Talk:Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Quotes

The main Conan pages included these quotes:

• Mongol General: "What is best in life?"
  Conan: "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."
  (Note that this is actually a paraphrased quote from Ghengis Khan)

>>> Isn't it more accurate to say "hear ze lamentations of zer vimmen" (who was Arnold's dialog coach???) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Conan: "Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men, or bad. Why we fought, or how we died. No, all that matters is, that two stood against many. That's what's important. Valour pleases you Crom, so grant me one request, grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to hell with you!"
• Conan, to Subotai: "Crom laughs at your four winds. Laughs from his mountain."
  
• King Osric: "There comes a time, thief, when the jewels cease to sparkle, when the gold loses its luster, when the throne room becomes a prison, and all that is left is a father's love for his child."
• Valeria: "To the hellfires with Thulsa Doom. He's evil; a sorcerer who can summon demons. His followers' only purpose is to die in his service... Thousands of them."
• Valeria: "All my life I've been alone. Many times I've faced death with no one to know. I would look into the huts and the tents of others in the coldest dark and I would see figures holding each other in the night. But I always passed by."
• The Wizard(voiceover): "Between the time when the oceans drank Atlantis, and the rise of the sons of Aryas, there was an age undreamed of. And onto this, Conan, destined to wear the jeweled crown of Aquilonia upon a troubled brow. It is I, his chronicler, who alone can tell thee of his saga. Let me tell you of the days of high adventure!"
• Thulsa Doom: "Infidel defilers. They shall all drown in lakes of blood."
• Thulsa Doom: "My child, you have come to me, my son. For who now is your father if it is not me? I am the wellspring, from which you flow. When I am gone, you will have never been. What would your world be, without me? My son."
• Conan's Father: "For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts. This you can trust." [Points to his sword]
• Thulsa Doom: "Yes! You know what it is, don't you boy. Shall I tell you? It's the least I can do. Steel isn't strong boy, flesh is stronger! Look around you. There, on the rocks; that beautiful girl. Come to me, my child... [girl leaps to her death] That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it? Look at the strength in your body, the desire in your heart, I gave you this! Such a waste. Contemplate this on the tree of woe. Crucify him!"
• Valeria: "Do you want to live forever?"
  (Note that this is actually a quote from Frederick the Great)
• Thulsa Doom: "Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they learn why they fear the night."
• Thulsa Doom: "Where is the Eye of the Serpent? Rexor said that you gave it to a girl; probably for a mere night's pleasure. Such a loss. People have no grasp of what they do."
• Subotai: "He is Conan, Cimmerian, he won't cry, so I cry for him."
• Black Lotus Street Peddler: "Two or three years ago it was just another snake cult."
• The Wizard: "I'm a wizard, mind you. This place is kept by powerful gods and spirits of kings. Harm my flesh and you will have to deal with the dead!"
• Valeria: "All the gods, they cannot sever us. If I were dead and you were still fighting for life, I'd come back from the darkness. Back from the pit of hell to fight at your side."
• Conan: "For us, there is no spring. Just the wind that smells fresh before the storm."

I have deleted them from there, and copy them here - but surely they should go to Wikiwuotes if anywhere. -- Beardo 19:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need so many qotes from the film, or even any? This is hardly Citizen Kane or something.JackorKnave (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted this part

I deleted the "relatively realistic" part in "Conan the Barbarian is set in a relatively realistic bronze and iron age setting with only a few supernatural elements.", because this movie is obviously in no way realistic.

-intranetusa —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

It came back again. I agree, Howard set his works in an entirely mythical "Hyborian Age". Any references to Bronze or Iron ages is spurious. If anyone disputes this, please reference the article on the Hyborian Age, which is directly from Howard's works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmarshal (talk • contribs) 13:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Glycon?

Apart from being a snake god, what's the connection with Glycon? Rojomoke 11:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, nobody's commented in the last 3 months, so I'm removing the link. Rojomoke 11:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What does this even mean?

"nor does he have the characteristic ... "volcanic blue eyes" of Howard's original. (In fact, Schwarzenegger's eyes are blue, but volcanoes are red)."--83.94.180.173 20:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Explanation to "volcanic blue eyes": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_%28mythology%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.148.194 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Riddle of Steel

Four paragraphs about the Riddle of Steel were deleted from the plot summary because the plot summary was too long. Still, it was an interesting section. Should it get its own page? GremlinKender 00:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Definitely By the way, in the plot synopsis, we are told Conan travels east to be trained by the "War Masters". Shouldn't that read "Sword Masters"? Edward Carson (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the narrator calls them "War Masters" in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.7.98 (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was the part on the riddle of steel removed? It was the finest bit on the whole article!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.8.199.130 (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bolero

Shouldn't the link to bolero be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.32 (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RiddleofSteel.jpg

Image:RiddleofSteel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Here is the stuff I removed from the talk page for anyone who's interested in integrating it! TINYMARK 16:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the 1914 silent film Cabiria, a slave named Maciste — who is also a muscular barbarian — pushes a mill wheel for ten years just as Conan does.

• The film was mostly shot in Spain.

• Conan is the anglicized version of the Celtic name Conán, derived from "Hound". There are several characters who bear the name Conán in Irish mythology, most notably Conán Maol Mac Mórna. While uncommon, the name is still used in Ireland; it is also the name of a 4th century Breton king and of 4 counts/dukes of Brittanny in the 11th and 12th centuries.

• Sandahl Bergman nearly lost her finger when a fight scene went wrong and the extra hit her finger instead ofthe blade, cutting her all the way down to the bone. Instead of asking if she was all right, director John Milius told her "Valeria would never let that happen again."

• Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sandahl Bergman did all their own stunts, as there were no stunt doubles available who matched them in size.

• Arnold Schwarzenegger said in his audio commentary that Sandahl Bergman actually injured more stunt men during the fight sequences than he did.

• The cast suffered various injuries during filming. Arnold Schwarzenegger was pulled down by the dogs that were chasing him and took various injuries to his back in addition to bashing his head open on a rock and later having his neck sliced by an axe. According to Schwarzenegger, director John Milius called himself "The Dog Trainer".

• Sandahl Bergman was very uncomfortable shooting her love scene with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

• The helmets worn by Thulsa Doom's warriors in the opening scenes closely resemble those worn by the Teutonic Knights in the 1938 film Alexander Nevsky.

• Terry Pratchett parodies Conan the Barbarian in his Discworld series, with his character Cohen the Barbarian, a 90-year old Barbarian.

• Thulsa Doom's line 'Crucify him' after his strength of steel speech was sampled in a remix of the Mindless Self Indulgence track "J".

• The Friedrich Nietzsche quotation that opens the film is from The Twilight of the Idols, "Maxims and Arrows," 8. The full statement is "From the battleschool of life: What does not destroy me, makes me stronger." This is actually a summary of what Paul of Tarsus wrote in Romans 5:3 "More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance"

• The earlier (1979) film Apocalypse Now, not coincidentally co-written by John Milius, has an identical scene where the hero kills the antagonist with a sword and then refuses to inherit his power by symbolically dropping the bloody sword before the assembled followers.

Here's something even more trivial for you: Gary Gygax reviewed the movie in Dragon Magazine, Issue 63, on p. 72.

by Gary Gygax

“Conan Meets The Flower Children of Set” might have been a better name for the film — and if there is any resemblance between the cinema version of CONAN THE BARBARIAN and that of Robert E. Howard, it is purely coincidental. The disappointment which began to grow inside me about one-quarter of the way into the film was not mitigated by anything which happened later on. In fact, bad became worse. I refuse to become involved in even a brief synopsis of the movie’s story line.

The armor was good; the weapons less so, but passable. The muscular Arnold Schwarzennegger made a fine Conan, except — as all Conan fans know — the Cimmerian has black hair, not brown. More important, Conan can take out any opponent, even a muscular dude with a huge wooden maul. He doesn’t need to resort to cheap mechanical traps versus anything less than the incarnation of a god, demon, or worse.

If you like special effects, the film is passable. If you have any respect for Conan as presented by Howard, then I suggest that you stay away from the theater or else be prepared for great disappointment. Pointless, excessive violence and gratuitous helpings of sex certainly don’t help allay this impression. Director Dino De Laurentiis has a way of screwing up basically good material, as he did with his remake of King Kong. He really did a number on CONAN THE BARBARIAN, and L. Sprague de Camp should have been ashamed to allow his name to appear in the list of credits as “Technical Advisor.”

I, personally, liked the movie; but I never read the RE Howard novels. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mongols?

There is written about "Mongols" in quotations, but in Hyboria were no such a nation - the Hyrcanians should be more propriet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.177.168 (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Conan the barbarian.jpg

The image Image:Conan the barbarian.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

Why does this article have so many quotes? Are they really neccassary?JackorKnave (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Riddle of Steel?

Are there any quotes that back "the Riddle of Steel" analysis up or is it random speculation, because I don't think, this should be here, if the latter is the case. The article should be factual and not represent someones opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.168.111.68 (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

100% agree. Am deleting short section in summary that claims that Conan has "solved" the Riddle, until someone can show some kind of support for this thesis.69.74.24.2 (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack

It may be worth mentioning that the openning 40 seconds or so of the Total Recall theme is virtually identical to that of the Conan the Barbarian theme.--RedKnight (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the same thing myself when I first saw Total Recall. Goldsmith takes the soundtrack in a different direction afterward, but the menacing, impending brass at the beginning is very similar. Gunstar hero (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Once, long ago (1993-ish) I heard a remixed dance/thrash version of Riddle of Steel/Riders of Doom. Or it might've been Kitchen/The Orgy. It was remixed chant & wildly fun to dance to. If anyone has any idea whose work this is, perhaps it could be entered here (or in the talk section, just so I can find out. lol) MarkoOhNo (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki mess cleaned up

I've cleaned up the interwiki-mess both here and in the other languages. Some of them linked to the character and not the movie.--Ezzex (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Grace Jones?

What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.11.193 (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

She wasn't in this film, she was in Conan the Destroyer. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack: excerpts being recycled in 4 movie trailers

Contributor JAPPALANG systematically refutes all references and links: in the beginning with reason since it concerned youtube links (copyright infringement) Then, I found some trailerfan.com links with videos , and trailerfan.com DOES HOLD copyright, since "all material is property or licensed to trailerfan.net" as can be seen in "terms of use", which Jappalang pretend she has not read, BUT the real problem is that we should ask trailerfan.com their authorization to post a hotlink to their page. THAT is the real concern and is not feasible.

So to put better refs that would not raise any copyright suspicion I suppressed all refs to youtube and trailerfan and instead I put the EXACT SAME source of links as what was posted long before and "approved " by contributor Jappalang prior to this incident. I am talking about the soundtrack.net ref concerning the Gladiator trailer.

What a surprise, Jappalang suddelnly does not recognize the legitimity of soundtrack.net for the other films I cited even if they're CLEARLY LISTED on this official licensed soundtrack site: literally we have on http://www.soundtrack.net/trailers/cd-trailer.php?id=435 : "Conan the Barbarian (1982) was used in the trailers for the following films: • First Knight (1995) - Theatrical Trailer • Gladiator (2000) - Teaser Trailer • Highlander: Endgame (2000) - Theatrical Trailer • The Scorpion King (2002) - Theatrical Trailer"

I therefore accuse Jappalang of deliberate vandalism and to prevent me from contributing normally with VALID refs to this article.

If soundtrack central lists these films and further refs (individual refs for each film : http://www.soundtrack.net/trailers/?cid=F&mid=8630 and http://www.soundtrack.net/trailers/?cid=G&mid=9810) show clearly the trailers of the respective film titles as having parts of Conan the barbarian OST in their own OST, well who is Jappalang to say that it isn't valid? He has no proof that it isn't valid and this constant blocking of the article must stop NOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

First off, the copyright of the movie (and trailers) is copyrighted to Dino Delaurentiis and Universal Studios; the copyright of the music belongs to MCA Records. Trailerfans.com is not one of these parties and does not own the Conan the Barbarian trailer. Claiming they do speaks volumes of ignorance or misunderstanding of the concept of copyright. Trailerfans.com terms of use operates on the same principles as Youtube's: we do not care what is uploaded here until the copyright holder complains (or the material has become too controversial). The terms never state the trailers are copyrighted to the sites.

Soundtracks.net is a fansite run by a "motley crew".[1] They have no editorial policy or oversight, hence failing qualities of reliability requested by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (WP:RS) per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches. What content they have is hence suspect. Even worse, the cited information, "Conan the Barbarian (1982) was used in the trailers for the following films:" would mean that the entire trailer was used in the trailers of the others (which certainly is not true). The site does not state whether it was the visual or the audio elements, or even thematic. Referring back to the text it is supposed to support here, the statement does not support the claim that "Riders of Doom" are "frequently used" (which would certainly mean a lot more times, like 10 or more, even hundreds, judging by how many films are out there) in other trailers and "theme can be heard at 1:33" (who judged that to be "Riders of Doom"?). That is plain original research, as has been explained several times. Jappalang (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem so eager to prove the films cited do not contain excerpts of the Conan the Barbarian OST, feel free to do so. Oh but how will you proceed? I'm curious.

Soundtrack.net has info that may be incomplete and lack the finer details (they do not cite which track) but at least is the result of widely acclaimed sites which have fusioned together.

Why haven't other contributors erased the info "at 1:33 you can hear riders of Doom"? Because they don't play smart resorting to wikipedia laws and because they have ears -probably they've listened to the piece- and can read this info on many filmtrailer sites.

It's better to have info which lacks the finest details than to have a totally empty list. Unless you prove that the trailers in question have nothing to do with the OST and that the claim is pure invention. Or else a large part of wikipedia would have to be erased.

Concerning copyright, the other site (trailerfan.com) has agreements with it's distributors and with the legal owners, the only thing is you need written permission to hotlink of course.Perhaps it should be mentioned that the trailer is available on their site without hotlinking. There is no direct use of the material when citing the respective owners and citing an official distributing site without hotlinking.

Let's pretend the trailer is on Universal Picture's official website (apaprently it isn't, but let's pretend for a moment) .

Citing that the latter movie company holds copyright and that trailers of the film are available on their official website WITHOUT hotlinking does not violate any copyright.

Thus, citing that the trailer is present on a site which is allowed to broadcast it, WITHOUT resorting to hotlinking the adress of the trailer itself presents no problem. Does it?

"For example: you can find the trailer on trailerfan.com" and only that, since trailerfan is authorized to have the trailer on it's site but needs written permission which we have not. All the readers of the wikipedia article have to do is to look it up themselves on the site afterwards.

82.240.163.245 (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Trailerfan has no such permission with the copyright holders (where on their site have they explicitly stated so?). "It is understood that movie previews are submitted for promotional purposes" and these submissions are by anyone, not the copyright holders. It is a fanciful wish to believe that a small site of unknown background in the Czech Republic would have the permission of several major film companies for hundreds (if not thousands) of their copyrighted material. One can find trailers and previews of movies at their official sites; there is no need to link to suspicious sites that could damage the project.

As stated, your personal opinion that "Riders of Doom" is in those trailers are not published by any source. It is original research to listen to a piece of music and say "oh, it must be that track"; such subjective research (what may be obvious to you is not to many others) needs a reliable source. The article is currently in a terrible state, but it is just full of bad (not damaging, which must be immediately removed) content at the moment: unsourced original research presented in poor structure and language. When the time comes to improve the quality of this article, such items will be removed. After that, the quality will then be maintained.

You have yet to show understanding of link violations and original research even though the earlier posting of these relevant policies and guidelines; I am beginning to believe that you did not read them and are not bothering to learn the policies and guidelines of this project. It is a waste of this project's time if you keep violating these terms and eventually (through continual damage or disruption caused by such violations) could result in your blocking from here. It would be more helpful if your contributions abide the terms and help improve the project. Jappalang (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the structure of the entire wikipedia article does not have an ideal structure.Bear in mind that I did not start the article nor did I touch this same awkward structure.

But your assumption that all contributions that are not coming from you are in bad form and bad english is overwhelming. You even threaten to block me, as if you were judge and jury and sole authority standing here in wikipedia. Instead of criticizing the little that I did find on the net , try to add something useful too and keep you threats to yourself, respectfully. In other words,I'm trying to add whatever I can add, whether you consider it too personal or not, but at least it will motivate others who have more time and energy to put into imporving further the article, and not let it rest so incomplete and untouched for a decade.

Please tell me what terms do I "repeteadly violate" (I hope you're joking) and how do I "waste this project's time". It seems you're attempting to make me pass for someone who constantly vandalizes and destroys the work of others, which is untrue. Please keep these very personal remarks for yourself, as I have refrained myself from giving my opinion on your contributions too. It's called being fair and polite.

Thanks a lot and let us agree on these terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir/Mam: Please actually read link violations and original research. The rules exist to maintain the quality of the articles. Whether your "contributions" are factually accurate or not is irrelevant. Jappalang appears to have told you several times that you are violating these rules, and it is not shocking that his/her patience is not limitless. You are not coming off as the mature/informed party in this conversation. -Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.78.9 (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup - disputed paragraph excerpted Here

Just a note Jappalang et al -- while you're no doubt right about this, I hope we do not tread into wikisnobbery against an IP editor :-) After all, confirmed users are just as prone to lame edit wars over subjects like this. The nice thing to do is to clean up the article, as I have done a little bit, with respect for the substance of previous verifiable edits, and remove claims that fail verification and put them on the talk page, and not clutter up the page with hectoring citation alerts (unless the facts at issue are undisputed and the issue is finding a proper source). In this case, the matter seems hardly worth fighting over. I have rewritten the sentence(s) at issue to simply state that the music has been re-used in several places and removed the disputed cites and placed them here. We need not list where the soundtrack is re-used anyhow. You guys can go ahead and argue over the following material on the talk page until a reliable source is found:

Several of the pieces, including the "Riders of Doom" are frequently used in the movie trailers of other films like First Knight in 1995 by Columbia Pictures (theme can be heard at 1:33)<ref>http://www.soundtrack.net/trailers/?cid=F&mid=8630</ref> and the "Anvil of Crom" in Ridley Scott's Gladiator for Universal Pictures. <ref>http://www.soundtrack.net/trailers/?cid=G&mid=9810</ref> Other movie trailers featuring music from Conan the Barbarian by Poledrouris are : Highlander: Endgame in 2000 and The Scorpion King in 2002 <ref>http://www.soundtrack.net/trailers/cd-trailer.php?id=435</ref>

(sic italicization and punctuation.) Yclept:Berr (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 rewrite

In the next few days, I am going to implement what I have been working on for more than a year and rewrite the entire article. The results will be something that conform to the policies and guidelines of this project, something which the current state is not following in any form (and it is not fine just because other articles of equally bad state exists). The basic model are the Featured articles of the Star Trek series, e.g. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The final aim is to get this to become an FA as well. Jappalang (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Good examples to follow! Let me know if you need help with research. I have access to subscription-only databases that can provide good references. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik. I have put in my rewrite. If you know of any source that has information to further improve this article, please feel free to raise the issue. Jappalang (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

A peer review for the article has been started at Wikipedia:Peer review/Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)/archive1. Jappalang (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy! I think it's comprehensive enough! :) I look forward to reading it. One element I noticed that was amiss, any mention of the 2011 remake. Could use a passing mention? Erik (talk | contribs) 01:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Initially, I thought of that too. However, on reading further articles about the 2011 version, there seems to be no relation to Milius's work; the 2011 film is not a remake nor a reboot of Milius's version, it is another imagining of Howard's character. The reviewers' comparisons of Momoa's film to Schwarzenegger's film might be better mentioned in the 2011 article. Jappalang (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Really good rewrite - good work! One problem I have (and which I'll fix once i have time if no one does it before) is with the lead. I'm sure most/all the claims in the lead are cited in the body of the article itself, but shouldn't they be cited each time a claim is made? If I'm wrong then never mind (but let me know! :) ). Also, the 4 other stars of the film aren't even mentioned in the lead and in the infobox (except JRJ). I also think that the actor names should be listed in the plot section when their character name is mentioned - the Casting section is written well, but it isnt easy to spot at a glance who played what character. Having it in the plot section -also- helps a lot. And i'm speaking from experience. Before the rewrite it was said that his was Arnold's breakthrough role and it is also written and cited in his main article. I think this should also be pointed out in the lead section. --Gonnym (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Gonnym, regarding the lead section, see WP:LEADCITE. It depends on how controversial the topic is. For example, today's Featured Article J. C. W. Beckham uses no inline citations. However, the Featured Article intelligent design uses many inline citations because it is a controversial topic where you want to back every passage. So for this film, I don't think we need to worry about inline citations in the lead section. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gonnym. Erik has answered about the lead. I am not a fan of putting in actor names in Plot (and I believe I am not alone either) since I think having those links there could be distracting to the general reader (especially if the actor is not known in any degree at all). Regarding this film as Schwarzenegger's "breakthrough role", the sources really differ on this (it depends on how you define "breakthrough"). Some say Pumping Iron (or even Stay Hungry) is the one that brought the industry's attention to him, others Conan, and yet more say The Terminator. Safe to say, however, is the fact that Schwarzenegger became an international action star through this film and this is what is reflected in the lead. Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Basil Poledouris video interview entitled "Basil Poledouris-Composing the Conan Saga"

Yomangani and Jappalang, the sole reason you deleted the info I added with small quotes from the video interview, is because you simply desire to make yourselves any changement and take over the wiki article as yours to add it to your "personal list of contributions". Why should I put my info only on this "talk page" and not in the article itself? This video interview is a much more reliable source than biographies of Poledouris which contain second hand material. This video features Poledouris himself, in the studio, talking for 18 minutes total of how he composed Conan the Barbarian and Conan the Destroyer and how Milius agreed or diagreed with him, inspiration etc. It also debunks the myth that the melodies were simply adapted from gregorian and other greek orthodox traditional music : Poledouris explains that this is where he took his inspiration, but that Milius -strongly- disagreed and asked him to tone down the christian aspect by modifying his compositions and putting less "christian intervals" , as Milius wanted a more "prehistoric" sound. Poledouris even adds that themes evoking too strongly ancient Rome would still be "too modern" compared to what Milius wanted (cf : something almost "prehistoric )

Poledouris explains, and this is VERY important compared to other movie music composers, that he already orchestrated himself his melodies , putting them in "sketches of 4 to 12 lines" which pro orchestrators would then expand and "blow up into a full score" in his own terms. Some composers only give a simple guitar or piano line, but Poledouris hands to the orchestrators pre-orchestrated partitions. He also shows his studio, how he used dedicated software to speed up the process and various anecdotes.

Don't believe me? Buy the latest Conan the Destroyer dvd with bonus videos.

What I find unjust is that registered members of Wikipedia take credit for what unregistered users such as IP users have researched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.82.152.110 (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I wish to claim the credit for the above comment. Please record it in my "personal list of contributions" as this is the sole reason I registered. Yomangani^talk 23:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

this is not your comment, its' mine, I only forgot to sign , as I'm an IP user.

89.82.152.110 (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

82.240.163.245 (talk · contribs) / 89.82.152.110 (talk · contribs), one can easily know what you have submitted here through your Contributions list and the History of the article. The statement "registered members of Wikipedia take credit for what unregistered users such as IP users have researched" is wholly disingenuous and ignorant of the workings of Wikipedia. Your "(original) research" (as recounted in your previous rant Soundtrack: excerpts being recycled in 4 movie trailers above) is non-compliant with policy and was rejected even though you or interested parties can go back through said Contribution/History to examine it. I certainly do not want to "take credit" for your opinions that no one even published.

Regarding your more recent insertion of material as stated in the opening of this thread, the short and simple answer is that they are excessive. The most important thing to note that this article is entirely about Conan the Barbarian, the 1982 film, not Basil Poledouris or the soundtrack. The focus of the article is hence the film and the article summarizes the more notable/important aspects of the subject. The film's music is only one part of the film; although it is one of the film's more recognizable feature and played a part in its success, critical published assessments do not place it above the other notable aspects (Schwarzenegger, Howard, Milius). A balanced article strives to place equal weightage on the coverage of these components (see WP:UNDUE). Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You have no clue how to balance correctly the "music" section of this article,Yomangani and Jappalang.

Count the total nomber of words spoken during the movie, especially by Arnold Schwarzenegger: the movie is almost a silent movie, a 2 hour long musical, even Milius said in some of the books you referenced , as well as the video I cited, that it was envisioned as an opera like film with almost no speech. Having very little speech brings the score to a degree of importance you fail to recognize, as opposed to the majority of professional film critics who thought the score contibuted greatly to the film's success and is remembered sometimes solely for it's score. Read your own reference books. By the way, your references are not as reliable as a first hand material I cited, which you promptly erased, this material being the 2002 18mn long video interview of the man himself, Basil Poledouris. Not some book about film music or a biography, considered second hand material . More importantly you present the score as being simply imagnied as one-line melodies orchestrated by McRitchie which is wrong: Poledouris orchestrated them first in 4-12 line partitions, which were expanded later by Poledouris' team of orchestrators .

You also presented -without naming them perhaps because you didn't really read the reference books you cited- Gift of Fury and Riders of Doom being simple adaptations of Dies Irae, when only the LEITMOTIVS evoking Thulsa Doom are based LOOSELY on the gregorian hymn, the rest of the compositions which are quite long have nothing to do with Dies Irae, as Milius insisted upon having less "christian intervals2 and toning down the christian music influence in Poledouris' final version score. Having a sound which would evoke something far more primitive than ancient Rome was a major concern for Milius as well, and this is all present in the video I referenced.

These concerns differ from your PERSONAL point of view concerning Conan the Barbarian's score as described in the music section of the article. The real problem being that you consider the articles on wikipedia belong to you and should be modified and policed only by you - Yomangani and Jappalang- while I consider that articles belong to no one. My contributions for the music section of this film were not "rejected" but erased by two registered members, you guys, who think they "own" this article. What my past contributions were is irrelevant, if the last contribution I made has valid and reliable references ( 2002 video interview by Poledouris on composing the Conan saga, available on dvd and bluray) , then you have no right erasing it because it simply doesn't "please" your tatses, because it's only a matter of taste here and not wikipedia rules. 89.82.152.110 (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Jappalang, I'm not sure why this is being considered excessive detail. The article is very large per WP:SIZE, especially for such a specific topic. I was actually going to suggest at the peer review creating some sub-articles so there could be a summary section for "Production" with access to much more detail. The IP's addition does not seem much more to me and seems to provide some clarification. Is it really "excessive"? Is it a sourcing problem? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That it is very large is normally a reason for cutting it, not bloating it further. I've already suggested honing off some of the detail into sub-articles (in a break from claiming the the contributions of IP editors as my own and policing all the articles on Wikipedia which I own) Yomangani^talk 12:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I support cutting excessive verbiage, but I think it is a good idea to preserve detail. Having sub-articles accomplishes that. If we have a production-related sub-article, then we can have details there and a production summary in the main article. Is there nothing from the video interview that is useful information to include? I know there is a lack of cordiality in this exchange, but I am asking to focus on the content and judging it on its own, not by the person who contributed it. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I expect there is some valuable stuff in an interview with the composer - Jappalang should be able to judge it best (not in his role as the avaricious credit thief, but as by far the most prolific contributor to the article and somebody who has spent considerable time researching it). I removed the additions because they were too detailed - the counter arguments made would have been better incorporated into the article by cutting some of the existing claims. Yomangani^talk 14:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Erik, it is primarily about the length of the article: the rewrite was above 70kB in proze size (crossing the 60kB "probable split" recommended by WP:SIZE) and I think you would agree that length of an article is a contentious at FAC (generally, if it is too short, it is not comprehensive; too long, we have too much details). An article that delves too deeply into the topic tends to lose the reader (personal experience by reviewing articles I generally would not write or have an avid interest in). I am not that great a writer to instinctively know what cuts are needed to more effectively capture the interest of the common reader and that is one of the reasons I brought the article for peer review (so that experienced editors/readers of other topics could help to do so by being bold and highlighting possible improvements). I am not opposed to anyone starting sub-section articles. The other factor as said is WP:UNDUE, the soundtrack whilst lauded certainly does not overshadow the other components as borne out by the amount of research materials (not just talking about reviews, but scholarly analysis and text) that looked at the film. There is no need to keep inflating one section, especially with superfluous details, when we are trying to par the article to an attractive length to the readers.

To be specific on the changes now under discussion (summed up as "Milius's Christian intervals" and "line sketches"), the notion of Milius's pagan tendencies and influence on the film is already noted in the Themes section, where critical analysis and reviews have backed the case. Milius's influence on the soundtrack is already encapsulated by the notice that he and Poledouris closely worked together on it. As for the line sketches, that is a misrepresentation of the source material there. Poledouris was talking about industry practices; that the composition process is getting shorter and shorter; that composers have to work with orchestrators almost at the start; that as such, he would "generally write out sketches anywhere from 4 lines to 12 lines", depending on the complexity of the music and the number of instruments. He was not talking about Conan the Barbarian nor that this was something special for the film. This statement is more suitable for Basil Poledouris than a "must/important" for one of his works. I would say the interview ("Composing The Conan Saga") is 50% about Poledouris and general information about his and the industry practices, 40% about Conan the Destroyer, and 10% about this film's music. The more pertinent detail in there is not that "important" even. Jappalang (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

In the video I mentioned, Jappalang says that Poledouris was "not talking about Conan the Barbarian" , but of general practices in the hollywood industry??

Wrong! You did not watch the documentary, he was talking about how he worked on Conan the Barbarian and Conan the Destroyer, the entire movie is about this and there are no generalities about Hollywood, he speak sometimes in general -but concerning himself- like when he explains his instrument of choice is the piano and now keyboards (not "guitar" as stated in the wikipedia article, this should be corrected too). He never speaks about guitar throughout the entire interview by the way, but this is "another story" The first half is about how he starts scores in general and in our case how he did for Conan the Barbarian, then what Milius wanted in terms of style and that they agreed in the end,orchestration,then how he was asked to work on the Destroyer and how he adapted partially his previous work for it and the new compositions for the Destroyer, along with various anecdotes concerning the producers and such. After all, it's not called "Poledouris: general practices in Hollywwod" but "Basil Poledouris: composing the CONAN SAGA" 95% of the film is dedicated to composing these two scores, Jappalang. I have read many biographies and articles about Poledouris and his scores, but this movie contains many details not present in biographies and books about the Milius Conan movie. To prove you are wrong, Poledouris says that it takes 4weeks as at first to plan and get ideas for the score, and in a second phase 8weeks to actually write it (in generla, not Conan in particular), but he says that in our case (the Conan saga, now he is still talking about Conan the barbarian, the part where he talks about Conan the Destroyer has not yet come) it took 4weeks for planning things out and 6 weeks instead of 8 and it necessitated the use of an orchestrator (he never said "since the beginning" as Jappalang insinuated) . He then goes on explaining how he wrote 4-12 line sketches, and how orchestrators ( he now says "they") "blow it up" into a full score. It is only after that that he gets even more vague and general, speaking about how great and special it is to work with orchestrators, what a pleasure it is to work with them etc. and this speech ends at 00:07:22 . Up to now it was EXCLUSIVELY Conan the Barbarian material . Immediately after, he speaks EXCLUSIVELY of Conan the Destroyer and how he got hired for the second time, his plans in the first stage of composing the score etc. The details I added were NOT generalities not concerning in particular Conan the Barbarian. What about Toning down the early christian aspect of Poledouirs' first drafts for Conan the Barbarian with Milius disagreeing, the composer and the director trying to get the style right by discussing how ancient it should sound and finally both agreeing? No excuses to delete that neither, Jappalang and Yomangani, you both who "judged it not interesting enough". Saying that gift of fury and riders of doom are "adapted" from Dies Irae insinuates that they're based on the gregorian hymn and in the style more or less of orthodox music, but Poledouris clearly states in his interview that he made his Conan the Barbarian compositions "LESS christian" and MORE "prehistoric" according to the terms he agreed with Milius. What is wrong if we think about it, is that the 18mn long interview has ONLY very short excerpts of the movie Conan the Destroyer all along , even when Poledouris is clearly talking about the very first piece Milius asked him to write for Conan the Barbarian when he first hired him!! This could induce people who zap right through the interview that it only speka of the Destroyer, but you must LISTEN to what Poledouris says and pay attention to the chronology of his Conan saga, not pay attention to the poor editing of the video. 89.82.152.110 (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

To anyone who like to verify the matter themselves, they are free to search for (and would easily find the interview on the web in this age of rampant copyright piracy) and watch the interview itself. Safe to say, nothing I say would make a difference to the vehement viewpoint the IP above has adopted no matter how wrong it is. Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't view the video interview, so I'm confused about why there are such contrasting viewpoints. You're saying that Poledouris's points are intended to be in general about his works, while the IP address says that Poledouris's points are about Barbarian and Destroyer respectively. Why such a difference? I guess I can't see why there would be confusion about what Poledouris meant. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Erik, I am guessing that you are currently behind a firewall or are not in a convenient situation (e.g. in the office) to view the interview (Youtube has it in 2 parts, but per WP:LINKVIO, we are not allowed to link it here). It would be much easier to understand the situation if you view the interview yourself from start to end without a care for any of the words here. To explain here why the IP is off-base about the interview's context would require a transcript of a large portion of the interview to here, which could violate copyright laws (but also expend a lot of time to listen and write without errors). Jappalang (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

For convenience (might also be of use to those wishing to verify the interview themselves), a breakdown of the interview is as below.

00:00–03:00 Generic opener -> Talk about John Milius -> Defining what is a a major chord -> Christian intervals -> no modern instruments in primitive score -> Milius remembering an old score that he thinks charecterise his Conan

03:20–04:20 Composers and directors should have strong relationships because of the directors' interests

04:35–04:55 Poledouris music background (started out in piano)

05:15–07:15 "The time constraints on writing a film have shrunk. When I first started out, twelve weeks was not an unusual amount of time for a composer to be given to write a film score." -> Break down of those twelve weeks -> If orchestrator is needed, Poledouris writes sketches. -> Expound what orchestrator does. -> Poledouris stress orchestrator-composer relationship as key.

07:30–09:50 Conan the Destroyer introduction -> Expose on Poledouris's presumption that it was an easy job -> Expound on nature of Destroyer -> Not appropriate to import music from first film into the second

10:00–10:30 Personal opinion that composers would readily go back and redo their work

10:40–11:05 Origin of main title of Conan (CtB and CtD) -> taking out of trambones

11:20–12:05 Brief words about CtD's derivative of Valeria's love theme

12:10–13:15 Explanation of Hall of Mirrors theme

13:30–14:20 Further expoundation of Hall of Mirrors theme

14:55–16:25 Composers and their liking for long sequences (main title) -> Poledouris says he skips the main title and do others first (e.g. Starship Troopers) -> Composers writing for dubs (working alongside other parts of the production)

16:35–17:00 Trying to explain that CtD's music was trying to continue CtB's music

The other intervals are all quiet pauses or filled with CtD film sequences and music. The key part is 05:15–07:15. The IP insists Poledouris is talking about CtB, which is frankly ridiculous. Conan's music composition started way before filming even started and extended all the way to post-editing, stretching more than a year (a luxurious time for composition). Poledouris did not "start out" with Conan, his first work was with Extreme Close-Up (1973) and several followed including Milius's Big Wednesday. The whole tone and context of 05:15–07:15 is misconstrued by the IP. Poledouris never once mention anything about Conan; the segment there was carried out in the same manner as his own observations and opinions about the industry as in others. Again, anyone is free to view the entire interview and judge for themselves. Jappalang (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What is ridiculous is that Jappalang and Yomangani insist heavily upon having the video "Composing the Conan saga" not being related to CTB or CTD ...at all. According to them it's general tips about how to compose, and hollywood anecdotes. Jappalang and Yomangani should not be allowed to be the only ones editing the wikipedia article, they lack the simple understanding of a video interview. Jappalang simply distorts the truth. The video was cut to ONLY 18 mn, hence Poledouris not mentioning each time "hey it's about Conan the Barbarian this time" or "now everything I explain is about Conan the Destroyer".

Jappalang says "Milius remembering an old score that he thinks charecterise his Conan" : that is where Poledouris explains how Milius contacted him asking him to transform an old piece into something for Conan the Barbarian, with the same might that corresponds to the character. You read very well, for Conan the BArbarian, because he's speaking of the Conan saga in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, starting off with how Milius hired him for the first Conan etc When Milius explains how he and Milius came up with a general style for the Conan character at first, no need to be a rocket scientist to understand that the "first time" Poledouris and Milius started giving out their own ideas and Poledouris' first impressions of the movie without any music can only be concerning the movie Conan the Barbarian. Proof is that Poledouris explains in the Conan the Destroyer part of the interview that this time the movie inspired him lighter feelings, images which would need more "magic" , this sort of explanation contrasts greatly with his first viewing of Conan the Barbarian before any score was planned or written, a first movie whose pictures appeared to him much more serious, with a sense of tragedy. When Poledouirs speaks of Milius making " a cross with his arms" , beating against the window when he heard Poledouris' first Conan early score drafts (which would end up heavily modified in the end) , it was to tell Poledouris his themes were too "christian" , that he used too many "christian intervals". This is in the beginning of the interview and concerns Conan the Barbarian, and only nitpicking people who pretend not to understand what all this is about could fail to ad;it it concerns Conan the Barbarian, for the video is once again EDITED , repetitions being cut out etc. Jappalang insinuates that this christian interval story has nothing to do with Conan the Barbarian movie, but he's dead wrong and refuses to understand the structure and puropose of the interview itself. Proof is that Conan the Destroyer short clips are inserted between each "episode" of the interview, and I explained this before Jappalang even mentioned it . Jappalang and his acolyte Yomangani just want to make this very interesting interview appear as something very general which wouldn't really concern Conan the BArbarian nor Conan the Destroyer at all...they wish so hard to impose this highly personal opinion of theirs. Notice that in the interview, Poledouris says that he always composes on piano and then later on he preferred keyboards for practical reasons. No question of composing any Conan theme on a guitar in this interview anyways, as opposed to the wiki article, based on biographies and other people speaking of Poledouris.

Please tell me your opinion about this interview : is Poledouris speaking 1) always in general , never about Conan the Barbarian and in the end about the Destroyer? (Jappalang's opinion) or 2)practically always about Conan the Barbarian for the first part except a few digressions as an introduction and a few hints on his job and then about Conan the Destroyer in the last part, comparing constantly with Conan the Barbarian ? (my opinion)

This video is called composing the Conan SAGA because it simply refers to the first movie ( even though it's edited with Destroyer short clips every 5mn or so), Conan the Barbarian, in the first part , then refers to Conan the Destroyer, with a few personal anecdotes . Of course there are a few short parts dedicated to tips on how to deal with ideas when composing for the first time,how scores are planned and composed in the movie industry and how great orchestrators are, but that's pretty much it about generalities, it's all about these two movies.

Jappalang and Yomangani want to impose their point of view on the wikipedia public. The best thing would be to not believe me and check for yourselves the complete interview on youtube, full title is "Basil Poledouris : composing the Conan saga". 89.82.152.110 (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I see my name has come up again but I'm very busy with some acolyte duties at the moment, so can't really spare the time to repeat myself. Please don't let that stop you listing my imagined motives and misdeeds in your next rant though, I'm sure repeating them will eventually lead to some sort of official sanction against my heinous behaviour. Yomangani^talk 01:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP's rants effectively show the flaws in his manner of interpreting material. His claims (that "registered members of Wikipedia take credit for what unregistered users such as IP users have researched", that "[I] insinuates that this christian interval story has nothing to do with Conan the Barbarian movie", "Jappalang and Yomangani insist heavily upon having the video "Composing the Conan saga" not being related to CTB or CTD ...at all", etc.) are misrepresentations of what was said (readily evident by looking at the replies above); the logic behind his reading of the sentences is really alien to me. Coupled with the persistent ad hominem attacks, I think it is pointless and fruitless to engage him/her in any further discussion; it will simply invite the same old illogical tirades with purposeless insults thrown in. Jappalang (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks? Time to be realistic. This video interview of Poledouirs is present as a bonus in the Conan the Destroyer DVD. It's called "Composing the Conan Saga" , not "trivialities about composing for Hollywood, a few details of Conan the Destroyer and nothing about Conan the Barbarian". The video was heavily edited and cut, thus we rarely hear Poledouris refering to the films by citing their titles each time he speaks about them, one must read between the lines and when he speaks about the first themes he ever wrote for the first Conan movie, it isn't a bold assumption to say he's speaking about the 1982 movie Conan the Barbarian . (Speaking of rough cutting, the bonus interview of Roy Thomas about Conan the Destroyer was heavily edited , so much that incoherences appear if we compare what is said to what is written by himself in the introduction of Horn of Azoth -the graphic novel of the original scenario of Conan the Destroyer before it was cut to pieces by Hollywood- ). Yomangani and Jappalang play the victim and impose their views about this video interview of Poledouris ,insisting that the interview is absolutely not about Conan the Barbarian, but only about a few personal details and at the end some anecdotes on Conan the Destroyer, simple as that. Nothing could be further from the truth than their biaised opinion. They simply hate this video interview, and will do everything to block any possible reference to the video 'composing the Conan saga', and that is not very professional, rather geeky and close-minded. No 'ad hominem attacks' just observations that anyone could make seeing how valid references are systematically erased and scoffed at by these two members (vqlid because the interview is directly related to Poledouris and how he composed Conan the Barbarian and Conan the Destroyer). 89.82.152.110 (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

A neutral editor's position on the topic: The edits linked to by editor Eric, above, seems in order and in no way excessive. The source cited seem valid and relevant, and more importantly, indicates that the current information in the article is misleading or wrong. It is my opinion that the edit should be restored. 130.243.247.254 (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I thoroughly disagree. Please show where exactly "the current information in the article is misleading or wrong". In my opinion, aside from misinterpreting the source (the DVD interview), the IP editor before you has the mistaken belief that Conan the Barbarian is Poledouris's score for the film. It is not; this article is about the film and should be a concise, comprehensive description of the entire subject; several other experienced editors have already reviewed and agreed the current article more than meets the project's requirements (which is a much better article than the mess of personal interpretations previously). Anyone is free to create an article about the soundtrack for the film as suggested above, but such article would still be subject to the project's policies (no original research in the form of personal interpretations and unsourced material). Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Hi, good work on bringing this to featured status, but two instances are unclear to me: 1) in the paragraph containing the sentences that start "Women in these films were portrayed as ..." and "Conan gave its male audience ..." these analyses are describes matter-of-fact statements but they are the view of authors, which should be made clear by naming the authors in text (in short: according to whom?), 2) the phrase "the media were inclined to condemn" is used, but "the media" is vague. what media ar meant? Hekerui (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, with regards to:

1. These sentences are not cited to a single source, but two (which is selected among others). The general portrayal of women in the early 1980s fantasy films is readily backed up by a casual search (i.e. the sources will state that is how women are usually dressed or acted in those films), and I do not think it is unfair to present the statement as matter of fact. As for what Conan gave its audience (an escape from feminist ideas), that also can find backing from other sources (e.g. Graham Thompson's American culture in the 1980s, Rodney Farnsworth's The Infernal Return, etc), so again I think it is fine to not pin it down as an opinion of only two.
2. "Media" in this case refers to the critics who wrote for the newspapers and magazines (basically the mainstream critics, I suppose). Oxford's definition for the word as a noun is "the main means of mass communication (especially television, radio, newspapers, and the Internet) regarded collectively".[2] I think that is apt here.

Have my replies addressed your concerns? Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Combined credits IMDb vs. NYT Production Credits page

It looks to me like Jappalang is one of those people who wants to delink the IMDb from WP, but also has no use for one of its primary functions - a database of the film's credits. He keeps deleting the IMDb external link from this page, and replacing it with a NY Times database page.

As I said in the edit summary, the NYT Production Credits page is terribly disorganized, misnames several crew categories and is missing others. The combined credits IMDb page is more complete, comprehensive, and much better organized. It is indisputably more useful for anyone who wants a listing of all a film's credits, which is what you're supposed to get from an external link to a database page. There's a reason the IMDb is used on every other WP film page.

Look at the actual film's credits, than compare it to these two - see which is more accurate. There's no way anyone can claim this disorganized mess http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/426926/Conan-the-Barbarian/credits is more reliable or useful than this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082198/combined.

Whatever imperfections the IMDb may have, the NY Times database page is not an acceptable substitute. Gothicfilm (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why are you comparing the production credits on the NYT to the cast on IMDb? The NYT's cast list is at http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/426926/Conan-the-Barbarian/cast. Jappalang (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Mayhaps, it will be better to get an idea of what you find to be inaccuracies in NYT's list. I do not see any in it. Jappalang (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to list all the credits that are wrong - it's self evident if you compare it to the film itself. Let's just take the fact that the NYT page is totally disorganized. Some department heads are listed after assistants in other departments. And it's part alphabetical, then not, then alphabetical again for no discernible reason. On an IMDb film page you know where to go to look up a camera assistant (the camera section), but on the NYT page, you'd have to scan the whole thing to find what you're looking for. My guess is you've never done this, and don't care, or I wouldn't have to point this out to you. But the best database link available should be there for those of us who do care. Gothicfilm (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I get the feeling (from reading your opinion above and looking through the lists) that the only valid grouse you have is with the NYT's organization. Calling the NYT's listing inaccurate just because it does not group the crew to your preference is totally off base. Their job titles clearly notes their duties; there is no difficulty getting an idea on what their responsibilities are.

There is no reason to include IMDb just because other pages indiscriminately puts it in their External links (cf. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). What is the policy or guideline that dictates it must supersede reliable sources? Jappalang (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt even the NYT would claim their list is a "reliable source," as it looks like it was just sloppily thrown together by someone on their staff.

You claim "Calling the NYT's listing inaccurate just because it does not group the crew to your preference is totally off base." This means you didn't even read my first post above. It's inaccurate because it mislabeled and left out several positions. And the lack of any proper organization is a valid concern which should not be dismissed.

You also thought I was referring to a cast list. You seem to have no interest in a proper, comprehensive and complete list of anyone beyond a film's actors being available, so IMHO you should not be passing judgment on what is a valid database.

And by the way, nothing on the internet is a truly reliable source. We have to make due with the best we have available. And for production databases, that is the IMDb. That's why it's included on virtually every other WP film page. There's nothing indiscriminate about it. Gothicfilm (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Presentation has nothing to do with being a "reliable source". I advise you to properly read up on WP:RS. Helpful articles include Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches.

"You also thought I was referring to a cast list", which was an error I quickly admitted and struck. After that, I was looking at the matter from a production point of view. To claim I "have no interest in a proper, comprehensive and complete list of anyone beyond a film's actors being available" is a coloured and dismissive statement to say the least.

We make do with reliable sources as much as we can, in case you keep forgetting the policies, such as WP:V and WP:RS around here. You keep claiming NYT misnames crew categories; the NYT list does not have crew categories, this is a misrepresentation of facts. Please show exactly what are the errors you claim the NYT makes that are not reflected in IMDb. Harping on something you claim to exist but not readily existent is not helping this discussion one bit at all. Jappalang (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Our external links don't need to follow the same strictures we do. IMDB isn't WP:RS-reliable, but it's still a useful site and well worth linking to. It's vastly preferable to the NYT pages, as those are usually vastly smaller, less useful, and never updated. GRAPPLE X 00:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any good reason to link to IMDb. As I have maintained, the NYT provides what the IMDb already supposedly have and is considered a reliable publication to boot. There is no reason to include IMDb, which is a user-maintained site, just because it has a popular following. We are not here to support fansites, other wikis, and user communities. Each link has to be decided on its own, and I believe if a better link that presents the same useful content and is more compliant with the project's policies are available, that should supersede any non-compliant link (external links are not supposed to repositories of duplicative information). Jappalang (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've found IMDb to be quite reliable as far as credits are concerned, and have always included it in the ext. links for the hundreds of film articles I've created. The NYT is not in the business of tracking films per se, especially the less mainstream ones, and is less complete. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The NYT pages simply offer much less content to the reader, and there's nothing to be gained in offering the reader a less-useful external link - just don't offer one rather than offer a lesser version. And, user-generated or not, IMDB is not a "fansite" or "user community" inasmuch as it's just another website that offers user editing. It's still a solid, relevant database. GRAPPLE X 02:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not buy these arguments. Anonymous, user-edited sites without an established editorial policy is considered unreliable (see also: WP:RS/IMDB). While External links might make exemptions for such sites, what content does this particular NYT page not have? Jappalang (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Grapple's comments more or less; more over, it's not a 'contest' either. For the record the New York Times is considered a reliable source, IMDB isn't, so if you are sourcing production credits in the article itself then the NY Times wins out unless it can be PROVEN that it is erroneous through another reliable source. External links are judged by their usefulness beyond the scope of the article. IMDB offers a lot more information that a reader of the article might find useful: trailers, links to external reviews, parental advice, alternate version information, box office, filming information, release dates, technical information, related news stories, art work and photos. The New York Times entry is very much a bare bones page, and doesn't offer anything beyond the scope of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a link on it to a "Production Credits" page, which I gave a link to above, but as I said, it's a disorganized mess. And yes, it lacks most of the other data you list that the IMDb supplies. Gothicfilm (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Betty, thank you for pointing the extra material. I can only concede on a few points. IMDb has "trailers <<none at all (TCM movie site is better than this one), but it has an Amazon link to the full movie>>, links to external reviews, parental advice, alternate version information <<Original research material>>, box office <<inaccurate and without source, likely lifted from Box Office Mojo>>, filming information <<none unless you mean production credits and a short incomplete list of locations>>, release dates, technical information, related news stories <<almost 99% of which are not talking about the 1982 film, it is a peripheral mention in them>>, art work and photos." I understand that my opinion is having little support here, and I will take it that the collection of promotional material for the film and whatever I have not shown to be non-existent above is enough to justify its use as an external link (consider that my grudging acceptance). Jappalang (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Betty Logan is correct... each has its merits. I am myself in MANY projects that have no equivalent listing through New York Times' InBaseline. While generaly accepted as reliable, it IS incomplete and not at all comprehensive. By comparison, NYT lists me in only TWO projects, AllRovi lists me in TWO others and IMDB shows up as being far more comprehensive in its listing 171 productions. As an EL, IMDB is preferrable for its leading readers to information not found in other ELs, and as such, it has been determined though consensus and common sense that it IS useful as an external link and for exactly the reasons stated by BL... but never as a citation.

And one last clarification... IMDB is NOT "user maintained" nor "user edited", and we do not use it as an EL because it is "popular". While anyone can submit to IMDB, it is their staff of paid database editors that do the vetting of information and the maintainance and updating of vetted information... not "users". And if "popularity" were a criteria for an EL, we'd be flooded with Facebook and Twitter. Yikes! An EL's suitability is determined through its utility and usefullness (not popularity) to our readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, to be blunt (but I am jesting as well, truly), you are not listed in either Conan the Barbarian page, which (the pages) is the contention of this thread. If IMDb has a vetting system, then why is it still considered unreliable? On the other hand, we find on its FAQ the same advice we have on Wikipedia: avoid edit wars, respect other editors, do not vandalize, add pertinent information. It seems that anyone, including you, can add anything; so I think you are free to add any more roles there that you have been failed to be credited for. There are plenty of conflicting information given here about the IMDb database but this is perhaps not the place to settle the question. Jappalang (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I was addressing the statement that IMDB was "user maintained" and "user edited". Only the staffers of IMDB have access to their editing buttons for film cast and crew and production information... the user does not. The IMDB FAQ page you linked speaks about who might add to the "Frequently Asked Questions" pages, not the IMDB film database. The answer to that is here and it underscores their being the ones who act upon submitted informations. So while you or I or film industry professionals and IMDB's own research teams might submit information, it is not added to the database until staffers check it for accuracy and consistancy. Wikipedia's view of IMDB unreliability is based mostly upon two issues: 1) their inclusion of information elsewhere (trivia, bios, forums, etc.) that even they admit is not vetted, and 2) their not revealing the level and depth of there vetting processes. And to your other issue, per Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, even if not meeting Wikipedia's standards for reliability as a source, IMDB is acceptable as an external link. The personal examples I shared above show that as reliable as the New York Times film database might be for what little they do share, it is not comprehensive nor up to date. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Soundtrack: Not one, but two orchestras!

AFAIK, Poledouris did not only hire the Orchestra of Santa Cecilia, but also the Radio Symphony of Rome. (They are both credited on the original soundtrack recording from 1982) "Anvil of Crom", in its original version, has 24 French horns alone, more than any single orchestra could provide! -- megA (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we should provide a reliable source for the RAI orchestra's involvement such as books, newspapers, journals, or magazines, and we should add it into the article where appropriate. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What I can provide is the liner notes for the original recording, reading: "Music performed by the members of The Orchestra & Chorus of Santa Cecilia & The Radio Symphony of Rome" (Conan the Barbarian, Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, CD liner notes, MCA/Editions Milan Music, 1982/1992) This gives us the involvement of both the OSC and RSO. I have to point out that the Santa Cecilia chorus and orchestra are NOT mentioned in the citation given in the article, which only lists the size of orchestra and chorus, but not the name of the orchestra!

The booklet for the 2010 reconstruction and re-recording of the score features a longer essay by producer James Fitzpatrick, which gives us the exact orchestra forces as specified by Poledouris:
56 strings, 3 flutes (doubling piccolo, alto, bass), 2 oboes, cor anglais, 3 clarinets (doubling 2 bass), 2 bassoons, contrabassoon, 8 French horns, 4 trumpets, 4 trombones, 2 tubas, 2 harps, piano, celesta, cimbalom, and 7 percussionists, totaling 97 players.
(James Fitzpatrick, in Conan the Barbarian, World Premiere Recording of the Complete Score, CD booklet, Prometheus Records, 2010, p. 20)

Both infos can be considered reliable as per WP:RS. Complete orchestration info might be too detailed for this article, though. Where L. E. MacDonald came across the "24 horns" information, I can't say. -- megA (talk) 08:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That'll work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

New sequel

The Legend of Conan. Scheduled for Summer 2014. Starring Arnie. Will be a direct sequel to Conan the Barbarian (1982), and will ignore Conan the Destroyer.

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2012/10/25/arnold-schwarzenegger-will-return-as-conan-in-new-reboot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.15.52 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Bad article!

No cast list. Bad article! Bad article! Koro Neil (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(Sarcasm) Of course, I agree with you. It is one of the worst articles in this entire so-called "encyclopedia". I wanna kill myself after reading through so terrible article. My eyes! Oh, they are hurt. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

http://suici.de/wrist (I want to stress I didn't know that was an actual web address) DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 15:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I was just thinking that this is one of the best film articles on Wikipedia, if not the best, and whether or not I should start a talk page section simply stating that. This article certainly deserves its WP:Featured article rating. Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

And as for a Cast section, the Casting section takes care of that. Having both sections can often be redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone has added a cast section, which is a bit excessive. I removed it, but it was added back and I removed it again because having another was redundant. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sjones23 and others, there does not have to be a stand-alone "Cast" section, but perhaps there could be a cast list or cast table somewhere. While "Casting" exists, it is a lot of text to go through to identify actors behind key roles. It would serve readers better to list this somewhere. I offer Panic Room#Cast as an example of a possible approach. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Answer to the Riddle of Steel

Look at the Conan wikia: Riddle of Steel for a study on the subject.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yurizuki (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Valuable source

I'm afraid I haven't the time to make much use of its content just at the moment, but this source, which I happened upon today, has an absolute wealth of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snow Rise (talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Cast listing

@Sjones23: Please explain your removal of the cast listing. You say the paragraph about casting suffices, but it is merely a discussion of how the stars were cast and which actors were considered (but ultimately not in the movie). Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Please see the above section for the relevant discussion. Also, the reason for my statement was mainly because I think having both sections ("Cast" and "Casting") may be redundant in FA-class film articles. I would like to quote Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Cast:

A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section. Use tables with care due to their complexity; they are most appropriate for developed, stable articles.

As such, we do not have to list every single actor that starred in the film or have a standalone cast section, but just a table of the major cast members in Casting might work (for example, Panic Room#Cast, an FA, has a table that could be used for this section). Since the casting does cover actors, I went ahead and implemented the list as a table in the "Casting" section per the relevant guideline and I hope this would help solve the matter. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sjones23: I like the use of the table instead of a list. That's great! I do wish it was longer but I am not proposing that all extras be listed. The fact that policy states that full cast listings are not necessary does not mean we should delete them when we encounter them. Cheers and happy editing. --SVTCobra (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)