Here's the showdown of two movies- Conan by Arnold Schwarzenegger vs. that of Jason Momoa. I wanted Arnie to show up in the 2011 movie as Conan's father. Now for my thoughts on each side...
Which Conan is better? In my opinion, actually they are both in their own respects having their own. For Jason Momoa's version, that Conan as a kid was already able to kill some warriors while Arnold's version started off as a wimpy kid who is forced on the Wheel of Pain, survives and becomes the greatest gladiator ever. The novels didn't have the wheel of pain, it was an original concept of the writers. I think both are great in their own way though Jason Momoa looks closer to that in the novel. But when it comes to appeal, Arnold's movie really stands out.
For Zym, he was a badass warrior who was in the quest to find the Mask of Acheron so he can revive his sorceress wife so he can conquer Hyboria while he has his evil daughter Malivia both original characters. I thought Zym was pretty cool as well. My problem with him though is that he overly uses brute force and he is overly reliant on his witch daughter Malivia. Fortunately he treats his daughter well because his own daughter could kill him with her magic. However I'd like to mention why I think the movie Thulsa Doom (who resembles Thoth-Amon instead of the skull faced comics version) is the better villain. Pretty much at the beginning, he does the standard raid the village in which, he grabs steel for power while the later villain Zym was after pieces of the Mask of Acheron. However in later years, Doom rules from the Mountain of Power where the worship of Set carries the same banner he used many years ago. His power spreads from different areas where it moves from the Mountain of Power near the Vilayet Sea to Zamora, Stygia, Nemedia, Koth and Aquilonia where he spreads the worship of his snake god Set. To make matters worse, he has seduced Yasimina who is the sole heiress to the throne of Zamora where she is to be his. His authority goes unchallenged as even Rexor and Thorgrim are more feared than the governments. With an army of blind followers of Set to command, he has murdered many important figures of authority and many of his enemies end up being killed, butchered and eaten by him and his followers. In fact, he has relied on a balance of flesh and steel, to where he obviously is a sly villain who's not easy to catch which also adds to real political conflict.
Action sequences in the 1982 movie for me are way better, not just overly relying on flashy special effects and are very linked to the plot itself. You might want to talk about the action scenes at the Mountain of Power where Conan, Valeria and Subotai actually wreck the whole mountain with a lot of sword fight as they steal the princess or the Battle of the Mounds where Doom leads his troops to recover the princess. In fact, every scene there in the 1982 Conan was really so well done. In the 2011 version, there were some interesting scenes but most of them tend to corrode the plot.
Overall, the Conan film of 1982 is better for me!
Which Conan is better? In my opinion, actually they are both in their own respects having their own. For Jason Momoa's version, that Conan as a kid was already able to kill some warriors while Arnold's version started off as a wimpy kid who is forced on the Wheel of Pain, survives and becomes the greatest gladiator ever. The novels didn't have the wheel of pain, it was an original concept of the writers. I think both are great in their own way though Jason Momoa looks closer to that in the novel. But when it comes to appeal, Arnold's movie really stands out.
For Zym, he was a badass warrior who was in the quest to find the Mask of Acheron so he can revive his sorceress wife so he can conquer Hyboria while he has his evil daughter Malivia both original characters. I thought Zym was pretty cool as well. My problem with him though is that he overly uses brute force and he is overly reliant on his witch daughter Malivia. Fortunately he treats his daughter well because his own daughter could kill him with her magic. However I'd like to mention why I think the movie Thulsa Doom (who resembles Thoth-Amon instead of the skull faced comics version) is the better villain. Pretty much at the beginning, he does the standard raid the village in which, he grabs steel for power while the later villain Zym was after pieces of the Mask of Acheron. However in later years, Doom rules from the Mountain of Power where the worship of Set carries the same banner he used many years ago. His power spreads from different areas where it moves from the Mountain of Power near the Vilayet Sea to Zamora, Stygia, Nemedia, Koth and Aquilonia where he spreads the worship of his snake god Set. To make matters worse, he has seduced Yasimina who is the sole heiress to the throne of Zamora where she is to be his. His authority goes unchallenged as even Rexor and Thorgrim are more feared than the governments. With an army of blind followers of Set to command, he has murdered many important figures of authority and many of his enemies end up being killed, butchered and eaten by him and his followers. In fact, he has relied on a balance of flesh and steel, to where he obviously is a sly villain who's not easy to catch which also adds to real political conflict.
Action sequences in the 1982 movie for me are way better, not just overly relying on flashy special effects and are very linked to the plot itself. You might want to talk about the action scenes at the Mountain of Power where Conan, Valeria and Subotai actually wreck the whole mountain with a lot of sword fight as they steal the princess or the Battle of the Mounds where Doom leads his troops to recover the princess. In fact, every scene there in the 1982 Conan was really so well done. In the 2011 version, there were some interesting scenes but most of them tend to corrode the plot.
Overall, the Conan film of 1982 is better for me!