There’s the character of “Annyong” Bluth from Arrested Development.
He was a Korean teenager adopted by Lucille Bluth. Not speaking English, he would greet people by saying “annyong” which is the Korean word for “hello”. And the Bluths assumed his name was Annyong and called him this.
Two seasons later his actual name was revealed; Hel-loh, which is the Korean word for “one day”. Hel-loh’s family had been ruined by the Bluths and he had vowed to destroy them one day.
And this had been revealed in the first season when the banana shack had been vandalized by a then unknown person who had spray pained “I’LL GET U BLUTH HELLO” on it. Neither the Bluths or the viewers realized at the time that the vandal had signed his work.
As much as I like the films, the whole “Man with no name” bit bugs the heck out of me, because they’re three similarly themed films featuring three similar but distinct characters played by the same actor, and each character has a different name:
Joe in Dollars
Manco in More Dollars
Blondie in Good etc.
They weren’t even intended to be a trilogy. Just three separate films. “The Man With No Name” thing was the marketing ploy of United Artists, who had nothing to do with the production, they were just the American distributor.
No, it’s pretty clear that those are the actual names of the three different characters. Those are the names as given in the credits. The fact that “The Man With No Name” concept was a later fabrication of United Artists is well documented. The characters seem similar for the same reasons most of John Wayne’s characters seem similar - they were played by the same actor and were in the same genre.
Since spoilers are inevitable: a villain on THE FLASH keeps getting asked, by the title character, who he is. He keeps saying: “I’m the future Flash” — which keeps getting interpreted as “I’m the future, Flash”, but, no, he’s just an honest time traveller.
Yeah, but I also think Eastwood played that up when he did High Plains Drifter with his own company, Malpaso, and I can see how he could legitimately claim the one character was only called that by other people who didn’t have his real name to use; he never actually says, “My name is…” or anything similar. This, I think, is where he started turning the ‘nameless’ character into something of a divine avatar or daemon – particularly with 1:25 through 1:45 – and I think it worked out well. The then took the character to Carbon County (He must have crawled, 'cause it took him years to get there!) where he was simply referred to as Preacher in Pale Rider.
–G!
Frozone’s wife in The Incredibles is, apparently, actually named Honey.
As in, “Honey, WHERE’S my super suit?”
“What?”
“WHERE IS MY SUPER SUIT?”
…
“We are talking about the greater good!”
“Greater good?! I am your wife! I am the greatest good you are EVER gonna get!”
I recently watched an episode where they killed off a young Bonnie Bedelia after she made the mistake of marrying Little Joe. So the Ben Cartwright wife curse did pass on to the kids. Don’t think the other Cartwright kids married, they probably knew better.
In fact, although the last of the three films, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is chronologically the first. When he first appears, Blondie is wearing a gray duster coat. He acquires the iconic poncho later in the movie. He’s very obviously intended to be the same character that appears in the earlier (although chronologically later) movies.
Not really relevant. Those are aliases. Eastwood’s character may be referred to by those names, but he never introduces himself as such, and never gives his own name.
In which movies did Wayne’s character wear an identical outfit?
Rufus T. Firefly, Otis B. Driftwood and Captain Spaulding wear identical clothes and smoke the same kind of cigar. Are they the same character?
What about Chaplin’s Tramp who adopted Jackie Coogan in The Kid, is he the same character as the Tramp that married the blind flower seller in City Lights? Identical clothes, hat and walking stick.
Surely you are familiar with the concept of a stock character? Where every story is separate, with no continuity between them, A character can get married in one story, and have no wife in the next, and there is no contradiction. They are essentially different characters who look the same.
The three characters played by Eastwood have a lot of similarities, but also some differences in motivation and character. In Fistful, he’s a drifter who just wanders into a town full of troubles. In More he’s an honest bounty hunter who sets out with the intention of finding criminals for the reward. In Ugly, he’s a crook who turns in then rescues Tuco multiple times for the reward.
Exactly. Those are comedies using stock characters developed by those comedians. The Marx Brothers are their stock characters regardless of what names they have. Same with Chaplin’s Little Tramp. But that’s not what the character in the Dollars trilogy is.
Nah, they’re all really just opportunists. Blondie is a bounty hunter as well. And the name of the second movie doesn’t make sense except as a reference to the first one. Why “For a Few Dollars More,” if it’s not in reference to a few dollars more than the fistful the character made in the first movie? And as I said, Blondie is shown acquiring the identical poncho in TGTBATU. It couldn’t be more obvious that Leone meant him to be the same character.
