PDA

View Full Version : Let me tell you of the days of high adventure...



Chris Nahr
10-07-2002, 12:12 PM
Just to prove my supernatural willpower and stamina (and to exhaust my beer supply, and because I know that I can sell this stuff on eBay), I decided to give the three sequels to Conan the Barbarian a try: Conan the Destroyer (I had already seen this one but I thought "hey, maybe it wasn't really that bad?" Yes, it was.), Red Sonja, and last as well as least Kull the Conqueror.

Mighty Crom. What avalanche of crap was rolling off my poor tortured DVD player. The second Conan was the best of the bunch, at least it had Grace Jones in the role of her life, and Schwarzenegger & Mako & composer Basil Poledouris returned from the first movie. (Was Gerry Lopez unavailable? The stand-in thief was a typical comic-relief sidekick. Bah.) Still they managed to ruin the film with pathetic special effects and desperate attempts to be funny.

CtD did have excellent sword-fighting, like the first Conan movie and also like Red Sonja. This is unfortunately the only good thing that can be said about this... thing. Brigitte Nielsen is not just a poor actress, she doesn't even seem to be aware that she's supposed to be acting. Most of the time she has a blank look on her face. Sometimes she changes to a really stupid look. That's the extent of her facial expressions. Sandahl Bergman who returned from the first Conan as the evil queen actually out-acted everyone else in this movie -- and she isn't even a professional actress. Schwarzenegger's role is an obvious emergency measure to make sure the film sells a few tickets; he doesn't do much and he has to constantly explain why he's even there.

Kull doesn't even have good fighting scenes. Kevin Sorbo was great as the comical TV Hercules. Unfortunately he can't play anything else. He's not a barbarian, he's a clown with big biceps. The whole movie makes about as much sense as Italian "sandal flicks" of the 60s. The rubber devil at the end is simply pathetic. The film switches between attempts at serious drama and silly slapstick as if it didn't know what it wants to be.

What does this teach us? It teaches us that I'm bored and have way too much time on my hands. No wait, that's not what I wanted to say. It teaches us that the more bodybuilders a fantasy film has, the better! Conan the Barbarian had all of Arnold's buddies and it was the best. Conan the Destroyer had just a few and was already a good deal worse. The others only had a single bodybuilder and they sucked! There, undeniable proof!

It also teaches us that most people are apparently completely incapable of making an even semi-decent fantasy film. The two Conans, Red Sonja, and Kull shared the same producer (Raffaela di Laurentiis) -- but only one director (John Milius) took his subject matter seriously and made a film that didn't devolve into a series of primitive slapsticks and cheap effects. Which also gives us a whole new appreciation of Lord of the Rings, although it regrettably didn't feature any bodybuilders.

Anonymous
10-07-2002, 12:23 PM
The first two had good music by Basil Paledouris (spelling probably incorrect).

Chris Nahr
10-07-2002, 12:44 PM
The first two had good music by Basil Paledouris (spelling probably incorrect).

Yes, Poledouris (I think...) made some great music. The first Conan was almost a silent movie, few lines of text, a narrator in the background, and otherwise just the fantastic music. But he copied much of the stuff from the first Conan for the second one. He did invent a nice new theme, though.

Jason Becker
10-07-2002, 03:45 PM
The first Conan was a good low budget action flick. The second was the standard dumb 80's sequal along the lines Rambo 2 and 3. More money in the budget but essentially just flushed down the toilet.

voltaic
10-07-2002, 04:15 PM
When I saw the title of this thread in the forum message list, a bass-line quickly entered my head, and I found myself humming "duh-duh-dum-duh-dum!" in rhythm with the theme song of the movie, hearing Majo's voice offering to tell the tale and everything. <sigh>

Desslock
10-07-2002, 06:30 PM
>one director (John Milius) took his subject matter seriously and made a film that didn't devolve into a series of primitive slapsticks and cheap effects. Which also gives us a whole new appreciation of Lord of the Rings

Exactamundo. The non-Conan movies you mentioned weren't really sequels, although they were all based on Robert E. Howard characters, any more than Minority Report is a sequel to Blade Runner. The original Conan (which was -not- low budget), was good because it was made by a director who took the subject matter relatively seriously and had some creative vision.

Milius is apparently working on a true sequel, Conan the King, with Arnold. The commentary track for Conan (with Milius and Arnold) is excelent, by the way.

Bub, Andrew
10-07-2002, 08:58 PM
I have high hopes for Conan the King. Arnold is the right age and has grown quite a bit as an actor, Conn (Conan's son) was always an interesting character, and the comics were good. (The stuff drawn by Buscema.) If Milius plays it right, it should bear a slight resemblance to Lear. Slight. Just... slight.

Toddy
10-08-2002, 12:36 AM
I loved the comics, too. Too bad Marvel wouldn't get things straightened out with Essential Conan. Be nice to have a collected, cheapo reading copy of the first 24 issues.

Chris Nahr
10-08-2002, 12:51 AM
Exactamundo. The non-Conan movies you mentioned weren't really sequels, although they were all based on Robert E. Howard characters, any more than Minority Report is a sequel to Blade Runner.

Well, they all did share the same producer. Conan the Destroyer and Red Sonja even shared the same director (Richard Fleischer) and of course Schwarzenegger. They are not sequels in the strict sense, though.


The original Conan (which was -not- low budget), was good because it was made by a director who took the subject matter relatively seriously and had some creative vision.

I don't know how big the budget of the original Conan was but I agree that it can't have been low -- they built some huge sets there, had lots of detailed costumes and decoration, could afford James Earl Jones and Max von Sydow (two excellent actors whose quality is sorely missing in the other movies!), and hordes of extras for the mass scenes.


Milius is apparently working on a true sequel, Conan the King, with Arnold. The commentary track for Conan (with Milius and Arnold) is excelent, by the way.

Wow, I didn't know Milius would return to direct the upcoming sequel! That's great news. And at this point in his career, Schwarzenegger shouldn't have any trouble getting an adequate budget and competent co-actors as in the first Conan.

graller
10-08-2002, 07:11 AM
God my taste in women has changed from when I was a kid. I thought the lead chick in CtD was the uber babe of bases when I was a teen and saw this movie for the first time. Now I look back and wonder what the hell I was thinking.

Chris Nahr
10-08-2002, 07:32 AM
You mean the princess? Well, she was only fifteen when they made the movie... probably just about your age back then! :)

Jason Becker
10-09-2002, 12:34 AM
>

Exactamundo. The non-Conan movies you mentioned weren't really sequels, although they were all based on Robert E. Howard characters, any more than Minority Report is a sequel to Blade Runner. The original Conan (which was -not- low budget), .


Conan's budget was $17 million. Taking into account inflation(till 2001) that is $32 million in today's dollars. Hardly big budget. Maybe in 1982 that was allot to spend on a action flick with a guy like Arnold but thats hardly a massive amount of money.

Desslock
10-09-2002, 08:31 AM
>

The original Conan (which was -not- low budget), .


Conan's budget was $17 million. Taking into account inflation(till 2001) that is $32 million in today's dollars. Hardly big budget. Maybe in 1982 that was allot to spend on a action flick with a guy like Arnold but thats hardly a massive amount of money.

Actually, it was. To put things in perspective, the budget for Star Wars five years before was $11 million (almost $12). Budgets of higher than $30 million were considered "insane" at the time.

Gordon Cameron
10-09-2002, 03:36 PM
Ugh, inflation always mucks everything up and makes it hard to compare prices/budgets... I don't know how big-budget a film Star Wars was for its time. I guess it was up there, but Fox was taking a big chance with it. IIRC, some of the most bloated-budgeted movies from that era were Friedkin's "Sorceror" (a remake of "The Wages of Fear" that bombed), "Apocalypse Now," and of course the notorious "Heaven's Gate." I don't know what the numbers were though.

Even in the late '80s, a budget over $40 million (dunno what that would come out to today after inflation) was considered very high. "Baron Munchausen" (1989) was budgeted around $40-$50 million and was called one of the most expensive movies ever made at the time. Then of course we had Terminator 2 (1991) approaching $100 million, and Titanic (1997) hitting $200 million.

I wonder if the prevalence of CGI has had any effect on *lowering* the budgets of big sci-fi/spectacle movies lately. I believe Lucas has been able to produce each of his new Star Wars movies for a relatively "modest" amount -- somewhere around $70 million anyway, which is less than some other mega-blockbusters.

But then, if you adjusted for modern dollars, I bet the budgets of old epics like "The Ten Commandments" (either the '20s or '50s versions) or "Ben Hur" would be extremely high. Movie stars' salaries might not have been as inflated, and there weren't as many effects, but I think there were more extras and often more elaborate set design etc. (For "The Agony and the Ecstasy," they built a complete replica of the Sistine Chapel.)

Kevin Perry
10-10-2002, 09:50 AM
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/