I just learned that the character of Tom Sawyer was added to the movie version of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen because of fear that the movie would be uninteresting to American viewers if there were no American characters. Two questions leap to mind.
Do Americans actually care that there are no American characters, to the point of not going to a movie they would otherwise?
The kind of American that does care enough… how to put this politely… does he know that Allan Quatermain, Hawley Griffin, Dorian Gray, Mina Harker, Nemo and dr Jekyll aren’t American?
Well, this is hardly the first time American characters have been added to adapted films when no American character appeared in the source material, i.e. The Bridge on the River Kwai. Even when depicting real-life events, Americans cast themselves in leading roles though there may be no historical reason to do so, i.e. The Great Escape. There’s an underlying assumption that Americans won’t see an action/adventure movie that lacks a major American character or actor, which I personally doubt.
Interestingly, though, a half-assed attempt to respect history was made for Tobruk (1967), starring Rock Hudson. The setting of the movie (North Africa, 1942) didn’t really have a historically valid place for an American, so they made his character Canadian.
The LOEG movie appears to have been the result of the worst botch job in history, where they threw away everything that was interesting about the comic and made a poorly-done action movie with what was left, so we shouldn’t be surprised at the additional idiocy of adding an American character “because American audiences want to have an American character.” Basically, the producers seem to have been the worst kind of Hollywood yahoos.
It occurs to me that somehow “Frankenstein” was a good horror movie without an American; “She” was a good adventure movie without an American; “Cold Comfort Farm” was a good comedy without an American; so I suspect that good movies can be made without American characters…
Hmmmm. I sound a little bitter. Yes, yes, I am; because that piece of garbage prevented a proper movie about the LOEG from being made.
Don’t forget that some say it’s not even the “real” Tom Sawyer, since the character is too young in relation to when the Twain novels are set. They also note that he is only called “Mr. Sawyer” in the film, although he is called “Tom” in one of the deleted scenes included on the DVD. I think they are giving too much credit for playing coy to filmmakers who managed to screw up damn near everything else when trying to adapt the comic.
As for adding an American character, I can see doing it when trying to line up a big star who can’t or won’t do a decent foreign accent, just a tradeoff that’s part of deal making for films. But since Sawyer wasn’t played by a well known American actor, my WAG is someone (the producers?, the director?, Connery?) wanted a known character for Quatermain to have that stupid father/son style bonding subplot with. Just another thing they got wrong.
And we Americans keep going to see movies about the Arthurian legend (there’s yet another one coming this summer) and non-American characters like Robin Hood (no matter how bad or slippery the accent, right Kevin Costner?), so I don’t think the argument has as much merit as film producers may think.
I wouldn’t have minded Tom Sawyer’s inclusion if there were anything Tom-Sawyerish about him (maybe a reference to his friend back home, Marshal Finn, or foiling the villian in an elaborate whitewashing scheme L).
I haven’t yet read the LOEG books & I’m still disappointed in the movie (I will say, if one blocks out any knowledge about the books, it’s not an awful movie. Just like Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes- that would have been a much better movie if it had been called Simian World or anything but PotA.)
In one of the deleted scenes, Sawyer talks about a childhood friend, another Secret Service agent who was killed by the bad guy. I of course assumed it was Huck, but I would definitely have appreciated some other references to his earlier escapades–if you’re going to go to the trouble of adding a character, why not go whole hog?
Oh good lord. And here I thought there wasn’t going to be a way for the movie to become -more- cheesy.
I was an avid reader of the comics when they came out. When I heard a -movie- was comming out, I almost cheered. Got all my friends excited about it. As it drew nearer and I saw clips etc., I started getting less and less excited. As I ended up saying to one of my buddies after seeing it opening night, “I so wanted to love this movie. I really really did. Now I just want to pretend it never happened.”
It seems to me that having Sean Connery would be enough of a draw for that movie. What bugged me was not that Tom was added, but that the plot revolved around him and the movie was about America taking over saving the world from tired old UK. And I’m an American!
I’m always annoyed when they introduce the Gratuitous American into movies (it’s not a “Token American”, because he’s usually given the juiciest part). It’s clearly the roducers doing it because they’re afraid Americans won’t watch if Americans aren’t at the center of it. I was annoyed that the SciFi channel’s adaptation of Riverworld got rid of Sir Richard Burton – a truly fascinating historical character – and substituted some random “Shuttle Astronaut”. It wasn’t until years after I aw The Great Escape that I read the book and learned that, although there were Americans at Stalag Luft III, and they were important, none of them were ultimately actually in the big break, because the Germans had taken them all out of the compound to their own camp (the Germans, accordin to author Paul Brickhill, hoped that the Americans and British would fight with each other. In th midle of Germany?)And Americans weren’t in the position of chief scrounger or designated re-capturee and motorcyce stunt squad.
The inclusion of Tom Sawyer actually convinced me not to see the movie. I’m an American, and I love Mark Twain. I also really enjoyed the comic League. I couldn’t stand to watch a movie that managed to do a hatchet job on both Alan Moore and Twain.
I’ve not seen either the comic or the movie, so I have no real opinion on the inclusion. It strikes me that this is ultimately dependant on whether the movie is good or not. I’ve heard that LXG opened well for the first 1/2 hour and then fell apart. In which case, its not excusable.
I never saw much point in perfectly matching characters in movies to the actor’s nationality. Shouldn’t be as important as acting ability and proper actor placement. Certainly, since movies aim for a certain versimilitude, you have to make it remotely beleivable. But I don’t think people will care much if an American is cast as an Aussie or Brit.
I sort of dislike the attitude of the Harry Potter producers, that all the actor must be genuine Brits. Not because their casting choices are bad, per se, but because I think it was overly limiting and unneccessary. Either someone can do the part or not, regardless of thei nationality. Morgan Freeman’s Red was in no way an Irish kid, but he was damned great playing that character anyway.
Of course, some characters are so good at adapting to roles that its hard to even place them. If you just showed me his big movies I would never have guessed that [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000198](Gary Oldman) is British. Half his characters sound in no way British.
Incidentaly, I’m not perfect at it, but I can change my accent like that, too. I’m working on to what I think is a pretty good light London accent and I think my upper-southern’s well done, too. I used to speak german with, of all things, a Russian accent!
Same thing happened in The African Queen. In the book, Bogie’s character is a cockney. Kate Hepburn could do an English accent (heck, her normal accent sounded English!), but they wanted Bogie to sound like Bogie, so they made him a Canadian.
As an odd side note- I know in the movie Jeckle was actually kept a lot like the comic book. Sort-of an incredible-Hulk figure. Sadly, I just started reading the actual ‘Strange Case of Dr. Jeckyl and Mister Hyde’, and they make it abundantly (and repetitively) plain that Hyde is actually quite a bit -smaller- than Jeckyl. Weird.
It seems that Hyde’s grown, and spending more time active, and Jekyll’s shurnk over time. Jekyll’s barely in Vol II, in fact. It’s clear that Hyde’s in control.
I read the first LOEG series, but don’t recall very much since I was visiting a friend at the time and didn’t get to absorb myself into it as much as I would have liked. That said, the movie didn’t ring any bells with me in reference to the series.
Anyhoo, I recall reading somewhere that Tom Sawyer was actually added to the LOEG mythos in some way; like in a backup story or something. I don’t remember where I read this (Wizard Magazine perhaps), but can anybody whose familiar with the continuing stories confirm or repudiate this?
And for the record, the movie really stunk. But I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir when I say that. Some of the visuals were impressive, and I enjoyed the Jekyll & Hyde character, but the story was just terrible.
However, I’ve heard that the film did very well in Australia, and that there’s been talk of a sequel in reference to that anomaly. (Don’t ask where I heard that.) Fortunately, if such an idea comes to fruition, Sean Connery won’t be involved.