Clint Eastwood didn't get the humor?
-
ToastedCheese — 4 years ago(August 07, 2021 01:58 AM)
Those guys were in a sense anti-heroes, not so much full on fledged evil bad guys. They had moral motivation even if the lines were blurred and the same could be said for his character in man with no name trilogy.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
ToastedCheese — 4 years ago(August 06, 2021 08:11 PM)
The humor is really only born out of the predicament and Willis's own personality and if Eastwood had starred in it, it would have likely been drier and more laconic. The dynamic would have been different.
Its not really a humorous film due to the situation and bloody violence perpetrated in the proceedings, but circumstantial due to the practicality of McClane's ability to think his situation through and while ott in some scenarios, Willis pulls it off to make his character seem real enough.
Eastwood was too old anyway and may have just used the humor aspect as an excuse to renege.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
Jaja — 4 years ago(August 06, 2021 10:09 PM)
I love Eastwood but he could not play John McClane.
John McClane is a screw up. His apartment is probably filthy. Cat throw up everywhere. He's probably a chain smoking alcoholic. He doesn't have everything under control but he has a "fck it" attitude supplemented by wit and dry humor.
I can relate.
A young Clint could have been slightly humorous if he wanted but not a true relatable "Joe next door" like Bruce Willis.
Bruce is John McClane.
Coming back en 2026-Viva Venezuela! -
Matthew T. Dalldorf — 4 years ago(August 07, 2021 03:57 PM)
"Frank Sinatra was originally supposed to play John McClane."
That was back when it was still a sequel to The Detective. I'm talking about after they rewrote it to give it its own seperate continuity.
