That resounding thud you heard this weekend was the sound of a Cimmerian dropping like a stone as the Conan the Barbarian remake rounded up a mere $10 million in box office receipts over its opening weekend. The film, which cost $90 million to produce and debuted on some 3,000 screens, is a flop by any measure, and now it's time to point some fingers.
One could argue that the world was simply not ready to revisit the world of Conan, or that the new flick bore too little a resemblance to its Schwarzeneggerian predecessor. Butsome pundits are placing the blame squarely on the beefy shoulders of the guy playing Conan, Jason Momoa, who they believe didn't have the profile to carry the movie, especially when compared to a wrestler or someone with an already-built-in fanbase.
An unnamed Lionsgate exec defended the choice, saying:
"There's so much history with this character and this brand they needed someone who could both really 'own' Conan (making him feel relatable for this generation), but also who offered continuity with what fans already know and love. Because there's no competing with Arnold, Jason's performance bypasses all of the comparisons, playing the character in a very different way than Arnold did and instead taking inspiration from the written source."
What do you think? Was Momoa to blame for Conan's failure, or did the former Khal Drogo carry an otherwise weak film? LINK
Posts
