None of the stink of this film should be placed at his feet.
What's it like to flop?
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Problems with Conan:
Nobody knows who Jason Momoa is, and his grumbly Conan voice sounded retarded. To quote my friend: "Why is this guy trying to sound like Batman? Did he go to school with Christian Bale?"
Also, Rose McGowan sucks.
Also, I just don't think anybody gives a shit about Conan the Barbarian anymore.
Nobody knows who Jason Momoa is, and his grumbly Conan voice sounded retarded. To quote my friend: "Why is this guy trying to sound like Batman? Did he go to school with Christian Bale?"
Also, Rose McGowan sucks.
Also, I just don't think anybody gives a shit about Conan the Barbarian anymore.
First of all, the film was directed by someone whose credits should have given everyone a clue that that wasn't going to be a good film. John Milius this guy ain't.
Except when the movie does well on VHS/DVD or becomes a cult hit. Clue was famous. Made just under its budget at the box office, became quite popular on VHS and on television. An excellent movie, BTW. There's also Shawshank Redemption, Big Lebowski.
I've asked myself many times how many good movies we have lost due to leagues of screenwriters on a single project who basically rewrite the whole movie from scratch only to finish and the next writer does the same until there's nothing left of a formerly good script.
Or when a studio meddles too much wanting to include marketable items at all cost and ofteh at cost of the movie itself.
I haven't seen Conan yet but i liked the visuals.. Momoa is a better actor than Schwarzenegger ever could be and he looks awesome in Conan gear but that alone can't make a movie. Schwarzenegger's Conan was a cult milestone watched to this day but because of the big austrian but because of all the elements which fell together in the right way to produce a classic movie.
I'm really a bit sad if the new Conan turns out to be a dud.. i don't need huge SFX or anything like that but i'd like to see our generations´ Conan and would like it to be good movie.
Or when a studio meddles too much wanting to include marketable items at all cost and ofteh at cost of the movie itself.
I haven't seen Conan yet but i liked the visuals.. Momoa is a better actor than Schwarzenegger ever could be and he looks awesome in Conan gear but that alone can't make a movie. Schwarzenegger's Conan was a cult milestone watched to this day but because of the big austrian but because of all the elements which fell together in the right way to produce a classic movie.
I'm really a bit sad if the new Conan turns out to be a dud.. i don't need huge SFX or anything like that but i'd like to see our generations´ Conan and would like it to be good movie.
Well, I'll also take a percentage.On the other hand, if anybody wants to offer me $500k for the movie rights to Marzman Needs Women, my PM box is open.
Only 500K? That sounds like a 5 million script! What a bargain!
This is true. There are a bunch of movies that flopped in theaters that became classics decades later.
We're being flooded with blockbuster movies over the summer, and if they don't make huge amounts of money in a few days, they're declared flops.
I think the trend is backfiring a little, as a lot of these movies are described as bringing 'disappointing' results.
There are so many remakes, reboots and sequels now--it's not novel anymore.
And the movie makers always seem to get them wrong-- remakes are always off in some way, or really, really formula and mindless.
Ironically, a movie called "Popeye" was as close to the cartoon as it could get, though it was not as popular.
In the comic book version of Conan, he was vulgar, violent, greedy and funny. With a touch of decency (for a barbarian).
If they followed the comic book version of Conan, I think the fans would have seen a far different looking Conan movie.
Instead of following the blockbuster formula, they could have released it at another time instead of late summer, where it was bound to get lost in the competition.
Last edited:
Yeah, I think that sums it up and reflects what this article said.
That was quite an interesting read. If I had no interest in watching Conan, I'd probably watch it just to help him out.
It's got to be a mind-boggling business. So many things have to come together and I'm sure some of them aren't really quantifiable. Quality is subjective, of course, but I'm sure 'worse' movies have made far more money. Where did this one go wrong?
I didn't even know Rose McGowan and Rachel Nichols were in it until just the other day. Were they even in the promos?
I didn't even know Rose McGowan and Rachel Nichols were in it until just the other day. Were they even in the promos?
^^^
Rachel Nichols has been in some of the previews.
Rachel Nichols has been in some of the previews.
I don't know what needs to be bet on. People such as the set designers and the SFX folks (whom I was referring to) are generally part of a larger company who work on multiple projects at at time. They are paid for their work (their work was part of the budget) and move on to the next contract the company has.
If they do a good job, then other filmmakers will notice that and possibly hire them for their own projects regardless how popular or successful the previous film did.
Take a look at ILM, for example. They have had a number of successes and flops in which they've worked on. Their work has always been pretty good regardless of the overall product, and they continue to be used.
He's that guy from Game of Thrones, right?
He's in the books?
Technically the book is called A Game of Thrones. If you drop the "A" it's unambiguously the HBO series.
And he plays Khal Drogo, the horse lord.
Touche.
I have to say the article referenced was pretty good, but I still have no interest in the new Conan or any of the old Conans.
Similar threads
