but after seeing the HOBBIT, I'm not sure if Jackson is subordinating his vision
any longer...





________________________________
From: Stephan Allsup <koraksa@...>
To: TheREHcomicsgroup@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, January 21, 2013 1:44:58 PM
Subject: Re: [TheREHcomicsgroup] Re: Arniold's Conan



Well, when I think of what it might have been if he had relied on REH, it
staggers me. It reminds me of the famous verse, "Those who will save their life
shall lose it, and those who lose their life shall save it," in the sense that
Peter Jackson subordinated his vision to Tolkien and then won all the Academy
Awards, creating a classic movie, but Milius refused to do that, seeking to
glorify himself by substituting his own vision for REH's, thus creating this
cult dud.


But then, I read Barbarians because I like REH, I don't read REH because I like
Barbarians.

-Stephan

-----Original Message-----
From: T.C. dr_frightmarestein@...>
To: TheREHcomicsgroup TheREHcomicsgroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 10:19 am
Subject: [TheREHcomicsgroup] Re: Arniold's Conan

I actually didn't see Conan the Barbarian until I was an adult, and not an
impressionable youth. And honestly, I think it gets better every time I see it.
I DO think it is an amazing film "in its own right," so I guess that makes me
one of your ignoramuses! Haha....

I think the evolution of my appreciation of the film went in exactly the reverse
of most other people's.... when I was younger, I heard people saying things
like, "oh, that movie's so cheesy and terrible!" So I went in with this
pre-conceived notion that it would be cheesy and terrible. When I finally saw
it I thought, "Hey, it wasn't that bad," and when I started watching it more and
more I was thinking, "Man, this movie is actually pretty awesome!"


I also don't have a problem with the script or story at all... I mean, sure, the
story may be a little cliche, but I think it's done well. And as far as the
dialogue, there's tons of great and quotable lines in it.

Oh, well... to each their own....

--- In TheREHcomicsgroup@yahoogroups.com, Stephan Allsup wrote:
>
>
> I was watching Conan the Barbarian again tonight, even though I have said I'd
>never watch it again. But since Arnold is coming back to play King Conan, and
>since my lady friend has never seen it, we watched the first half. We'll see the
>rest Monday.
>
> All I can say is, it is no masterpiece "in its own right" as so many
>ignoramuses claim. It has a dumb story, a plodding pace, long and boring. The
>only good things about it are Milius' cinematography, which has lots of nice
>touches for a movie with a relatively cheapo budget, and Arnold's muscles.
>Milius turning Howard's creation into a vehicle for his fascist themes is
>outrageous. This talk of the new one having a large budget like the first one
>is a joke-- couldn't even afford some Harryhausen, something that some B grades
>could apparently afford, like Sinbad and Jason. No skeleton fight, and the snake
>battle was a limp biscuit.
>
> I never could see what anybody saw in that film. I think what happened was that
>it made an impression on a lot of 8 year old boys because it was their first R
>rated movie (intellectually it is about on that age level at any rate.). I
>wouldn't mind it if Milius directed the new one, but please don't let him touch
>the script!
>
> Stephan
>
>
>
> -----
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]