Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: akiratubo on November 05, 2008, 02:07:43 AM

Title: Legend (1985) - a question
Post by: akiratubo on November 05, 2008, 02:07:43 AM
I got the 2-disc set of Legend today.  I watched the director's cut hoping the 20 or so extra minutes would make the movie make sense.

Not so much.

One thing I did notice, though, was that everyone kept referring to Jack as a "boy" or "little boy".  Lili was "the girl".  Given that, and the way Jack and Lili generally act, I think they must have been written with much younger actors in mind, I'm thinking 15-16 years old at most.

Anybody else ever get that idea?

(Or ... were we supposed to understand that 20-something Tom Cruise and Mia Sara were supposed to be 16 or so in the context of the film?)
Title: Re: Legend (1985) - a question
Post by: Psycho Circus on November 05, 2008, 07:09:03 AM
Yeah, I think we are meant to believe that Cruise is alot younger.
Title: Re: Legend (1985) - a question
Post by: akiratubo on November 06, 2008, 12:11:52 AM
They should have gone ahead and cast younger actors.  I think that would have helped the movie a lot, particularly with the fairy-tale feeling they were going for.
Title: Re: Legend (1985) - a question
Post by: Allhallowsday on November 06, 2008, 10:13:11 PM
It's difficult to look at LEGEND and not see TOM CRUISE in it, but, I mean, my point is that he wasn't nearly so annoying or powerful or crazed 20+ years ago...
I also think there is a precedence for referring to, say, "under 25" male and female characters as "boy" and "girl" (particularly when they're as short as CRUISE... :bouncegiggle:)
Title: Re: Legend (1985) - a question
Post by: GoHawks on November 07, 2008, 02:18:34 AM
I think everyone else is spot on that the characters were supposed to be young, but I think there may be more to it than just that.

It's been a long time since I've seen this film, but weren't Jack and Lily the only humans in the story?

Wouldn't it then make sense for all of the non-human characters to refer to them as 'boy' and 'girl' just as you or I might use 'bull' or 'cow'?  I.e. whenever someone said 'boy' they were in effect saying 'male human'.
Title: Re: Legend (1985) - a question
Post by: Psycho Circus on November 07, 2008, 05:39:21 AM
Quote from: Allhallowsday on November 06, 2008, 10:13:11 PM
It's difficult to look at LEGEND and not see TOM CRUISE in it, but, I mean, my point is that he wasn't nearly so annoying or powerful or crazed 20+ years ago...

Because he was still green in the business...

Quote from: GoHawks on November 07, 2008, 02:18:34 AM
Wouldn't it then make sense for all of the non-human characters to refer to them as 'boy' and 'girl' just as you or I might use 'bull' or 'cow'?  I.e. whenever someone said 'boy' they were in effect saying 'male human'.

I'd go along with that as an explanation too.
Title: Re: Legend (1985) - a question
Post by: akiratubo on November 07, 2008, 10:19:28 AM
Quote from: GoHawks on November 07, 2008, 02:18:34 AMIt's been a long time since I've seen this film, but weren't Jack and Lily the only humans in the story?

There were the "poor" people living in the cottage, and Lily was a princess of something or another.  I assume a human kingdom but who knows?