Legend of Conan - Arnold Returns

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
Personally I’d have to see who they choose for a director before I come to an opinion. It could either turn into a pretty bad movie like Arnold’s last few, a reasonable but nothing special movie like The second Expendables, or a quite good homage to the original Conan, all around how they choose to go about scripting, filming and acting it.

I think the main tipping point of where this comes in lies in the director choice.[/quote]

Doesn’t the screen play have anything to do with it? Even a great director can’t fix a horrible storyline, IMO.

You seem to be knee deep in cinema, so I’d trust your word over mine. [/quote]

Basically described the situation Ridley Scott has gotten himself into far too often.[/quote]

In fairness to Ridley Scott, he said in an interview that there’s a huge element of chance to whether or not a movie will turn out badly.
[/quote]

Isn’t that just an excuse as to why he has some shitty movies?[/quote]

I think it was a diplomatic way of saying that the director doesn’t get the final say without actually blaming somebody else - which is an excuse.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
In fairness to Ridley Scott, he said in an interview that there’s a huge element of chance to whether or not a movie will turn out badly.
[/quote]

Isn’t that just an excuse as to why he has some shitty movies?[/quote]

I think I’m pretty trusting of his statement, so he had Kingdom Of Heaven, Hannibal and that one pretty bad Russell Crowe Robin Hood movie. After all he’s the guy who made Alien, Blade Runner, and Thelma And Louise.

His good films outweigh his bad movies pretty well, I think I’d chalk up his bad efforts to artistic vision gone disastrously wrong and a laziness when it comes to considering what works. He knows how to make a great film, that’s no dispute, sometimes I think he just forgets to dial those details in and he gets surprised when the backlash of that comes back around and hits him in the back of the head. He knows when a premise is barren territory, and he’s largely done well to avoid those, but sometimes even when it’s set to be good, he seems to lose track of the background polish of the films. Taking Hannibal and Kingdom Of Heaven for example, the violence is nice and somewhat satisfying, but the films themselves aren’t deep enough, the violence is largely their meat and bones and once you flesh that away there’s not much left to rely on. Sometimes he puts all his eggs in one basket, and once he drops it, he’s done for.

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
In fairness to Ridley Scott, he said in an interview that there’s a huge element of chance to whether or not a movie will turn out badly.
[/quote]

Isn’t that just an excuse as to why he has some shitty movies?[/quote]

I think I’m pretty trusting of his statement, so he had Kingdom Of Heaven, Hannibal and that one pretty bad Russell Crowe Robin Hood movie. After all he’s the guy who made Alien, Blade Runner, and Thelma And Louise.

His good films outweigh his bad movies pretty well, I think I’d chalk up his bad efforts to artistic vision gone disastrously wrong and a laziness when it comes to considering what works. He knows how to make a great film, that’s no dispute, sometimes I think he just forgets to dial those details in and he gets surprised when the backlash of that comes back around and hits him in the back of the head. He knows when a premise is barren territory, and he’s largely done well to avoid those, but sometimes even when it’s set to be good, he seems to lose track of the background polish of the films. Taking Hannibal and Kingdom Of Heaven for example, the violence is nice and somewhat satisfying, but the films themselves aren’t deep enough, the violence is largely their meat and bones and once you flesh that away there’s not much left to rely on. Sometimes he puts all his eggs in one basket, and once he drops it, he’s done for.[/quote]

Ahhhhhhhh…

I thought “Hannibal”?

Ridley Scott has made a movie about Hannibal the Carthagian general andz I haz not seen it?

Saweet!

Turns out, its just about a serial killing cannibal.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
In fairness to Ridley Scott, he said in an interview that there’s a huge element of chance to whether or not a movie will turn out badly.
[/quote]

Isn’t that just an excuse as to why he has some shitty movies?[/quote]

I think I’m pretty trusting of his statement, so he had Kingdom Of Heaven, Hannibal and that one pretty bad Russell Crowe Robin Hood movie. After all he’s the guy who made Alien, Blade Runner, and Thelma And Louise.

His good films outweigh his bad movies pretty well, I think I’d chalk up his bad efforts to artistic vision gone disastrously wrong and a laziness when it comes to considering what works. He knows how to make a great film, that’s no dispute, sometimes I think he just forgets to dial those details in and he gets surprised when the backlash of that comes back around and hits him in the back of the head. He knows when a premise is barren territory, and he’s largely done well to avoid those, but sometimes even when it’s set to be good, he seems to lose track of the background polish of the films. Taking Hannibal and Kingdom Of Heaven for example, the violence is nice and somewhat satisfying, but the films themselves aren’t deep enough, the violence is largely their meat and bones and once you flesh that away there’s not much left to rely on. Sometimes he puts all his eggs in one basket, and once he drops it, he’s done for.[/quote]

Ahhhhhhhh…

I thought “Hannibal”?

Ridley Scott has made a movie about Hannibal the Carthagian general andz I haz not seen it?

Saweet!

Turns out, its just about a serial killing cannibal. [/quote]

Yeah, why hasn’t Hollywood made a film about the great Hannibal the Carthaginian? Oliver Stone, a pretty good director, butchered Alexander, so maybe they should let a less well-known director helm a potential Hannibal film.

Regarding Hannibal, as in Anthony Hopkins, Kahuna’s argument loses some strength when you consider how no one knows who Jonathan Demme is but Ridley Scott is thought of as one of the best directors in Hollywood. In other words, Silence of the Lambs was directed by a less well-known director but Ridley’s Hannibal from 2001 was mediocre.

And Terrence Malick is over-rated! How you like them apples.

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]JLone wrote:
I just took a look at his filmography on a separate site and I consider the last decent film on it “Eraser” and that came out in 1996. [/quote]

True Lies was the last good Arnie movie IMO[/quote]

I agree.

I thought Eraser was OK, in that it felt to me like an 80s action movie…one of those ones that throws police corruption into it, like an Andrew Davis movie…but not a great one for Arnold to do in the 90s.

As for Arnold in a new Conan? No.

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
In fairness to Ridley Scott, he said in an interview that there’s a huge element of chance to whether or not a movie will turn out badly.
[/quote]

Isn’t that just an excuse as to why he has some shitty movies?[/quote]

I think I’m pretty trusting of his statement, so he had Kingdom Of Heaven, Hannibal and that one pretty bad Russell Crowe Robin Hood movie. After all he’s the guy who made Alien, Blade Runner, and Thelma And Louise.

His good films outweigh his bad movies pretty well, I think I’d chalk up his bad efforts to artistic vision gone disastrously wrong and a laziness when it comes to considering what works. He knows how to make a great film, that’s no dispute, sometimes I think he just forgets to dial those details in and he gets surprised when the backlash of that comes back around and hits him in the back of the head. He knows when a premise is barren territory, and he’s largely done well to avoid those, but sometimes even when it’s set to be good, he seems to lose track of the background polish of the films. Taking Hannibal and Kingdom Of Heaven for example, the violence is nice and somewhat satisfying, but the films themselves aren’t deep enough, the violence is largely their meat and bones and once you flesh that away there’s not much left to rely on. Sometimes he puts all his eggs in one basket, and once he drops it, he’s done for.[/quote]

Ahhhhhhhh…

I thought “Hannibal”?

Ridley Scott has made a movie about Hannibal the Carthagian general andz I haz not seen it?

Saweet!

Turns out, its just about a serial killing cannibal. [/quote]

Yeah, why hasn’t Hollywood made a film about the great Hannibal the Carthaginian? Oliver Stone, a pretty good director, butchered Alexander, so maybe they should let a less well-known director helm a potential Hannibal film.

Regarding Hannibal, as in Anthony Hopkins, Kahuna’s argument loses some strength when you consider how no one knows who Jonathan Demme is but Ridley Scott is thought of as one of the best directors in Hollywood. In other words, Silence of the Lambs was directed by a less well-known director but Ridley’s Hannibal from 2001 was mediocre.

And Terrence Malick is over-rated! How you like them apples.
[/quote]

There is a movie about Hannibal with the guy that played Julian Bashir in DS9 and given the budget it was a great deal more than decent and he did an excellent job, but I am afraid of a movie with block buster budget because historical innacuracies tend to make me irate.

Not all of them, but if I see Roman legions fencing mano a mano, I am like, naaaaaaaaaaaa.

Oh and, here:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

Regarding Hannibal, as in Anthony Hopkins, Kahuna’s argument loses some strength when you consider how no one knows who Jonathan Demme is but Ridley Scott is thought of as one of the best directors in Hollywood. In other words, Silence of the Lambs was directed by a less well-known director but Ridley’s Hannibal from 2001 was mediocre.

And Terrence Malick is over-rated! How you like them apples.
[/quote]
Turns out, I have no apple in this fight.

Silence of the lambs was great, the others were meh.

But, if a director at his worst does meh, he cannot be all that bad.

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Yeah, why hasn’t Hollywood made a film about the great Hannibal the Carthaginian? Oliver Stone, a pretty good director, butchered Alexander, so maybe they should let a less well-known director helm a potential Hannibal film.

Regarding Hannibal, as in Anthony Hopkins, Kahuna’s argument loses some strength when you consider how no one knows who Jonathan Demme is but Ridley Scott is thought of as one of the best directors in Hollywood. In other words, Silence of the Lambs was directed by a less well-known director but Ridley’s Hannibal from 2001 was mediocre.

And Terrence Malick is over-rated! How you like them apples.
[/quote]

Agreed, Alexander was a pitiful attempt at best. I’m not sure I’m such a fan of Stone as a director, his early work was incredibly good, but somewhere along the line he made a bad film and after that everything else followed suit. I don’t think he’s recovered for any considerable string of films since the very early 90’s, which is a hell of a long time, especially given the amount of movies he’s made since.

I’m making no argument that simply because a director is more widely recognised and assumed to be somewhat masterful of his craft that’s it’s impossible for him to make a bad movie, unlikely, but not impossible. Demme, although writhing in obscurity, is incredibly good at what he does and it’s shown in nearly all of his films since the start of his career.

Silence Of The Lambs was beautifully acted and incredibly well written, something which Hannibal was inarguably not. More so than mediocre I’d say that Hannibal was legitimately “bad”. Scott lost sight of what Hannibal should be, as he was in the books. His focus was too extensive on the gore aspect of the serial killer than the personality and ominousness of the character himself, and he payed for it. Silence was exactly the opposite, Demme knew how to grow Buffalo Bill into a menacing, insane, murderer and it payed off. He kept the gore minimal and focused intently on the characters themselves, Scott should have followed Demme’s example and he didn’t, so he fumbled and his movie became a flop.

As for popularity I’d wager that Scott is more popular just by the extent that his films are the type that will bring audiences, more people want to see a horror film about Aliens than a Neil Young documentary. I’m sure it goes deeper than that on the bartering level when it comes to each director’s agency and how effective they are at marketing their client, amongst other things, but that’s moot point.

Gasp! Not a fan of Badlands? I loved how Malick made his films. A little poetic maybe, but beautifully handled all the way up until release. The Tree Of Life was very good, maybe not as good as intended, it was no magnum opus, but serene and wondrous all the same.

I’m not sure why, but I’m hopeful about the new Conan movie…

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

Yeah, why hasn’t Hollywood made a film about the great Hannibal the Carthaginian? Oliver Stone, a pretty good director, butchered Alexander, so maybe they should let a less well-known director helm a potential Hannibal film.

[/quote]

Vin Diesel has been trying to get a Hannibal biopic greenlit for years. He might even be more passionate about it than Riddick.

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Yeah, why hasn’t Hollywood made a film about the great Hannibal the Carthaginian? Oliver Stone, a pretty good director, butchered Alexander, so maybe they should let a less well-known director helm a potential Hannibal film.

[/quote]

Everyone knocks Alexander and over all it was pretty bad. But it had the most realistic and historically accurate depiction of an ancient battle that has ever been on screen. 99 times out of a 100 Hollywood just shows a stampede of fools with swords and shields running at each other willy nilly, examples: Braveheart and 300. Those were better movies on the whole, but the fight scenes were terrible as far as historical accuracy. The depiction of the battle of Gaugamela in Alexander was the shit. That is the way the Macedonian army fought, and those were the tactics used in that battle.

Find another movie that does any ancient battle that well.

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Yeah, why hasn’t Hollywood made a film about the great Hannibal the Carthaginian? Oliver Stone, a pretty good director, butchered Alexander, so maybe they should let a less well-known director helm a potential Hannibal film.

[/quote]

Everyone knocks Alexander and over all it was pretty bad. But it had the most realistic and historically accurate depiction of an ancient battle that has ever been on screen. 99 times out of a 100 Hollywood just shows a stampede of fools with swords and shields running at each other willy nilly, examples: Braveheart and 300. Those were better movies on the whole, but the fight scenes were terrible as far as historical accuracy. The depiction of the battle of Gaugamela in Alexander was the shit. That is the way the Macedonian army fought, and those were the tactics used in that battle.

Find another movie that does any ancient battle that well.[/quote]

This.

Now to be fair, 300 was an adaption of a comic book and while it did not cover their tactics, I think Spartans would not have objected to the portrayal.

For the record, this is how Roman Legions fought.

In formation, rotating front lines and disciplined .

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Yeah, why hasn’t Hollywood made a film about the great Hannibal the Carthaginian? Oliver Stone, a pretty good director, butchered Alexander, so maybe they should let a less well-known director helm a potential Hannibal film.

Regarding Hannibal, as in Anthony Hopkins, Kahuna’s argument loses some strength when you consider how no one knows who Jonathan Demme is but Ridley Scott is thought of as one of the best directors in Hollywood. In other words, Silence of the Lambs was directed by a less well-known director but Ridley’s Hannibal from 2001 was mediocre.

And Terrence Malick is over-rated! How you like them apples.
[/quote]

Agreed, Alexander was a pitiful attempt at best. I’m not sure I’m such a fan of Stone as a director, his early work was incredibly good, but somewhere along the line he made a bad film and after that everything else followed suit. I don’t think he’s recovered for any considerable string of films since the very early 90’s, which is a hell of a long time, especially given the amount of movies he’s made since.

I’m making no argument that simply because a director is more widely recognised and assumed to be somewhat masterful of his craft that’s it’s impossible for him to make a bad movie, unlikely, but not impossible. Demme, although writhing in obscurity, is incredibly good at what he does and it’s shown in nearly all of his films since the start of his career.

Silence Of The Lambs was beautifully acted and incredibly well written, something which Hannibal was inarguably not. More so than mediocre I’d say that Hannibal was legitimately “bad”. Scott lost sight of what Hannibal should be, as he was in the books. His focus was too extensive on the gore aspect of the serial killer than the personality and ominousness of the character himself, and he payed for it. Silence was exactly the opposite, Demme knew how to grow Buffalo Bill into a menacing, insane, murderer and it payed off. He kept the gore minimal and focused intently on the characters themselves, Scott should have followed Demme’s example and he didn’t, so he fumbled and his movie became a flop.

As for popularity I’d wager that Scott is more popular just by the extent that his films are the type that will bring audiences, more people want to see a horror film about Aliens than a Neil Young documentary. I’m sure it goes deeper than that on the bartering level when it comes to each director’s agency and how effective they are at marketing their client, amongst other things, but that’s moot point.

Gasp! Not a fan of Badlands? I loved how Malick made his films. A little poetic maybe, but beautifully handled all the way up until release. The Tree Of Life was very good, maybe not as good as intended, it was no magnum opus, but serene and wondrous all the same.[/quote]

Everybody, except Jodie Foster , lost sight of the fact that Hannibal wasn’t a very good book.

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
In fairness to Ridley Scott, he said in an interview that there’s a huge element of chance to whether or not a movie will turn out badly.
[/quote]

Isn’t that just an excuse as to why he has some shitty movies?[/quote]

I think I’m pretty trusting of his statement, so he had Kingdom Of Heaven, Hannibal and that one pretty bad Russell Crowe Robin Hood movie. After all he’s the guy who made Alien, Blade Runner, and Thelma And Louise.

His good films outweigh his bad movies pretty well, I think I’d chalk up his bad efforts to artistic vision gone disastrously wrong and a laziness when it comes to considering what works. He knows how to make a great film, that’s no dispute, sometimes I think he just forgets to dial those details in and he gets surprised when the backlash of that comes back around and hits him in the back of the head. He knows when a premise is barren territory, and he’s largely done well to avoid those, but sometimes even when it’s set to be good, he seems to lose track of the background polish of the films. Taking Hannibal and Kingdom Of Heaven for example, the violence is nice and somewhat satisfying, but the films themselves aren’t deep enough, the violence is largely their meat and bones and once you flesh that away there’s not much left to rely on. Sometimes he puts all his eggs in one basket, and once he drops it, he’s done for.[/quote]

I would agree with that his good movies outweigh his bad without a doubt.

Prometheus is a prime example of great direction but the movie was let down by a weak script. PS I still like the movie though.

[quote]orion wrote:
Now to be fair, 300 was an adaption of a comic book and while it did not cover their tactics, I think Spartans would not have objected to the portrayal.

For the record, this is how Roman Legions fought.

In formation, rotating front lines and disciplined .[/quote]

300 was kind of flamboyant, and the Spartans were anything but. However, they may have liked it.

What was that clip from?

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:

I was a sucker for his reddit AMA. There were some messages he sent to fans that warmed my heart, I think there was one guy who’s kid drew a picture of himself and Arnie as the Terminator with explosions and robots in the background, he left a pretty sweet message back. Had some humble and pretty admirable political views too, to the extent of how politically savvy he actually is. He’s a good guy, I’d never be too harsh on him just for that.[/quote]

He’s a politician and I’m not just talking about his stint as Governor. He’s been actively politicking his whole life, even in his former bodybuilding days. In a sense, his political nature has contributed to his immense success. The point is, it’s easy and overtly natural for him to “kiss babies and shake hands”; he’s been doing it for most of his life. I agree, I fell for his reddit stuff too. He comes off as a good, genuine guy but then all you have to do is remind yourself of his mistress and love child. [/quote]

Bill Burr did a stint about Arnies love child.

Who gives a shit. He was stupid enough to do it but hey, I dont see you conquering three different things at the top of the game.

Dont hate on the guy because of one dumb thng, maybe we should put you under the spotlight and see what you’re like.

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Now to be fair, 300 was an adaption of a comic book and while it did not cover their tactics, I think Spartans would not have objected to the portrayal.

For the record, this is how Roman Legions fought.

In formation, rotating front lines and disciplined .[/quote]

300 was kind of flamboyant, and the Spartans were anything but. However, they may have liked it.

What was that clip from?[/quote]

O_o

Rome, the HBO series.

2 seasons of awesomness.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Now to be fair, 300 was an adaption of a comic book and while it did not cover their tactics, I think Spartans would not have objected to the portrayal.

For the record, this is how Roman Legions fought.

In formation, rotating front lines and disciplined .[/quote]

300 was kind of flamboyant, and the Spartans were anything but. However, they may have liked it.

What was that clip from?[/quote]

O_o

Rome, the HBO series.

2 seasons of awesomness. [/quote]

FUCK, YES.

Rome is just disgustingly awesome, was able to be filled with violence and sex yet not become low bro entertainment like Spartacus.

[quote]orion wrote:

O_o

Rome, the HBO series.

2 seasons of awesomness. [/quote]

Ok. Aside from not chucking their pilum that was pretty spot on. I saw part of an episode of Rome once, there was supposed to be an angry mob, but it was only made up of about a dozen people. I thought “You son of a bitches can’t hire any extras? What the Fuck?” I changed the channel.

May have to check it out now.