Lon Chaney Soalan

What's your Lon Chaney related pet peeve?

Okay I actually have two. The one that bothers me the most is when people only know Lon for his role as Erik. I can't count how many times this has happened. When I'm talking to someone at school atau online and Lon Chaney comes up and they're all "Oh yeah I Cinta Phantom of the Opera." and I'm all "Yeah that's a good movie. What do anda think of The Penalty?" and they answer "What's The Penalty." Usually I this point I black out in a fit of rage and wake up hours later in an empty field covered in blood.

My saat Chaney related pet peeve is when people mix up Sr. and Jr. Seeing a picture of Jr. tagged as the Phantom atau Phroso makes me want to punch something until it stops moving. I should really see a therapist.

Alycat4848 posted hampir setahun yang lalu

next question »

Lon Chaney Jawapan

PandaKISS said:

When I saw this soalan I was going to say my biggest pet peeve was that Chaney died in most of his films Lol.... atau that he sure has used the cripple plot.... a lot.
If anda think about it Chaney only plays three character types.
-Evil, a cripple, atau an unrequited Cinta (sometimes all three) and then those categories have subcategories; the father, Chinese, a gangster, a clown, atau a sympathetic madman. I wouldn't normally say "a cripple" is a character type but Chaney made it an art form. It doesn't bother me that Chaney is VERY repetitive in his character choices, but what does (somewhat) are peminat-peminat who blindly Cinta EVERY film of his, ya how? like just because he's in it its emas and anda can't criticize it. Well I didn't like all of his movies, like "The Monster" it had a weak plot and just keseluruhan wasn't that good, Chaney was one dimensional in it if anda can believe that. He just was the bad guy but anda do not feel any sympathy for him because that's all anda see him as the villain, I felt lebih for the hero because he gave anda a reason to feel for him. But people in the komen-komen where on Chaney's side and I just can't stand peminat wagons. If your gong to like a movie do so because anda actually like the movie not because anda like the main(s) character.

posted hampir setahun yang lalu

anda make a good point. I shouldn't keep picking on Phantom but I have to. So many people Cinta it and yes it is one of the best Phantom film adaptions but that doesn't say much (*cough* Dario Argento, Gerard Butler *cough*.) Really I think it isn't that great. Lon gives a great performance but Christine and Raoul have so little personality and there's so much pointless comic relief and its just really boring when Lon isn't on screen. I'll watch it for Lon but that is the only reason to watch it and that does not make it a masterpiece.

Alycat4848 posted hampir setahun yang lalu

hei it could have been worse at one point there was suppose to be lebih pointless comic relief, but luckly the test audience niked it. Lon is of course the only real centeral to the movie but I still like Ledoux/Daroga he had some great expressions. As far as criticizing, I can even say as a whole I didn't really care for Hunchback, Chaney was great in it but the film as a whole was ehh, the 39' remake was better.

PandaKISS posted hampir setahun yang lalu

Hiding 7 comments... click to show.

Oh come on who doesn't want to see Raoul in a pointless duel and Christine playing with a kitten? Well at least it can’t be any worse than Phantom of Manhattan. Though the graveyard scene would have been nice to see and I do appreciate them sort of having Daroga in there. He gets ignored in so many versions and oddly enough he's one of my kegemaran characters from the book atau even the animated version from the 80's. I have heard the #9 version of Hunchback was better but I sadly haven't been able to see either myself. I've been meaning to watch the 1923 version on Netlflix and am waiting for the 1939 version to be delivered but Bruce Campbell clogs up much of my queue.

Alycat4848 posted hampir setahun yang lalu

Obviously i've seen both versions as well as read the book (which is what makes the difference for me) and though Lon is still the better Quasimodo, the 39' film is over all better and closer to the book. Well until the end, where anda can see the Hayes code taking its full effect... but I ignore that. The fact that they take my kegemaran character and make him good in Chaney's version, unforgivable. Frollo's a obessive stalker, who doesn't know the meaning of "no" and thats why I like him! <-- somewhat like Erik in that respect

PandaKISS posted hampir setahun yang lalu

I really should reread Hunchback since the last time I read it was like 4 years ago. For some reason I always wanted to see lebih of Pierre and Jehan in the few adaptations of Hunchback I've seen. I mean I can see why they are usually cut from the story and it's probably a good call on the adaptor's part but I always liked when they appeared in the book. It's kind of like the Persian from Phantom. No the movie doesn't need him but that doesn't stop me from missing him.

Alycat4848 posted hampir setahun yang lalu

I hated Jehan, he was such a blood sucker parasite. Gringoire was fine even though after awhle djholi seems to be his only interest, in general I'm not suggesting anything just pointing out a fact. Gringoire is the "love interest" in the 39' version even though they still have Pheblous as a character he just really dies when Frollo stabs him. As I recall the Chaney version didn't have Gringoire, but it did have Fleur de Leus; who is sometimes rare. But the rarest is Esmeralda's mother (who plays a relatively big part in the book) has only been in the Chaney version as well. The musical version is a whole other arguement.

PandaKISS posted hampir setahun yang lalu

Yeah Jehan was an annoying kid but he made Follo seem lebih human. He has a family and doesn't get along with his brother just like any other guy. anda make a good point bringing up Esmeralda's mother. Thinking on it is odd that she almost never shows up despite having some of the biggest tear-jerker moments in the book. Hell maybe that's why. They didn't want the audience to commit suicide out of grief.

Alycat4848 posted hampir setahun yang lalu

That reminds me of a discription I was Membaca of Chaney's Hunchback from Michael F. Blake (Chaney's biographer) he has either never read Hugo's book atau not in forever, because when he was describing the plot he berkata Jehan was the one inlove with Esmeralda and that Claude was the moral one who cared for Quasimodo. I was like what how could anda get that so wrong and print it? he needs to stop using just films as his only sumber of information.

PandaKISS posted hampir setahun yang lalu

So Claude’s character was perpecahan, berpecah between the brothers and Jehan’s mischievous college douche personality was just thrown in the trash I guess? What were they not allowed to make an archdeacon have flaws? That kind of goes against at least part of the point of the story but Universal isn’t known for sticking to the sumber material so I guess it’s only expected.

Alycat4848 posted hampir setahun yang lalu

Yeah, its like the script writer was like "no we can't have two douche bags" making Claude a Angel just throws in the face what his character really is, though most other versions tunjuk him pretty one dimensional as well which is why Claude never gets any cinemic justice. I mean would they dare do that to Javert? (at the time probably, everything was so white & black in hollywood)

PandaKISS posted hampir setahun yang lalu

next question »

Horror legends	Bela Lugosi	Peter Lorre
Lon Chaney Jr.	The serigala, wolf Man	Cheaper sejak the Dozen 2
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button	The Shining	The Shawshank Redemption

Lon Chaney

Lon Chaney Soalan

What's your Lon Chaney related pet peeve?

Lon Chaney Jawapan

Kelab Berkaitan