Discuss: Have Characters Lost Their Names?

Last Summer churned out "Hancock"... and we all saw how that turned out.

Also, technically Bruno has been around for years and they just decided to make the character into a movie. He was a part of "Da Ali G Show" and I'm pretty sure he was a character of Sasha Baron Cohen's before that.

Reply

I reference Daniel Plainview on almost a daily basis.

Reply

All of the names mentioned here can be separated into two categories, which makes this a moot point...

1. Main characters in movie franchises with sequels/spin-offs (Star Trek, Indiana Jones, Star Wars)

2. Main characters whose names are in the title (Ferris Bueller, Citizen Kane, Rocky)

Can you remember the names of any characters from films (pre-2003) that don't fall into either category?

Reply

It's mostly because we follow these character's adventures for multiple movies.

I'm sure you can name most or at least some of the characters from your favorite TV shows—old and recent—because you follow them for sometimes years.

Reply

As the quality of genre films go, so do the character names. If the dozens of writers these studios hire onto these projects can't even conjure up a memorable character name, what's to make them think anything else from the movie will stay will the audience after they've left the theater?

I think the explanation is a simple lack of effort. Studios are more interested in capitalizing on past success (sequels/remakes) or perceived trends than developing a quality product. They could care less what the character names are in Transformers, so long as there are giant robots, explosions and Megan Fox in short shorts. And, sadly, the audience doesn't care either.

Reply

I completely agree. As the film industry moves forward with creating "louder, faster, more CGI driven" films, we begin to lose a true sense of an 'individual film'.

Now it seems that every event film is the "new this" or an "updated version of that" or a twist on "this", rather than as standalone, specific, and ultimately memorable titles...

This grieves me, and in my reviews I tend to focus a lot on how films either move away from this (so harking back to times when films had memorability) or enter into it (by removing all sense of 'individual film' and placing emphasis on flash-bang marketing techniques and flavour of the week storytelling)

Reply

Jack Sparrow, anyone?

Reply

One word: McLovin

Reply

Ferris is making a comeback?

Reply

Did you really just call "Sam Witwicky" an iconic character? I think I threw up a little.

Reply

Shakes and estienne64 -- Captain Jack Sparrow and McLovin are perfect examples. Dare we add Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus?

Something to consider -- the superhero movie is a dominant form of Hollywood blockbuster. Why don't we count Wolverine, Spider-Man, and Batman among the movie icons? Surely their big screen incarnations have done more to imprint them as icons in the minds of the general moviegoing public than the comic books. Is it really a bad thing that the studios have traded a generation of cardboard copies of Martin Riggs and John McClane for a generation of superheroes? I think it's a pretty good deal for pop culture.

And honestly, how many obvious icons come from past decades, versus the present decade? I think this is another case of "the present isn't as cool as I remember the past being."

Reply

Interesting discussion and very similiar to the one I had with my sister about TV shows. My theory is that a TV show that is built around one character is destined to never make it past the second season. A TV show's success depends on 3 things, and I'm willing to bet it applies to movies.

1. Themes and genres that people can relate to like cops, doctors or lawyer shows. These are shows that are relatable but don't always captivate us because there's so many of these kind of shows on the air.

2. Casting - single most important aspect of a TV show or film's longterm survival. When you have outside the box themes like LOST or TRANSFORMERS, you need a cast, not just one character but a solid ensemble for viewers to latch on to. Larger cast increases the chances of finding a connection between it's viewers. ALLY McBEAL was not relatable to everyone, but her cast was. Their was a character for everyone. One could say that the cast on ALLY McBEAL made the Ally herself enjoyable. I believe the same could be said for TRANSFORMERS, Sam Witwicky didn't appeal to everyone (as much as director tried) but Optimus Prime, Bumblebee (despite being robots) and Sam's parents were relatable. My point here is that Larger cast have a greater chance of connecting with the viewer.

3. Timing is everything. Captivating themes, great cast aren't always enough to keep the show from cancellation. Sometimes these good shows get lost because they are on the wrong night and at the wrong time slot. Perfect example of this is show called RELATIVITY. Timing is very much an important thing with movies. Sometimes great movies get overshadowed by others bearing massive hype. Or sometimes two great movies a week or a few months apart is too many. Movies like FORREST GUMP (July '94) and SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (Sept '94) come to mind.

Reply

The robots were better defined than the people in those two movies because those two movies were about *gasp* robots. They *were* the main characters. They were the things we cared about. Would you discount WALL-E because WALL-E is better defined than John and Mary? Anyone that would is an idiot.

Reply

If anyone has "taken" my daughter, I'll go "Bryan Mills" on them. Beautiful in it's mundaneness.

Reply

Tyler Durden

Reply

I got 2. Donnie Darko and Madea! :)
Me want FOODDD!!

Reply

I'll back Jack Sparrow as probably the most iconic original movie character lately, but it's hard to come across an iconic original film character nowadays with so many Blockbusters being adapted from books and comics, but may I also present Ron Burgundy and the Dude?

Reply