Quote:
Originally Posted by dlish
i dunno..can anyone after Arnold do this movie justice?
|
This question is beginning to annoy me. (It's not your fault, dlish.) Arnold's portrayal of Conan was iconic, but it's not gospel. When I think of Conan, I don't first think of Arnold Schwarzenegger, the bodybuilder-cum-wooden-actor. I first think of Robert E. Howard. (If you have to look him up, therein lies a symptom of the problem.)
Quote:
|
id have preferred The Rock. But thats just me. This guy looks way too small to play some sort of warrior. I know brad pitt did ok playing achilles, but i dunno... ill definately go watch it, but im a huge fan of the original Conans..
|
You prefer the Rock. Jason Momoa looks too small. This is in relation to the Arnold Schwarzenegger portrayal, I assume, because in relation to the original illustrations of Conan, Momoa has a build that most closely resembles the body image of Conan as conceived.
Also, the builds of the likes of Arnold and the Rock aren't really that conducive to ferocious warriors. They're too bulky and favour strength at the expense of agility. Now I know that the Rock is pretty agile for his size, but there are limitations. He often looked clumsy/clunky as the Scorpion King.
Contrary to the Arnold portrayal, the character of Conan is brutal yet agile and intelligent. He is a ferocious warrior but he's also a skilled thief, military commander, and natural leader. He's a fully literate multilinguist.
This means that there is some serious lateral movement that can be taken in his portrayal in a new movie, the first in
nearly 30 years I might add.
And watch the original movies again if you haven't seen them in a while. Despite what 9er will tell you, they are yet another indication that the 80s have some serious things to answer for.