I prefer this one to the original
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Conan the Destroyer
MedievalFantasy — 13 years ago(July 29, 2012 10:08 PM)
I don't know, I guess I just like the feel and pacing better. And the plot is more interesting to me. The action sequences also feel more fast and less clunky like they did in Conan The Barbarian. I don't see why this one was hated on so much. Does anyone else like this one over the original? I love the original, but this one just gets me more.
Game Of Thrones season 3 March 31, 2013!
Merlin season 5 Sept. 29! -
JetSetThomas — 13 years ago(October 31, 2012 12:49 AM)
I reckon I'm among the few who will agree with you on this. Perhaps it's because I saw this one first, and so the original one just didn't live up to my expectations but also that the two movies have a different feel to them. This one is fast-paced (mostly), light-hearted and fun. The other one is very dark and kinda slow. Also, I absolutely hated the scene where James Earl Jones morphs into a snake. That just didn't work for me. Not nearly as menacing as I guess it was supposed to be.
Oh yeah, and the sexy women didn't hurt either! -
robert3750 — 11 years ago(March 08, 2015 11:11 AM)
Agreed. Barbarian was far superior, because the producers obviously had great respect for the source material. The producers of Destroyer were obviously simply trying to cash in on the popularity of the original Conan film with no respect whatsoever for the source. Destroyer has people who have no screen charisma and essentially no acting ability (Wilt, Grace, etc. The original had Max Von Sydow and James Earl Jones for crying out loud.
Destroyer is a rancid piece of juvenile crud made by studio suits, not film makers. -
tiger86-2 — 10 years ago(June 14, 2015 06:07 AM)
Agreed. Barbarian was far superior, because the producers obviously had great respect for the source material.
What the actual fu?
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/ -
ToastedCheese — 12 months ago(April 03, 2025 02:25 PM)
Fans wanted to see more of the same I guess. I was very impressed with the first Conan and it knocked my socks off. Upon repeat viewings, I find it a bit ponderous in parts. It was certainly very tense and epic in nature, it just needed about 15mins shorn off it to tighten it up.
This second instalment lightens the tone, but still delivers in its promise of a top end fantasy adventure. The director wanted to showcase Arnie more and his bulging biceps, pecs and hams and keeps him in a state of undress for the most part. This helped enhance the easier tone of the action sequences and became about Conan the warrior as an image of brawn, muscle and power, rather than straightforward brutality.
The film is so well presented, that one can forgive its cheesiness and the first still had dollops of cheese sprinkled throughout it. Why would one want to see a rehash of the first film anyway?
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
preachcaleb — 4 years ago(March 04, 2022 03:53 PM)
I like this one. It's quite an adventure and there are some fun characters. But The Barbarian just feels like a better made movie. It's got a stronger, more barbaric tone which fits in better with the character of Conan.
So many stories, so little time.