as always, j-
it reeks of them.
they hated the first one because it was so great, and wanted to turn it into crap while still squeezing money from it.
the director had done 1960s adventure films, so he made a 1960s adventure film with rubber monsters and the exact same goofy comedic side kicks as were in the 1960s adventure films.
i don't think there's a single redeeming scene in it apart from the pretty girls, which could have been in any crappy fantasy or sci-fi fantasy film of the 70s or 80s.
even red sonya was a more solid film, and that felt made for 7-8 year olds.
>red sonya was a more solid film, and that felt made for 7-8 year olds.
yes. and i think they tried really hard to make fantasy appeal to women. you get tell by the super elaborate sets and costumes. they tried to undo the conan by adding in a bunch more fight scenes, some were ok but the whole movie was just unadulterated camp.
>red sonya was a more solid film, and that felt made for 7-8 year olds.
yes. and i think they tried really hard to make fantasy appeal to women. you get tell by the super elaborate sets and costumes. they tried to undo the conan by adding in a bunch more fight scenes, some were ok but the whole movie was just unadulterated camp.
not really.
it's made for children, and feels like a generic fantasy film but with less soul. it has an annoying little child in it, a fat smirking moron, and i dunno - i think another crappy evil queen.
arnie is in it, but he doesn't do much and isn't called conan.
beastmaster is more enjoyable
not really.
it's made for children, and feels like a generic fantasy film but with less soul. it has an annoying little child in it, a fat smirking moron, and i dunno - i think another crappy evil queen.
arnie is in it, but he doesn't do much and isn't called conan.
beastmaster is more enjoyable
It starts with half naked chicks thrown into a hole and left to die, it was the most cruel shit I've ever seen clearly not for kids
Barbarians were seen as savage, stupid, and impolite; that's why the civilized nations of the classical era enslaved them.
They were just seen as beasts of burden that can coincidentally walk on walk on two legs.
Only when legalistic doctrines of Romanization and Christianity awakened the uncouth savages did they began growing and prospering as a community.
Barbarians were usually victims of the world if they're not actively destroying it, something none of us wants to regress to.
If unnatural is in the sense that it came from the realisation that settling and monogamy led to a higher quality of life and survival chances, then yes he was.
Robert E. Howard got into more fistfights and knifefights and baled more hay and shoveled more shit than you ever will. He suffered from black periods of depression and it killed him.
He probably lost those fights and I have been in more than one myself. I also have laboured quite a bit and work in a garden so I have shovelled shit. He was a coddled boy who couldn't grasp the fundaments of life itself, that it goes on, it must go on.
Not sure, really. Back in the pre-industrial past I'm not even sure he was right as barbarism started to reliably get pushed back since 1000 or so with no chance of resurrecting. But we might be poised to have barbarism return if there is a collapse. It's big picture thinking but it's also a bit like any doomer prophesying where 'eventually' you're right, but predicting something and it taking 700 years or 1000 years or 7000 years to happen isn't so much prophecy as just vague prediction. If I say Rome will fall in 320 BC and then it falls in 475 AD that's not really a prophetic prediction made right, that's just inevitable. His thinking was also just the vogue thinking of that time with good times bad times good men weak men.
I still like the theory because it isn't sentimental. His self-insert in beyond the black river dies because even REH recognizes that someone half-barbaric will not be able to keep up with actual barbarism (Conan and the picts). And there's no self-aggrandizing bullshit like solomon kane's 'vgh the mighty anglo-saxon aryan' in his essay on the Hyborian Age - the Hyborian tribes were once great and then became civilized and decadent and fall, the victorious barbarians of the collapse are both white Vanir/Aesir and non-white Hyrkanian and Pict. It's not "My race is great because it's my race" it's "barbarism and decay doesn't give a shit what you are. It will beat you or decay you all the same"
Milius? Rightwinger and never hid it. Surf nazi, that means many from his circle were actual nazi ideologues/neonazis since, you know, white people with beach properties in California (i.e. the world revolves around us), but for the wider circle it was subtle or they didn't want to admit their friends were racist buttholes with no redeeming social values. You can tell he hated hippies (because his rich, cool-kids-at-the-centre surfer friends hated them) if you also watch Big Wednesday.
It’s just way more goofy
It’s closer to the written stories, but the original movie did so well because the director threw all his Nietzchean depression into it
it was 8. something a few years ago.
they really should have locked off scoring
it's an actual masterpiece - one of the few near-perfect films i've seen out of thousands.
it was 8. something a few years ago.
they really should have locked off scoring
it's an actual masterpiece - one of the few near-perfect films i've seen out of thousands.
The original fricking sucks though?
It's called Conan the Barbarian, not Conan the Generic Action Fantasy Movie.
It has all the tropes of the era, absolutely nothing distinguishes it. Beastmaster is a more memorable fantasy movie of that time, comparatively.
The frick are you talking about? That's the movie that made me fascinated with fantasy. And I didn't even watch it completely the first time! I still remember watching the scene of the wizard transforming to the eagle and going over to the camp and stealing the princess. The punch to the lama.
If you treat it as a joke it isn't that bad. Lots of impressive matte painting shots. If you listen to he commentary the director straight up says he made the movie a 180 joke cause he didn't want to copy what milius did cause only milius should get to do that since it was so good.
It gave us this, so it rules
%3D%3D
it wasnt
God damn that princess was so hot and the outfits they put her in.
So Arnie and Wilt Chamberlain were banging the frick out of her and Grace Jones, right?
as always, j-
it reeks of them.
they hated the first one because it was so great, and wanted to turn it into crap while still squeezing money from it.
the director had done 1960s adventure films, so he made a 1960s adventure film with rubber monsters and the exact same goofy comedic side kicks as were in the 1960s adventure films.
i don't think there's a single redeeming scene in it apart from the pretty girls, which could have been in any crappy fantasy or sci-fi fantasy film of the 70s or 80s.
even red sonya was a more solid film, and that felt made for 7-8 year olds.
idk the opening shot was quite nice.
>red sonya was a more solid film, and that felt made for 7-8 year olds.
yes. and i think they tried really hard to make fantasy appeal to women. you get tell by the super elaborate sets and costumes. they tried to undo the conan by adding in a bunch more fight scenes, some were ok but the whole movie was just unadulterated camp.
we just have to accept that another film like conan will never come.
it might as well have been a relic from 1944 germany.
Red Sonja is that worth watching?
yes it's a fun movie, but i wouldn't blame you if you checked your phone or did the laundry during.
not really.
it's made for children, and feels like a generic fantasy film but with less soul. it has an annoying little child in it, a fat smirking moron, and i dunno - i think another crappy evil queen.
arnie is in it, but he doesn't do much and isn't called conan.
beastmaster is more enjoyable
Yes
It starts with half naked chicks thrown into a hole and left to die, it was the most cruel shit I've ever seen clearly not for kids
milius
dogshit
you missed the point
it gaves us that:
They kicked John Milius aside beacuse of his political views and made an almost-parody of the first.
Was he right?
probably.
i'd rather the world had entered barbarism in 1900 and sent the third worlders to oblivion
moron. 'Barbarism' is when the 3rd-worlders rule.
>t. A cowardly wizard living in his tower
no.
barbarism is when europeans rule and crush all the orcs
Barbarians were seen as savage, stupid, and impolite; that's why the civilized nations of the classical era enslaved them.
They were just seen as beasts of burden that can coincidentally walk on walk on two legs.
Only when legalistic doctrines of Romanization and Christianity awakened the uncouth savages did they began growing and prospering as a community.
Barbarians were usually victims of the world if they're not actively destroying it, something none of us wants to regress to.
He was so right he ate a bullet
If unnatural is in the sense that it came from the realisation that settling and monogamy led to a higher quality of life and survival chances, then yes he was.
He is, it's why we have wars instead of living in peaceful utopias.
Civilisations can be quite barbaric. Plus it is obvious he was a coddled kid who couldn't cope with life itself
Robert E. Howard got into more fistfights and knifefights and baled more hay and shoveled more shit than you ever will. He suffered from black periods of depression and it killed him.
He probably lost those fights and I have been in more than one myself. I also have laboured quite a bit and work in a garden so I have shovelled shit. He was a coddled boy who couldn't grasp the fundaments of life itself, that it goes on, it must go on.
Not sure, really. Back in the pre-industrial past I'm not even sure he was right as barbarism started to reliably get pushed back since 1000 or so with no chance of resurrecting. But we might be poised to have barbarism return if there is a collapse. It's big picture thinking but it's also a bit like any doomer prophesying where 'eventually' you're right, but predicting something and it taking 700 years or 1000 years or 7000 years to happen isn't so much prophecy as just vague prediction. If I say Rome will fall in 320 BC and then it falls in 475 AD that's not really a prophetic prediction made right, that's just inevitable. His thinking was also just the vogue thinking of that time with good times bad times good men weak men.
I still like the theory because it isn't sentimental. His self-insert in beyond the black river dies because even REH recognizes that someone half-barbaric will not be able to keep up with actual barbarism (Conan and the picts). And there's no self-aggrandizing bullshit like solomon kane's 'vgh the mighty anglo-saxon aryan' in his essay on the Hyborian Age - the Hyborian tribes were once great and then became civilized and decadent and fall, the victorious barbarians of the collapse are both white Vanir/Aesir and non-white Hyrkanian and Pict. It's not "My race is great because it's my race" it's "barbarism and decay doesn't give a shit what you are. It will beat you or decay you all the same"
The easiest way to tell if a sequel is going to be shit is if the previous movie was R rated and the sequel is PG-13
name a hundred and thirty examples of that
just kidding
a while hole?
It can't be worse than the first one.
Robocop 3...
what was meant by this scene?
he has a problem with snake cults
the director is a self proclaimed nazi and he's calling hippies homosexuals
Milius? Rightwinger and never hid it. Surf nazi, that means many from his circle were actual nazi ideologues/neonazis since, you know, white people with beach properties in California (i.e. the world revolves around us), but for the wider circle it was subtle or they didn't want to admit their friends were racist buttholes with no redeeming social values. You can tell he hated hippies (because his rich, cool-kids-at-the-centre surfer friends hated them) if you also watch Big Wednesday.
Why is it bad? I haven't seen it yet, only just watched the first one
in HR speak, they made it 'more accessible'
You did the right thing. Never go back for seconds on Conan buffet.
watch bad lieutenant 2 then compare it with the first bad lieutenant.
It’s just way more goofy
It’s closer to the written stories, but the original movie did so well because the director threw all his Nietzchean depression into it
It’s a fun romp
I saw that the original has 6.9 on IMDB that made me sad. Damn Zoomers to whatever Hell you believe in, may Crom smite them all.
it was 8. something a few years ago.
they really should have locked off scoring
it's an actual masterpiece - one of the few near-perfect films i've seen out of thousands.
The original fricking sucks though?
It's called Conan the Barbarian, not Conan the Generic Action Fantasy Movie.
It has all the tropes of the era, absolutely nothing distinguishes it. Beastmaster is a more memorable fantasy movie of that time, comparatively.
Sorry, anything made before 2012 is kino
How did he get away with it?
they asked him about this on howard stern. i think he said that it was "swcharzen egger"
I think very few people in the thread know you’re talking about the shitty sequel with Bob the Goon and Grace Jones.
i think we all just rather discuss the first film than bother with a shallow discussion of the second.
>so bad
The frick are you talking about? That's the movie that made me fascinated with fantasy. And I didn't even watch it completely the first time! I still remember watching the scene of the wizard transforming to the eagle and going over to the camp and stealing the princess. The punch to the lama.
If you treat it as a joke it isn't that bad. Lots of impressive matte painting shots. If you listen to he commentary the director straight up says he made the movie a 180 joke cause he didn't want to copy what milius did cause only milius should get to do that since it was so good.
I don't dislike it. The original is somewhat overrated, though, so my expectations for the sequel weren't through the roof.