Conan: The Barbarian! Which Version is Better?

Hello Ladies and Gentleman! It is your old pal Thulsa Doom, here to bring you a rare treat. With the release of the new Conan The Barbarian movie opening this past weekend, we here at the Smoking Nerd thought it would be a good idea to do a little compare and contrast. What is the superior Conan film? The 1982 epic featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Earl Jones, or the newer and flashier Conan starring Jason Momoa, Ron Perlman, and Rose McGowan? Which film is grittier and will have you donning your loin cloth and eating raw meat for the next few weeks, in an effort to capture the magic that can only be attained by watching musclebound behemoths violently slaughter at will while simultaneously mounting any and every woman in sight? Read ahead to find out!

Now it should definitely be noted that I am a HUGE fan of the original Conan film. My moniker is Thulsa Doom for Pete's sake. And perhaps the main reason for this is the fact that I love Arnold Schwarzenegger. No, let me rephrase that. I F*CKING LOVE Arnold Schwarzenegger. Allow me to briefly list his accomplishments. He came to the country a poor Austrian immigrant, and in a few years was a millionaire as a result of savvy business moves and investments. He won the coveted Mr. Olympia title, bodybuilding's greatest competition, a whopping 7 times and is widely regarded as the greatest bodybuilder of all time. He then went on to be a two term Governor of California! Oh, and somewhere in the middle of all that he became the greatest action movie star of all time. Despite an Austrian accent that never quite left him, and what some would call "poor" acting chops, his iconic rolls have grossed about a billion dollars in worldwide box office sales. Now some fellow nerds may be saying to themselves, "Arnold? Bodybuilding? This doesn't sound very nerdy." To them I say have you ever heard of a film called Predator? Hows about Total Recall? Oh, I don't know, Terminator? Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Sci-Fi fanboy's dream, and a sword and sorcery epic like Conan just furthers that point.

What I thought would be best would be to take a couple points from the films, and compare and contrast new and old. At the end of this article I will sum up the findings, and give you an honest opinion. It was difficult, but I went into the "New" Conan with no bias and after viewing, this is what I came up with.

Conan's Introduction: In the original film, we find Arnold in his small village in Cimmeria as a small boy whose village is ransacked by Thulsa Doom and his minions. His father is killed by a pack of hounds, and his mother his beheaded by Doom right in front of him. He is then enslaved and chained to the "Wheel of Pain," where a young Conan is forced to push a giant wheel around in circles indefinitely.

In the new Conan, we see a fetus in a womb that is "born into battle" literally as a sword cuts right through his mother's belly. In the midst of battle her husband runs to her aide, and she demands that she see her child before she dies. He then cuts the baby out of his wife, and shows it to her. With her dying breath, she states that the child will be named Conan. Despite how it may sound, this scene was actually well done, and surprisingly heartfelt.

Winner: New Conan

Explanation of Conan's Fighting Prowess: In the original, Conan has become large and powerful after countless years on the "Wheel of Pain." Realizing his size and strength, his captors throw him into a series of gladiator-esque fights to the death against other slaves for the amusement of the slavers. Though raw at first, Arnold's power shines through and it seems he is a natural at killing. Realizing his skill, he is sent to the Eastern warlords, to have his abilities honed. He is taught to fight with steel, fight barehanded, and fight with no fear and no remorse. He is also forced to sleep with various women or mating stock, in an effort to breed more warriors. Though it may not be pleasant, it definitely smacks of truth, or at least the truth that I would assume if a Barbarian was bred to be an untouchable warrior in ancient times. Arnold never tasted defeat in all those years, and eventually earned his freedom as a result of his victories.

In the new Conan, there is no explanation to speak of. We see a young Conan as a youth of 10, perhaps 12. In an exercise where he and the other young men of his village are racing to see who is ready for battle, they are attacked by a bloodthirsty tribe of neighboring warriors. All his peers, who are all obviously larger and older then him go back to the village as they were taught. Not Conan though. He somehow fights 5 of these overgrown brutes, and in a series of high flying moves and brutal strength kills and decapitates them all?? Honestly, while watching this it conjured up memories of Shortround in "Temple of Doom" beating up grown men, though he himself was a 12 year old Asian boy. Upon return, Conan's dad forges him a sword, there is a haphazard scene where it is hinted that Conan is too wild and needs to learn control before he can harness his true power...and that's it! At no other time do they mention any learning, and as an adult he is invincible and suffers no defeat to speak off throughout the entire film. Even for a Conan movie, it was very implausible.

Winner: Original Conan

Conan Physique: This is another issue I had with the new movie. In the original, Arnold is freaking huge. Though one might say it is not integral to the story, I beg to differ. He is supposed to have prodigious strength, and in fact be the strongest warrior in all the land. Arnold looks the part. He filmed the movie in between bodybuilding competitions, and he definitely looked like someone you did not want to mess with. I once read that in his prime, Arnold could flex his pecs and stand up a can of coke on his chest like a shelf. Homo eroticism aside, that's how I want my barbarians, beefcakes.

Now, Jason Momoa is in great shape to be sure but it is obvious that the filmmakers were going for the pretty boy look over the musculature look. There were multiple scenes in the film where the warriors Conan was riding with were much larger than Conan himself. Unacceptable! Conan is supposed to be the baddest man in the land.

Winner: Original Conan

Epic Boobage/Blood and Gore: The Original Conan was full of boobs and blood, which I believe adds credibility to a movie about barbarians in a fantasy world. There were snake orgies for Gods sake! The blood and beheadings were often, however it was the early 80's, and as a result it did not look very polished. And to be honest, watching this movie recently I realized it did not age very well. There are a lot of delayed blood spurts after a sword swing that look really cheesy, and the fights themselves are very ham handed. But, that was how movies were done at that time, so it is not without its charms.

The new Conan's fight scenes are fast and furious, and honestly almost too stylized if you ask me. I would much rather have preferred a grittier look and feel to the movie. However the gore was believable and cringe inducing, which is what the filmmakers were looking for I believe. Also, no disrespect to female actors and models of the late 70's/early 80's but I just feel like Hollywood women are more attractive these days, with far nicer boobs. And brother, there are boobs aplenty in this movie.

Winner: New Conan

Conan's Nemesis: The original Conan had Thulsa Doom, played by none other then James Earl Jones. His hair is flowing, he is thoughtful and meticulous, and he truly fits the role of cult leader who could manipulate thousands of people into following him, even killing themselves for him without a second thought. That, and he can turn into a snake! Thulsa Doom is truly haunting, and he stands the test of time. Intelligent, devious, horrifying, he was the perfect evil doer for this film.

Conan's nemesis in the new film is Khalar Zym, as played by Stephen Lang. This guy is a total douche. He has no power to speak of, he just wants to piece back together an evil mask that gives the wearer incredible powers so that he can resurrect his dead sorceress of a wife. In the process he kills Conan's family and many other people. The guy even has a sorceress daughter who actually does all the work for him. And no joke, towards the end, he actually fixes the mask and wears it. And what does he do with it? Nothing! He had no more power than he did before, and Conan still killed him! What a joke.

Winner: Resoundingly Original Conan

Notable One Liner: In the original film, Arnold has one of the greatest quotes in cinematic history. When asked by fellow war chieftains what was best in life, he says, "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women." Go ahead and google it.

New Conan? "I live, I love, I slay, and I am content." And a tumbleweed just blew by. The saddest part is you could totally tell that the director wanted this to be an epic line in the movie, and it totally failed.

Winner: Original Conan

Look everyone, I can't be unbiased anymore, the new movie SUCKED. And honestly I thought it was going to and hoped it wouldn't, but it did. Hard. Jason Momoa was not a good choice. He would have absolutely no nerd street cred at all if it weren't for "Game of Thrones," and his run as Khal Drogo. He did well with that because they didn't ask for much. He is not a good actor, and in this movie he was a smart ass, talking too much and cracking too many jokes because it was impossible for him to get hurt in battle. That is not a barbarian, and that does not lend itself to a film if it is trying to be taken seriously.

Now Arnold will never be argued as being the next Ralph Fiennes or Daniel Day Lewis, but why do you think he was so successful? Because he took roles that played to his strengths. He was huge and intimidating. Terminator, Conan, the dialogue did not ask much of him, and yet somehow he conveyed power and was believable in the role. And its not all Momoa's fault, as the new movie was a train wreck on all levels. Honestly, I could go on and on about how bad the new movie was and how great the original was, and I'm going to stop because I'm getting upset just thinking about how major movie companies are so eager to ruin franchises in the name of a quick buck. But I will leave with two final points. The new Conan actually had Morgan Freeman narrate it. For two scenes! No joke, he narrated about eight sentences throughout the whole film. Its like the director (Marcus Nispel) was trying to make the joke of Morgan Freeman narrating every film just to make a joke, because he barely narrated! I mean, did anyone think to say, "Hey Marcus, are you intentionally making this movie a joke by having Morgan Freeman narrate just long enough for people to role their eyes when they realize he is narrating?" God, Marcus Nispel should exile himself from society so that he never has any say in any movie ever again. And my second point. I read that despite opening in over 3000 movie theatres, and costing roughly $100 million dollars to make, the new Conan grossed $10 million its opening weekend, the 23rd worst movie opening in the history of cinema. Well, at least there were boobs.