Each new pic released of next year's Conan movie makes me feel ever more sorry for Jason Momoa. From what I have seen, he seems to be taking the role of REH's most famous character quite seriously and, while men of good will may differ as to whether this or that aspect of his appearance is quite right to properly portray Conan, I'd say he's a great deal closer to my ideal than was Arnold Schwarzenegger. Sure, Momoa is probably too small and too pretty to be the "perfect" Conan, but, as this still shows, he nevertheless seems to channel certain aspects of the Cimmerian well enough.
As I've said before, my gut tells me that Momoa will likely prove a more than adequate Conan, perhaps even a good one, but, given the nature of the story the film is telling, it won't matter. Good acting by the lead aside, I've still seen nothing to suggest that the 2011 film will be any more Howardian than the 1982 film. That's a real shame for many reasons, but most of all because it didn't have to be this way. There are so many more resources available to screenwriters and filmmakers nowadays that simply didn't exist when Milius made his movie. Even if one were not interested in creating a "pure" REH film, why not at least better portray both Conan and the world he inhabits? I just don't get it.