I think he is the same character. And Lee Van Cleef is listed as Angel Eyes in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, as seen here. He just managed to wangle his way into a commission somehow. I think he even indicates this to Blondie.
No, it’s a time lapse, pure and simple. They needed that film to occur during the Civil War, and there was nothing they could do about the gravestones appearing at a later date earlier on.
They are two distinct characters, that just happen to be played by the same actor.
We’ll simply have to agree to disagree on this, because I can’t buy that. Wikipedia mentions that it was marketed as a trilogy and treats the Eastwood and Van Cleef characters as the same ones in the films.
EDIT: Okay, I’m getting a bit confused. I see now he was Angel Eyes only in the third film and not the second. I still feel he is the same character. Maybe he had been going by different aliases?
Okay, you’ve got me coming around to the notion that it might not be a trilogy in the sense of the same characters. Maybe. But if it’s not, then why does Angel Eyes seem to recognize Blondie? I thought that was from the earlier film.
W had the opposite problem, though. The historical accuracy was drearily familiar to anyone who lived through the era. The paint-by-the-numbers walk through every Bushism made it unwatchable: Bush says “Is our children learning” and “I’m the decider”. Bush drives into Dad’s garbage cans. Bush chokes on a pretzel.
I would have vastly preferred a movie wherein Bush conspires with space aliens and snorts cocaine off Condoleeza’s bum.
Occam’s razor: They had obviously crossed paths earlier in Ugly.
applauds The Buddy Holly Story was what immediately came to mind when I first saw the thread. I could point out all of the inaccuracies, but there is too inane an amount of them to list. So instead, I’ll just say that when TBHS had its grand premiere in Lubbock, TX, the entire theater burst into uproarious laughter when mountains were shown surrounding Lubbock (the area of which is as flat as a pancake) during the Peggy Sue bus scene.*
Having rugged character Richard Crenna play the grotesque Ross Perot in “On Wings of Eagles” seemed a little fantastical.
It took a little while, but I just realized I had a ‘D’oh!’ moment here…the premiere was not in Lubbock, but was in Dallas instead. snaps her fingers
One more inaccuracy I will point out while I’m at it…King Curtis was not on the Winter Dance Party Tour, nor remotely even near Clear Lake, IA on the fateful night of Buddy Holly’s last ever concert.
We should do that in the sequel: W-2.
Right - Tuco and Blondie both recognise Angel Eyes, so they had obviously crossed paths before in the sense of events happening in the “Good Bad Ugly” time line but not seen on screen.
The same kind of thing can be seen with the actor Gian Maria Volonté who played Ramón Rojo in “Fistfull” and “El Indio” in “Dollars More”. Pretty much the same character, played by the same actor but obviously not supposed to be the same person in the films.
“Grotesque?” Hyperbolize much?
It matters with Henry VIII: his hair colour was mentioned numerous times in conteporary texts, because it was considered unusual and indictaive of a certain temperament (much like it is today actually) and also it was one of the reasons Elizabeth succeeded in denying any doubters as to her parentage. His “manliness” in early life was also important, and without his later health problems partly stemming from his weight the course of history might have been very different.
There are lots of actors to choose from, and hair dye exists, which is another reason the inaccuracies are galling. In the Tudors, broad-shouldered, ginger Buckingham looked a lot more like Henry than Henry did. It took me out of the show enough to make me stop watching it.
There’s a show on Channel Four right now called Indian Summers where they seem to have decided that anyone vaguely Indian can be cast as anyone vaguely Indian. This doesn’t always work: there are Farsi characters that are very dark-skinned and kids that are supposed to mixed British and Indian who are far too dark for that to be plausible; I mean, theyd be dark for Indians, let alone kids with one white parent.
The India of the time really did make a big deal out of skin tone. They do now, too, but even moreso then. And the show’s plots include lots of stuff about castes, the difference between different ethnicities in India, untouchables and mixed-race people. They bring all those up and then go against them with their casting.
In the first episode we’re supposed to know instantly that one kid is mixed British and English but he’s obviously not (especially since we very soon know who his parents are and they are - he’s significantly darker than his mother and his father is the colour of chalk), and one of the main Farsi characters is referred to as “pink and plump” when he’s dark and slim.
It would be understandable if only the extras (the many kids at the orphanage) were dark-skinned, because the show was filmed on location (albeit not actually in India) and they might not have had much choice, but the main characters have the same problem and they’re not famous names who have been cast against character for the viewers they’d bring in (like Rhys Myers may have been - though they could still have dyed his hair).
The main reason it annoys me is because, as I said, the producers seem to think that just being vaguely Indian-looking is enough to represent anyone in India, which is a bit racist.
The Wind and the Lion, based on the Perdicaris Incident.
President Theodore Roosevelt played by Brian Keith.
Mulai Ahmed er Raisuni played by Sean Connery.
Ion Perdicaris, a 65-year-old man, became “Eden Perdicaris” played by 31-year-old Candice Bergen.
In real life, the U.S. government pressured the Moroccan government to pay the ransom.
In the movie, Roosevelt sends in the marines.
It’s still an entertaining movie.
Okay, I am starting to come around to the notion that these may not be the same characters as earlier in the trilogy.
What you describe is known Phenotype Stereotype. It gets really annoying when historical characters are subjected to this when they themselves did not conform to it.
Yup, good term to know. It’s a shame TVTropes acts as if it only happens in anime and manga.
One I know of that goes against it is Rome, which cast a very white woman as Cleopatra and frequently showed her without the wig on revealing fairish hair, which is probably closer to what she likely looked like than someone who looks like a modern Egyptian.
If you told me that Lyndsey Marshall was an Egyptian based on her picture, I would have believed it.
I recall seeing the making of special of some TV Movie, and they defended casting a very dark skinned Actor as an Indian, who had been blue eyed and fair skinned, and they basically said they wanted someone who looked foreign, not like some typical American.
Of course, the converse is also true.
Would you have believed she was Greek?
Like the historical Cleopatrawas.
Yes and she was Macedonian.