Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Herne8 OP t1_itx1psb wrote

Dunno, credits are rolling on SatS as I type this and I think I might actually like it more. There were a lot of badass moments in it that I know will stick in my memory. The effects are definitely not great, but I wouldn't say any worse than Conan's. Both are limited by their budgets and era. The sets and costumes also seem more elaborate to me.

It's definitely one that I can see myself rewatching from time to time.

0

EvilNuff t1_itzg03a wrote

Conan had an orchestral score based on Carmina Burana by Orf. Conan intentionally minimized the dialog in a manner that worked, this allowed the actors to play to their physical strengths as opposed to looking/sounding out of place. I think that decision is very underrated. Ignoring Arnold Conan also had James Earl Jones and Max von Sydow. Writing credits by Robert E Howard for the character, John Milius, and Oliver Stone.

Compare that to SatS, which had a gimicky 3 bladed sword where you could see the string as it shot the outer blades (how that isn't worse than anything in Conan I don't know). I legit don't know what score it had. Very cheesy dialog. Richard Lynch and Richard Moll I think are the biggest names in the cast. Writing credits by 3 people I've never heard of who, according to IMDB, have a total of 1, 1 and 25 writing credits to their names.

So while you absolutely can and should enjoy whichever one you like more, saying/implying that Conan's popularity is a factor of Arnold's success is just silly.

2

Herne8 OP t1_itzo5q5 wrote

I wasn't saying it was, I was asking for opinions on it.

1

EvilNuff t1_itztc3q wrote

Oh, then sorry my bad in misinterpreting your question! And I guess I already shared my opinion. :)

In my opinion I can (and do!) still watch Conan to this day and enjoy it greatly. SatS I enjoyed as a kid but as an adult its pretty hard for me to watch.

1