Quote from: TrippyHippy;982472Hold on, which movie are we talking about? The Stallone Judge Dredd movie (which stunk to high heavens) or the Dredd movie which was awesome, but so violent it had to get an R rating and thus cut out the core 16 year old market from their viewing audience?

To clarify, until the 1995 Stallone flick, no one outside of Britain and some hard core fans knew what Dredd was about.  Then it came along, flopped but created a precedent.  Then the Urban film, which is leagues better, but is nothing like the Stallone flick, which everyone expected something similar with, and couple that with the small, niche market that even knew that the Stallone flick only got the technology look right and nothing else, it was destined to fail.

That's why it failed.

Compare to all the Conan films which were pretty bad from the word go, and no amount of hype would ever save them from that.

Quote from: oggsmash;982489I thought the first Conan movie portrayed that fairly well.  Sure Thulsa might eventually be a threat on the world scale, but when Conan is cutting his cult leader career short, he is still not a nation level threat (pretty sure he was just an issue for the local lord/"king" who if I remember right was king of a city state). Conan could give a shit less, he was there to kill the guy who killed his parents, and then his woman.  Period.   Later the scale of the issues grew to global issues.

No it didn't.  It had Conan whining at Crom.  The uncaring God of the Cimmerians, who if you entreat him will send you dooms, to make you strong enough to not have to call on any God for favours.  Because Crom gives man two things, life and strength to overcome anything.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;982542To clarify, until the 1995 Stallone flick, no one outside of Britain and some hard core fans knew what Dredd was about.  Then it came along, flopped but created a precedent.  Then the Urban film, which is leagues better, but is nothing like the Stallone flick, which everyone expected something similar with, and couple that with the small, niche market that even knew that the Stallone flick only got the technology look right and nothing else, it was destined to fail.

Ah, I see. Yes, it's easy to forget that the US knew nothing about Judge Dredd, when 2000AD comics were such an integral part of growing up for UK boys in the 1980s especially, and when Mega City 1 is an obviously American concept. I mean, people gush about William Gibson, but Judge Dredd was already satirising many of the ideas he presented five years prior!

Anybody in the US heard of Viz?

Quote from: Dumarest;982231But we are comparing Tolkien and Howard, no one else. Why not add Star Wars and Pokemon if you just want to add irrelevant IPs?

I was specifically responding to Toadmaster's assertion that the Harry Potter films "puts them both to shame."

Quote from: vivsavage;982556I was specifically responding to Toadmaster's assertion that the Harry Potter films "puts them both to shame."

Okay. I get you.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;982550Ah, I see. Yes, it's easy to forget that the US knew nothing about Judge Dredd, when 2000AD comics were such an integral part of growing up for UK boys in the 1980s especially, and when Mega City 1 is an obviously American concept. I mean, people gush about William Gibson, but Judge Dredd was already satirising many of the ideas he presented five years prior!

Anybody in the US heard of Viz?

Of course. Lots of people knew of Judge Dredd. The comics were repackaged here. I have a few. I wint say they sold like hotcakes but they sold well enough that the publisher kept reprinting them. I evsn have the Games Workshop RPG. Christopher Brady should always be taken with a massive dose of salt. Plus only he understands what true sword and sorcery is. Keep that in mind.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;982542To clarify, until the 1995 Stallone flick, no one outside of Britain and some hard core fans knew what Dredd was about.  Then it came along, flopped but created a precedent.  Then the Urban film, which is leagues better, but is nothing like the Stallone flick, which everyone expected something similar with, and couple that with the small, niche market that even knew that the Stallone flick only got the technology look right and nothing else, it was destined to fail.

That's why it failed.

Compare to all the Conan films which were pretty bad from the word go, and no amount of hype would ever save them from that.



No it didn't.  It had Conan whining at Crom.  The uncaring God of the Cimmerians, who if you entreat him will send you dooms, to make you strong enough to not have to call on any God for favours.  Because Crom gives man two things, life and strength to overcome anything.

  I dont disagree that was yet another mis step from the director considering the lore, however I miss how it was not still a personal issue and struggle in the nature of sword and sorcery.    It also got closer tone wise than pretty much any other sword and sorcery movie I have seen.

Quote from: oggsmash;982676It also got closer tone wise than pretty much any other sword and sorcery movie I have seen.

I've always thought of Conan the Barbarian as a great sword & sorcery movie - just a shit Conan movie.

Quote from: K Peterson;982678I've always thought of Conan the Barbarian as a great sword & sorcery movie - just a shit Conan movie.

I agree almost completely.  Wouldn't say "great" but "pretty darn good." Maybe great in comparison to others in the genre.

Quote from: K Peterson;982678I've always thought of Conan the Barbarian as a great sword & sorcery movie - just a shit Conan movie.

Bingo.

Quote from: K Peterson;982678I've always thought of Conan the Barbarian as a great sword & sorcery movie - just a shit Conan movie.

This is so true.

Quote from: vivsavage;982556I was specifically responding to Toadmaster's assertion that the Harry Potter films "puts them both to shame."

Franchise, not films. Harry Potter has brought in loads more money for its author. It has sold 400 million copies in what 20 years? to LotRs 150 million over 60 years. Granted part of that is timing and the fact JK Rowling has more financial interest in her works, while Tolkien was a professor who wrote some books on the side and practically gave the movie rights away.

But that was my point was you really can't just look at the bottom line figures and declare X franchise is more popular, well known, influential etc.
H.P. Lovecraft has influenced the horror genre well beyond the rather meager $$$ his books have made. If we only look at $$$ and records sold Justin Beiber actually matters (speaking of unspeakable horrors that man was not meant to know...)

I agree that Tolkien is very likely to be the better known Author, but Conan is a well known property outside of nerd circles, as is The Hobbit  / LotR. Tolkien's work has remained relatively pure and is still popular, Conan has had dozens of new stories by other authors, comic books, graphic novels, movies, and spin offs (Red Sonja).
Much as many fantasy games feel obligated to include hobbit like races, Conan basically defines the fantasy "barbarian" even if these rarely really "get" the Conan character right.
   
It just seems to me, a silly argument and making it all about $$$ adds to the absurdity.

Quote from: oggsmash;982676I dont disagree that was yet another mis step from the director considering the lore, however I miss how it was not still a personal issue and struggle in the nature of sword and sorcery.    It also got closer tone wise than pretty much any other sword and sorcery movie I have seen.

I give the '82 film credit for at least recognizing the works it was based on, it was obvious that the screen writer had actually read some of Howard's stories. There were several parts that closely line up with scenes from the stories. It wasn't perfect but it was much better than most S&S movies. I enjoy both of the 80s Conan movies warts and all. I would love to see one get made by a director / producer who really knows the Howard stories and has the freedom from the studios to do it right.

I still think the Saturday morning "Conan & the Cimmerians" cartoon from 1985 was the best version to date, although the musical interludes were out of character to me. I just don't see Conan playing drums for a kids' rock group.

Quote from: Dumarest;982688I agree almost completely.  Wouldn't say "great" but "pretty darn good." Maybe great in comparison to others in the genre.

It is certainly watchable. Almost all other S&S films from the 80s are swill though so that's not saying much.

can you guys take the TV/Movie discussion to the Media & Inspiration Subforum.

Quote from: K Peterson;982678I've always thought of Conan the Barbarian as a great sword & sorcery movie - just a shit Conan movie.

Actually, that's how I felt about the Hobbit trilogy. It's pretty good entertainment as a series of fantasy movies, but a pretty awful adaptation of the book.