Why was "Destroyer" toned-down from "Barbarian"?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Conan the Destroyer
zooeyhall — 9 years ago(October 19, 2016 06:18 AM)
I became acquainted with the "Conan" movies by watching the 2nd one first. I very much enjoyed the film, and found it to be entertaining.
I recently watched the first movie "Conan the Barbarian". And was surprised at how much more explicit it was, then its sequel. You've got graphic beheadings, a crucifixion, and a ferocious sex scene.
I am wondering if there was a deliberate decision to make the 2nd film much less explicit than its predecessor? I believe the first move was rated R. But Conan the Destroyer was a PG. -
TMC-4 — 9 years ago(January 01, 2017 10:14 PM)
http://officialfan.proboards.com/thread/553189/why-conan-destroyer-rated-pg
Post by Doctor Doom is on Team Bliss on 4 hours ago
From IMDB
John Milius, the director of Conan the Barbarian (1982) was unavailable to direct Conan the Destroyer (1984). The studio took a more active role than they had on the first film, which led to some serious mistakes, according to Schwarzenegger in his latest autobiography. After the phenomenon of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982), Universal thought Conan the Destroyer (1984) would make more money if it were family entertainment. Schwarzenegger argued against this change but they overruled him. Director Richard Fleischer agreed with Schwarzenegger, but complied with Universal's wishes to make Conan the Destroyer (1984) more like a comic book. Although it out-grossed Conan the Barbarian (1982), it didn't do as well in the US, because it was more family-friendly, just as Schwarzenegger and Fleischer feared. He later expressed the same fears in Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) when the Terminator was forbidden from killing anyone. Both Schwarzenegger and Dino De Laurentiis washed their hands of the series, with Schwarzenegger opting to only do contemporary movies from now on.
So yeah money -
Conan-1982 — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 07:19 AM)
"The studio took a more active role than they had on the first film"
This is the beginning of the end for any movie.
Yeah I know it's pointless to complain about a movie from 33 years ago but whatever: I'm still disappointed.
Have you ever heard of the Fan-edit called "Conan The Destroyer : No Bullsh!t Edition" ?
Unfortunately I could never find it but the intention was to cut all Malik's stupid jokes and make the movie a bit more serious (sure it ain't gonna be great like Conan The Barbarian but at least it would not be so annoying and frustrating, its' better than nothing). -
preachcaleb — 4 years ago(March 04, 2022 03:52 PM)
They just wanted a wider audience. That happens a lot with R-rated franchises. Even Predator and Alien at some point became PG13.
It's a shame since it removes some of the stuff that made it memorable in the first place.
So many stories, so little time. -
ToastedCheese — 12 months ago(April 03, 2025 01:55 PM)
Yup! It was deliberate and I was disappointed that a movie about a barbarian was PG rated, until I saw it.
This film pushed many boundaries for a PG rated film, (just pre PG13), and it delivered the goods with enough bloody spice in the violence without the harsher tone. There are still bloody sword slashes, pole fights, beheadings, knife stabbings, a throat slashing, wounds and some gore, all choreographed with skill, panache and even beauty.
This film has become a personal favourite and is an all-rounder that leaves me wanting more. The climax with the Dagoth creature is awesome and satisfying.
Norman! What did you put in my tea?