Ozoneocean wrote:
I finally sat through the Jason Mamoa Conan.
All of it.
It wasn't more true to the character than the Arnold Schwarzenegger films as some have said. It was less true all in all except in certain key aspects-
-Jason had darker skin and hair, more like Conan.
- Jason's Conan was smarter,
-There was more magic.
Apart from that the origin story they included wasn't good. It was absolutely based on the Arnold Conan origin, but without showing Conan as a slave which he never was in the books, so that's meant to make it technically more true… Except it's LESS true since that origin was only there FOR the Arnold story!
Without slave Conan we don't need to see Conan as a boy. We don't need to see his dead mum or have a revenge story about the death of his dad and the scene with the sword forging or the rifle of steel. In the Arnold version that stuff enhanced his Nietzschean mythos and the legend of his forging. In the Mamoa version, since he was never a slave it just weakens his character because there's no contrast or journey from that origin and so no point to it.
Asside from that the Arnold version included the real Conan origin anyway (from the books), which was the assult on the tower. This movie didn't have that.
A lot of the action in the Mamoa dim was very Conan though, showing him fighting with strength and cunning. But he could have used a much heavier sword. Clearly his prop weapon weighed nothing and it shows…
While Arnold's was very much overweight and that added to his performance.
Now you are going to make me watch it now. I had no intention of watch this new version of Conan but you said a few things I need to see myself. I wonder why they took out the Slave Origin? Is it the same universe or an alternate crap we all know and love? Am I going to cringe when I see his sword? You said it is light. Welp, I guess I find out soon.