I'm not making any excuses for the movie...But I am going to make an observation. I went to see the movie again. The first time I went 2 weeks ago...Me and my son were the only people in the theatre. When I went 3 nights ago the place was packed. It's only oplaying in 3 different places on Long Island and only at around 10 pm at all three places. ( One showing ) But the place I went to was packed. I had to sit all the way up front. They should leave the movie out a little longer. One more observation. I was reading several write ups on the movie. Not reviews but descriptions about the movie. Every description said it was a remake of the 1982 film starring Arnold Shwarzenegger and so on. Who the hell said this was a remake? No wonder nobody wants to see it. The newspaper is already comparing Jason to Arnold before people get there. They are already told that it's a remake... so no interest is fostered. No big mystery to me that it was the press that damned this film. It may not be MY Version of what I think CONAN should be. But It was a good action film and deserved better than that. Someone in the PR department for the film should have paid more attention to the press releases. Ok...thats about all I have to say about that!
At first I put the failure of this film directly on the hands of the Director. Based on what Mikey posted, I'd say the other half of this falls in the hands of the marketing team.
The director, Marcus Nispel, is a hack at best. Nispel's skills fall far, far short of Milus.
The producer and Marketing team had no balls to cut their own swath with this title/character/movie.
As a fan of REH, and a fan of Conan, and a fan of the previous movies (Conan the Barbarian, and yes, even Conan the Destroyer), the old Marvel comic Conan (SSoC and CtB) I, like most of America, have no interest in seeing this movie. It ain't the marketing.
And if you think the box office results are low, just imagine how low it would have been without the name "Conan" slapped on top of it. Everyone I know that did go see it went out of a sense of obligation to the Conan franchise.
It's like Star Wars, the Phantom Menace. I was convinced it must've been good, because it was Star Wars. How could a Star Wars movie be bad? But over time, I gradually came to terms with the fact that Phantom Menace was a lousy movie.
The studio execs probably didn't mind the "remake" tag, since they where the ones who insisted on recycling elements from the `82 movie like the origin story, revenge arc, and title. (Even though Milius didn't originate the phrase "Conan the Barbarian".)
It was a move that clearly backfired. If they had treated the film as a true return to the source material- which is what the producers originally wanted to do- all would've been better off. Younger audiences hate remakes but will eat up just about anything which promises a return to the "source material".
It's silly to pretend the movie flopped just because it was poorly made. Oscar winners routinely struggle at the box office while terrible films spawn endless sequels. Check the Tomato-meter of this past summer's most popular films. Many of them had scores that were just as lousy as Conan's.
Lionsgate simply failed to sell this movie to audiences- or to overcome the negative buzz which had plagued its production for the past two years.
"Lionsgate simply failed to sell this movie to audiences- or to overcome the negative buzz which had plagued its production for the past two years." By selling it as a remake.
Younger audiences DO NOT hate remakes. Dawn of the Dead, Planet of the Apes, Halloween, Friday the 13th...all those remakes made major bank despite low critical opinion. Ditto the Nutty Professor, Dr Doolitte, Ocean's 11...though the last one, no one realized it was a remake.
Before the movie came out...people decided not to go see it. It was already a foregone conclusion that...people decided " I am not going to this movie "
My theory ...is the comparison to Arnold...the poor promotion campaign and the fact that when you looked it up in the paper it was read as " A remake of the 1982 film starring Arnold Shwarzenegger" Now...why would anyone want to go see a movie that does not star Arnold? He made one already why see this new version. The Bad directing and so on...no one even saw it yet...how would they conclude it was a bad film ( It wasn't ) they had no plans to even go see it. All the reviews came around after it was out. But On opening night...why were people lined up to see that snore fest THE HELP?
I'm not making any excuses for the movie...But I am going to make an observation. I went to see the movie again. The first time I went 2 weeks ago...Me and my son were the only people in the theatre. When I went 3 nights ago the place was packed. It's only oplaying in 3 different places on Long Island and only at around 10 pm at all three places. ( One showing ) But the place I went to was packed. I had to sit all the way up front. They should leave the movie out a little longer.
ReplyDeleteOne more observation. I was reading several write ups on the movie. Not reviews but descriptions about the movie. Every description said it was a remake of the 1982 film starring Arnold Shwarzenegger and so on.
Who the hell said this was a remake?
No wonder nobody wants to see it. The newspaper is already comparing Jason to Arnold before people get there. They are already told that it's a remake... so no interest is fostered.
No big mystery to me that it was the press that damned this film. It may not be MY Version of what I think CONAN should be. But It was a good action film and deserved better than that.
Someone in the PR department for the film should have paid more attention to the press releases.
Ok...thats about all I have to say about that!
Oh yeah...it was me and my wife and my son. For those of you who like to nit pick...lol
ReplyDeleteAt first I put the failure of this film directly on the hands of the Director. Based on what Mikey posted, I'd say the other half of this falls in the hands of the marketing team.
ReplyDeleteThe director, Marcus Nispel, is a hack at best. Nispel's skills fall far, far short of Milus.
The producer and Marketing team had no balls to cut their own swath with this title/character/movie.
As a fan of REH, and a fan of Conan, and a fan of the previous movies (Conan the Barbarian, and yes, even Conan the Destroyer), the old Marvel comic Conan (SSoC and CtB) I, like most of America, have no interest in seeing this movie. It ain't the marketing.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you think the box office results are low, just imagine how low it would have been without the name "Conan" slapped on top of it. Everyone I know that did go see it went out of a sense of obligation to the Conan franchise.
It's like Star Wars, the Phantom Menace. I was convinced it must've been good, because it was Star Wars. How could a Star Wars movie be bad? But over time, I gradually came to terms with the fact that Phantom Menace was a lousy movie.
It looks far better than the real guy.
ReplyDeleteThe studio execs probably didn't mind the "remake" tag, since they where the ones who insisted on recycling elements from the `82 movie like the origin story, revenge arc, and title. (Even though Milius didn't originate the phrase "Conan the Barbarian".)
ReplyDeleteIt was a move that clearly backfired. If they had treated the film as a true return to the source material- which is what the producers originally wanted to do- all would've been better off. Younger audiences hate remakes but will eat up just about anything which promises a return to the "source material".
It's silly to pretend the movie flopped just because it was poorly made. Oscar winners routinely struggle at the box office while terrible films spawn endless sequels. Check the Tomato-meter of this past summer's most popular films. Many of them had scores that were just as lousy as Conan's.
Lionsgate simply failed to sell this movie to audiences- or to overcome the negative buzz which had plagued its production for the past two years.
"Lionsgate simply failed to sell this movie to audiences- or to overcome the negative buzz which had plagued its production for the past two years."
ReplyDeleteBy selling it as a remake.
Younger audiences DO NOT hate remakes. Dawn of the Dead, Planet of the Apes, Halloween, Friday the 13th...all those remakes made major bank despite low critical opinion. Ditto the Nutty Professor, Dr Doolitte, Ocean's 11...though the last one, no one realized it was a remake.
ReplyDeleteBefore the movie came out...people decided not to go see it. It was already a foregone conclusion that...people decided " I am not going to this movie "
ReplyDeleteMy theory ...is the comparison to Arnold...the poor promotion campaign and the fact that when you looked it up in the paper it was read as " A remake of the 1982 film starring Arnold Shwarzenegger"
Now...why would anyone want to go see a movie that does not star Arnold? He made one already why see this new version.
The Bad directing and so on...no one even saw it yet...how would they conclude it was a bad film ( It wasn't ) they had no plans to even go see it.
All the reviews came around after it was out. But On opening night...why were people lined up to see that snore fest THE HELP?
Say whatever you want but I am pretty sure that it is easier to sell a GOOD film than a BAD film. And this one was awful as HELL.
ReplyDelete