|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Feb 6, 2019 2:16:03 GMT
James Bond went through a number of personality changes between 1962 and 2015. I mean, Roger Moore's Bond and Daniel Craig's Bond are basically two completely different characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Feb 6, 2019 3:09:14 GMT
For better or worse, who are some movie characters who completely changed over the course of a franchise? If you compared the character in the first/earliest film(s) with how they are in the latest/last film(s), it would be like seeing two different characters even though they're supposed to be the same character. For example: John McClane - Die Hard Martin Riggs - Lethal Weapon Luke Skywalker - Star Wars I didn't see the last one, but how so? He went from being a wise-cracking, chain-smoking, profane, beat-up cop with hair to a bald, old, stoic cop who has an indestructible body. |
|
|
|
Post by ravi02 on Feb 6, 2019 6:41:21 GMT
Marcus Brody in Raiders vs Last Crusade I don't agree that Marcus changes in Crusade. We only see him at the start and end of Raiders and within his university. It's not too much of a stretch to believe he'd be clumsy outside of his element. He still gets in some badass moments like when he tells Donovan he's meddling with powers he can't comprehend.
Also, actor Denholm Eliot himself said he enjoyed playing Brody's more comical bits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 6, 2019 8:25:17 GMT
I don't agree that Marcus changes in Crusade. We only see him at the start and end of Raiders and within his university. It's not too much of a stretch to believe he'd be clumsy outside of his element. He still gets in some badass moments like when he tells Donovan he's meddling with powers he can't comprehend.
Also, actor Denholm Eliot himself said he enjoyed playing Brody's more comical bits.
He didn't act nutty at all in Raiders--and said something about being envious of his adventure, yet IJ didn't have a "yeah right Marcus" attitude. At any point in LC does he not act like a clown? In Raiders he was completely normal when talking to the government people.
|
|
|
|
Post by ravi02 on Feb 6, 2019 8:32:41 GMT
I don't agree that Marcus changes in Crusade. We only see him at the start and end of Raiders and within his university. It's not too much of a stretch to believe he'd be clumsy outside of his element. He still gets in some badass moments like when he tells Donovan he's meddling with powers he can't comprehend.
Also, actor Denholm Eliot himself said he enjoyed playing Brody's more comical bits.
He didn't act nutty at all in Raiders--and said something about being envious of his adventure, yet IJ didn't have a "yeah right Marcus" attitude. At any point in LC does he not act like a clown? In Raiders he was completely normal when talking to the government people.
But again, we only see him in a university setting and without any outside interference.
He's played pretty straight for the first half of Crusade - the opening University and Venice sequence for example. It's only when he's attempting to traverse through the Alexandra train station does he show more of his comical side. He still shows some more of his serious side like the part about Donovan's meddling and when he's comforting a dying Henry Sr. in the climax.
And also again, actor Denholm Eliot himself (as mentioned on the Indiana Jones Trilogy Making-Of Documentary) loved played Marcus's funny moments. If he was OK with it, then what's the issue?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 6, 2019 8:40:47 GMT
But again, we only see him in a university setting and without any outside interference.
He's played pretty straight for the first half of Crusade - the opening University and Venice sequence for example. It's only when he's attempting to traverse through the Alexandra train station does he show more of his comical side. He still shows some more of his serious side like the part about Donovan's meddling and when he's comforting a dying Henry Sr. in the climax.
And also again, actor Denholm Eliot himself (as mentioned on the Indiana Jones Trilogy Making-Of Documentary) loved played Marcus's funny moments. If he was OK with it, then what's the issue?
Just because an actor is ok with it doesn't mean it fits the impression given by the previous film (he was given a lot more to do so why would he complain?). There is absolutely nothing in his Raiders performance that is eccentric. Why he would only be eccentric when he steps outside is beyond me. Something with sun exposure? He is presented as someone who is completely LOST when he is out in foreign lands.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 6, 2019 12:17:59 GMT
Luke Skywalker has always been a doubtful, overly emotional person who thought too pessimistically to completely succeed at his optimistic goals.
The one exception to this was the very brief moment where he decides not to kill his dad in Return of the Jedi.
His descent and ascent was largely mirrored in Last Jedi.
|
|
|
|
Post by ravi02 on Feb 7, 2019 2:41:06 GMT
But again, we only see him in a university setting and without any outside interference.
He's played pretty straight for the first half of Crusade - the opening University and Venice sequence for example. It's only when he's attempting to traverse through the Alexandra train station does he show more of his comical side. He still shows some more of his serious side like the part about Donovan's meddling and when he's comforting a dying Henry Sr. in the climax.
And also again, actor Denholm Eliot himself (as mentioned on the Indiana Jones Trilogy Making-Of Documentary) loved played Marcus's funny moments. If he was OK with it, then what's the issue?
Just because an actor is ok with it doesn't mean it fits the impression given by the previous film (he was given a lot more to do so why would he complain?). There is absolutely nothing in his Raiders performance that is eccentric. Why he would only be eccentric when he steps outside is beyond me. Something with sun exposure? He is presented as someone who is completely LOST when he is out in foreign lands.
But we barely saw him in Raiders. He's only there at the book ending segments of the film and hardly a pivotal character. I feel like this overreacting.
Plus, I find his comical bits funny and it fits with the more light-hearted father-son bonding adventure Spielberg was going for.
|
|
|
|
Post by ravi02 on Feb 7, 2019 2:52:39 GMT
I'll mention another big one: Michael Corleone in Godfather III compared to the first two films.
At the end of Part 2, Michael has his own brother killed, literally shuts the door on his wife and becomes estranged from his adopted brother. He's the total opposite of his father.
In 3, he's suddenly this emotional older man who cracks jokes at weddings, makes up with his wife and tells his nephew to make peace with rivals. I know people change in 20 years and sure he'd feel regret at his past mistakes, but not this much. Coppola should have showed us how Michael changed with a little of his old darkness intact. Remember Pacino in Carlito's Way? That's kinda the way I see an older Michael behaving.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 7, 2019 2:53:32 GMT
But we barely saw him in Raiders. He's only there at the book ending segments of the film and hardly a pivotal character. I feel like this overreacting.
Plus, I find his comical bits funny and it fits with the more light-hearted father-son bonding adventure Spielberg was going for.
Yeah but the topic is characters who changed. If anyone watched Raiders, I think they would say Brody is a straight-laced kind of guy-even more serious than IJ who has comedy moments. Often British actors were used in 70s films as a way of making the subject taken seriously (Robert Shaw in Jaws, Cushing and Guinness in Star Wars, Stamp in Superman, Pleasence in Halloween). Elliot serves that function in Raiders--making the Ark stuff more serious. But in Last Crusade, there is no such character. Just about every character is used for comedy at some point....even Hitler!
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 7, 2019 2:56:05 GMT
I'll mention another big one: Michael Corleone in Godfather III compared to the first two films.
At the end of Part 2, Michael has his own brother killed, literally shuts the door on his wife and becomes estranged from his adopted brother. He's the total opposite of his father.
That's true. He mellowed out quite a bit. Talia Shire's character seemed closer to the old Michael.
|
|
|
|
Post by ravi02 on Feb 7, 2019 3:45:26 GMT
But we barely saw him in Raiders. He's only there at the book ending segments of the film and hardly a pivotal character. I feel like this overreacting.
Plus, I find his comical bits funny and it fits with the more light-hearted father-son bonding adventure Spielberg was going for.
Yeah but the topic is characters who changed. If anyone watched Raiders, I think they would say Brody is a straight-laced kind of guy-even more serious than IJ who has comedy moments. Often British actors were used in 70s films as a way of making the subject taken seriously (Robert Shaw in Jaws, Cushing and Guinness in Star Wars, Stamp in Superman, Pleasence in Halloween). Elliot serves that function in Raiders--making the Ark stuff more serious. But in Last Crusade, there is no such character. Just about every character is used for comedy at some point....even Hitler!
Sounds like someone forgets the character of Willie Scott in Temple of Doom, or the entire elephant trek in the jungle and the monkey brains feast.
There is humor in Crusade, but not to the point that there's no seriousness. You forget the brief discussion about Indy's mom, the conversation aboard the zeppelin between Indy and Henry, when Indy threatens to strangle Elsa for betraying them, the subtle bit of respect Indy gets for Henry when he says "I suddenly remembered my Charlamagne" or the entire finale where Henry gets shot and Indy has to save his life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 7, 2019 3:53:57 GMT
Sounds like someone forgets the character of Willie Scott in Temple of Doom, or the entire elephant trek in the jungle and the monkey brains feast.
Choose to forget is more accurate--but remember the head of the British military? He was a serious character, despite the antics at the dinner table.
There were a few months of seriousness in Last Crusade (I think the strangle scene felt artificial though) and the seriousness was about the relationships, not the Grail stuff so much. I meant in the first movie, Marcus provides important moments to emphasize the Ark as a real thing and threatening. "An army that carries the Ark before it is invincible."
Can't remember him serving that function in Last Crusade. Now, I am not saying it is necessarily bad that he be comical, just that the character didn't show that side at all in the first movie.
I never thought such a drawn out conversation could be derived from Marcus Brody.
|
|
