critiicism of the film being screwed up is complete rubbish. And no matter how bad the film is, as long as Empire get sent a free mug they'll give it at least 3 stars and will add on a fourth if they get allowed on set.

Kess73

Deleted User wrote: »

That quote from Empire is exactly the reason why I put absolutly no creedence in anythign they write. How can the film have been screwed up all ready when so far the script has recieved some very good feedback and is suppsoed to be quite loyal to the books. Though the biggest problem with the quote is that with the film not being finished shooting yet noone has come close to seeing the finished thing, so any critiicism of the film being screwed up is complete rubbish. And no matter how bad the film is, as long as Empire get sent a free mug they'll give it at least 3 stars and will add on a fourth if they get allowed on set.

Empire is a magazine that I avoid, it really is the red top of film mags, and always gives the impression that the people writing in it pretty much make stuff up as they go along, and then retcon their original reviews if a film tanks badly/becomes a hit so that their reviews match how the film did.

the_syco

Duggy747 wrote: »

Some sneak peak pics of the Conan movie: http://www.latinoreview.com/news/first-look-at-jason-momoa-as-conan-9941

These could be down, pretty quickly.

He looks pretty weedy, compared to Conan.

politicsdude

If theres another thread on this apologies

I think its going to simply be a remake of the original rather than a new story altogether and they are getting that guy from stargate (I think) to play the lead my guess is it will be pants

Kess73

Saw stills from it a week or two ago, and I am quite surprised at how Jason Momoa looks in this.

I was very sceptical about this film, but he has lost the goatee, and has bulked up a bit. His frame looks more like the Conan from the original books now rather than the Arnie bodybuilder version.


It is not meant to be a remake of the original film though, rather a more faithful take on the source material for the character.

gandalf

Thread about this already running here

norrie rugger

Kess73 wrote: »

Saw stills from it a week or two ago, and I am quite surprised at how Jason Momoa looks in this.

I was very sceptical about this film, but he has lost the goatee, and has bulked up a bit. His frame looks more like the Conan from the original books now rather than the Arnie bodybuilder version.


It is not meant to be a remake of the original film though, rather a more faithful take on the source material for the character.

Never had any doubt about his physical attributes. The guy is huge but my worry is his ability to protray the character.
The guy is an engaging as a dead fish (going by Atlantis)

Skerries

yeah he was rubbish, definitely no T'ealc

Jako8

gandalf wrote: »

Thread about this already running here

That thread is this thread.

norrie rugger

Jako8 wrote: »

That thread is this thread.

I imagine that there were two threads which have been merged

JP Liz V1

http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=29353

The City Watch are battening down the hatches, and the vultures are circling the Tree of Woe: Marcus Nispel's revivified Conan has a release date. Expect him to crush his enemies on August 19 2011.
It's perhaps not surprising, given the $100m budget, that Lionsgate should want to give Conan maximum summer blockbuster exposure.............

norrie rugger

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=29353

also a reasonable amount of time for the 3D post-conversion (yes, we're afraid so) to be grafted on.

Awwww hell no

Richard Dower

New teaser trailer, reminds me of Spartacus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KViqoBHy0KI

MiloYossarian

The original conan film was beyond amazing. It was a spectacular achievement in story and form. It's incredible.
From the casting, to the events in the film, to the scenery, to the music, to the battles, to the quotetastic lines to the tone/feel/look/pacing. It's a fantastic film. I won't be going to see this new conan.

Some lightly muscled prettyboy does a conan make not.

And I used to watch him in Baywatch Hawaii, let's hope he learned to act in the intervening years.

Skerries

he hasn't, he was as about as interesting as a fart in a spacesuit in Stargate Atlantis

nyarlothothep

MiloYossarian wrote: »

The original conan film was beyond amazing. It was a spectacular achievement in story and form. It's incredible.
From the casting, to the events in the film, to the scenery, to the music, to the battles, to the quotetastic lines to the tone/feel/look/pacing. It's a fantastic film. I won't be going to see this new conan.

Some lightly muscled prettyboy does a conan make not.

And I used to watch him in Baywatch Hawaii, let's hope he learned to act in the intervening years.

I agree, basically how are they going to weave in the mythological and nietzschean philosophical subtexts with such skill as the original director? It wasn't just a stupid fantasy flick from 80s, it had a deep message about the struggle of life and trying to create a better world in the midst of power and evil motivations. Conan started off a weakling but survived to take on Thulsa Doom, upon killing him he attempts to fashion a better world by showing the Children of Doom that their religion is sham by burning down the temple, this after he has suffered the loss not only of his people but of Valeria. I mean the dark foreboding atmosphere which was also subtle and not rammed down the audiences throats like in a Christopher Nolan film was great. Usually in a big blockbuster film now you'll have the 2 minute philosophy of the film section which is usually really simplistic, its not part of the storyline, just tacked on. With the original Conan it was part of the whole film.

Skerries

by Crom you're right!

MisterAnarchy

That teaser trailer is simply appalling,its like something made by a film student.

Venom

If that preview is in any way official then the movie is in serious trouble :eek: