Of course, Conan didn't have several generations of movie-goers who expected to see a character which in many ways actually contradicted the fictional creation of the author; and/or other nonsensical characters simply added for mass appeal, like a boy and a chimp.

Although I had no problem with "Boy" in the comics, I was glad he, and in fact no children, were in the books, except for Jack, briefly as a boy, and once I discovered the books, I found it hard to enjoy the movies.

Conan started with a clean slate, and fortuately a producer and director who decided to make a good movie, for the most part. It certainly could have been better, by not tinkering with the fictional facts, but it was still superb, and I doubt any such movie will equal it.

I agree that Miles OKeefe was the best Tarzan. He certainly had the ape-man's reluctance for conversation down.

It was Sandahl Bergman who played Conan's love, a good dancer, and I've always kind of liked her in my own barbarian way. James Earl Jones was very good, as always. Where would Darth Vader have been without his voice. I did think the movie was more mystical than the books, though there was some mysticism. I haven't read them in a very long time. Although I recall one wizard who was Conan's particular nemesis, I'm not sure it was Thelsa Doom.

You could never make a movie about the ape-man without computer-generated graphics. His abilities are incapable of dramatization by any athlete/actor; and it is his abilities which make him so special. One thing which always irritated me in movies was when he would struggle in a fight with some man. The real Tarzan would struggle for about a second, and any man would be history. Only a woman; and only one, could tame the ape-man; and then only when she could keep him in sight.

Conan was an unusual movie. With the second one, the producers were already changing him to make him more politically correct, and it was just silly, except for Conan himself.

Conan stands by himself on a level beneath my ape-man as my second all-time fictional hero. He was unique, as was Tarzan, and although the first movie had its faults; it was pleasureable almost beyond belief, considering movies. It couldn't be made today, in these times. We would have children; and barbarian women who could beat up men twice their size; and at least one character from every race, creed, religion, etc., and he would knock heads together instead of killing; and there would be lots of humor among his sidekicks, who would turn cartwheels and flips as they fought.

I have no problem with female warriors with weapons, and thought Bergman was superb, and I actually kind of enjoy looking at Xena, but only to a point. When you bring the kids into the action, which is inevitable these days, leave me out of it.

As fond as I am of laughing and humor, ironically my favorites were brooding charcters, though they did have a grim sense of humor.

I don't expect anything from movies; and/or tv; and while I liked the character in the tv Conan, and thought he made a good Conan, in fact I've never watched it again. For the greatest characters, only books do them justice. The same can be said for books themselves. Movies don't do them justice. I'm fortunate in that a few of my favorite books were made into mini-series, and good ones. (Centennial, Shogun, Lonesome Dove). A few others were good movies (Count of Monte Christo, From Here to Eternity), but only a mini-series can do justice to a book, and they still don't compare with the books.

I certainly loved "Conan the Barbarian", whatever its faults, but doubt we will see its like again.

Tarak the Barbarian