![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
...You were warned.
For quite a while hubby has been suscribed to Tor's newsletter, today's issue, among many other things, has a series of Conan-related articles, given that we are going to see the latest Conan movie tonight I went straight for this article and I'm still seething.
Not about the article himself, one definitely has every right to dislike anything, even to loathe it (even though I find it interesting that the commenters that know Conan from adaptations seem to dislike the movies intensely while those who know him from the original books, seems to think the movie is faithful to what Conan is, but that is a topic for another time), no, what has me foaming at the mouth is one of the comments, number 2: Arnold's was given women to rape when he was a slave, but Jason instead frees a hundred topless women in the first 15 minutes and doesn't sleep with a SINGLE ONE. This version of Conan was chaste.
Sorry? Did the commenter stop a moment to think about what he was writing? Conan isn't the 'real one' because he didn't rape women? This movie's Conan isn't Conan because the hero is chaste?
By the way it looks like that there is a sex scene in the movie, apparently that's just not enough, looks like for that commenter he was supposed to 'have his way' with every female around, willing or not.
One could say that the idea of barbarian that comes out from some of those comments might have made the most blasè ancient Greek (or Roman) proud: marauding hordes of brutes lacking not only refinement but basic decency and intelligence: mens minima in corpore maximo as husband and I use to joke among ourselves.
It would be useless, I suppose to point out that in many of those barbarian tribes women were better off than under the celebrated Roman law, and many were perfectly able to defend themselves and their own (just ask the Roman legionaries who fought against Gaul husband-and-wife teams).
What really takes the cake, though, is that the hero of the movie, the guy we are supposed to cheer on and side with is a failure and isn't belivable because he is not a rapist and instead is chaste.
I am speechless.
For quite a while hubby has been suscribed to Tor's newsletter, today's issue, among many other things, has a series of Conan-related articles, given that we are going to see the latest Conan movie tonight I went straight for this article and I'm still seething.
Not about the article himself, one definitely has every right to dislike anything, even to loathe it (even though I find it interesting that the commenters that know Conan from adaptations seem to dislike the movies intensely while those who know him from the original books, seems to think the movie is faithful to what Conan is, but that is a topic for another time), no, what has me foaming at the mouth is one of the comments, number 2: Arnold's was given women to rape when he was a slave, but Jason instead frees a hundred topless women in the first 15 minutes and doesn't sleep with a SINGLE ONE. This version of Conan was chaste.
Sorry? Did the commenter stop a moment to think about what he was writing? Conan isn't the 'real one' because he didn't rape women? This movie's Conan isn't Conan because the hero is chaste?
By the way it looks like that there is a sex scene in the movie, apparently that's just not enough, looks like for that commenter he was supposed to 'have his way' with every female around, willing or not.
One could say that the idea of barbarian that comes out from some of those comments might have made the most blasè ancient Greek (or Roman) proud: marauding hordes of brutes lacking not only refinement but basic decency and intelligence: mens minima in corpore maximo as husband and I use to joke among ourselves.
It would be useless, I suppose to point out that in many of those barbarian tribes women were better off than under the celebrated Roman law, and many were perfectly able to defend themselves and their own (just ask the Roman legionaries who fought against Gaul husband-and-wife teams).
What really takes the cake, though, is that the hero of the movie, the guy we are supposed to cheer on and side with is a failure and isn't belivable because he is not a rapist and instead is chaste.
I am speechless.
