Posted by GuruAskew at ac8c84dd.ipt.aol.com on April 28, 2000 at 20:01:52:
In Reply to: "Grover" is pretty close to "Graves"... posted by thx3188 on April 28, 2000 at 14:16:09:
And my last name is "GrandPre." It doesn't mean I'm related to Randal. I think, that if Cousin Walt GROVER re-defined the term "caning," his fucking last name would be ever present in the term "Graves/Bruce family re-definition." His last name has GOT to be either Graves or Bruce, since he redefined the term "caning." I also don't see why people can't grasp these simple concepts. Many characters are intended for one role and end up offered to other actors. Pierce Brosnan was set to play Bond way back in the mid 80's. He couldn't do it for legal reasons, and Tim Dalton was tapped. That doesn't mean that the Dalton Bond is a different character altogether. Here's Kevin's dilemma: There are two actors who should be in the movie. I know it's more complicated than this, but it comes down to this: there are two roles, two actors. You could either go Ethan/Roddy and Mosier/Willam or Ethan/Willam and Mosier/Roddy. From what I can tell, Kevin really wanted Sups in the movie. So you recast the character, rather than adhere to the sensibility "Mosier's my boy! Sorry, Sups, maybe next time!" He had two factions to deal with: Casting a guy who deserves the part, or shuffling the cast a little bit. It's still the same fucking character. Same name, same lines, same BASIC behaviour (Clerks Willam was obviously baked at the time, this can explain any difference.) But people can't grasp the idea of a recast. Kevin has refered to them as the same character. That's proof enough for me. An obscure liner note from an out-of-print laserdisc shouldn't affect your sensibilities.
: If you think about it...
: thx3188
: Can't type nt if you can't fit it in the line....