T1000416
Rangeveritz-treated psychotic monster
Posts: 70
|
Post by T1000416 on Jan 1, 2006 16:08:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Vigilante on Jan 6, 2006 13:27:07 GMT -5
Oh my GOD!  I never spotted that anywhere! Are you the DARKMAN fan in the ROBO-ARCHIVE? I know about you!  |
|
T1000416
Rangeveritz-treated psychotic monster
Posts: 70
|
Post by T1000416 on Jan 10, 2006 18:50:25 GMT -5
I think everyone there likes Darkman actually. But yeah, I might be the guy your talking about. There's another guy there though. Fully loaded with a Darkman avatar and sig. The one who found that picture actually. He said he was registered here, but the account was screwy and he couldn't post. I forgot I was gonna ask an admin here about it.
Im not even sure I asked what his name here was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vigilante on Mar 3, 2006 16:28:07 GMT -5
I'm the administrator.
Well, please, I would like to have this guy here, on the board. Where did he find that marvellous PIC? It's a deleted scene of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by kooshmeister on Mar 22, 2010 0:03:00 GMT -5
After so long, I can answer the OP's question. This is a deleted scene featuring Louis Strack, Jr.'s father, Louis Strack, Snr. (guy with the cane) meeting Julie at a country club. I recently acquired a copy of Randall Boyll's novelization and this scene is in it. So that "other guy" is Strack's dad who was cut and never credited.
As to what befell Strack Senior, his son has him killed to take over the company. In the book, Durant himself does the deed when the Stracks stop at a gas station, whereas in the Marvel Comic adaptation, Smiley shoots him in a drive by. Later, at his office, Strack feigns grief and is consoled by Julie who then asks him about the bribes to the city zoning board, as in the film.
This was part of an almost totally deleted subplot concerning Strack's desire to invest in South African krugerands in addition to the whole City of the Future scam. I'm uncertain if Strack Senior was aware of the construction project his son had going, and how he was using Durant, but he did know of his son's interest in krugerands and disapproved for some reason.
Strack therefore has Daddy whacked. In the comic, this is the last we see of Daddy Strack and the krugerand subplot, but in the novel Strack orders a crateload of krugerands from South Africa and has them delivered to his mansion, leading to the infamous "naked in a pile of gold coins" scene mentioned on IMDB.
All that survives of this subplot is one tiny bit when Strack is on the phone in his office when Julie finds the Bellasarius Memorandum. On the DVD if you listen closely you can hear the caller on the other end question Strack about "This krugerand situation."
As to why all of this was cut, it was probably mostly for time. Also it has nothing to do with why Durant and his guys attacked Peyton. That was connected (loosely) to the construction project scam and the bribes, not the krugerand thing. Also, all of this would reveal Strack as the real villain too soon and I assume Raimi wanted this to be a big reveal for the third act.
Also speaking of the novelization, I want to add that there, the partially completed skyscraper where the final battle takes place is built on the site of Peyton Westlake's destroyed home. Strack bought the property after Peyton "died" and in fact bought that entire area and so Darkman is fighting Strack on the site where his old life ended, at least in Boyll's novel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vigilante on Mar 22, 2010 8:22:08 GMT -5
Also speaking of the novelization, I want to add that there, the partially completed skyscraper where the final battle takes place is built on the site of Peyton Westlake's destroyed home. Strack bought the property after Peyton "died" and in fact bought that entire area and so Darkman is fighting Strack on the site where his old life ended, at least in Boyll's novel. This would have been very poetic and original, and I'm wondering if there are elements in the movie to suggest so. I must rewatch the scene(s). One question: how did Boyll introduce the name "Darkman" during the narration? |
|
|
|
Post by kooshmeister on May 24, 2010 18:58:05 GMT -5
In-story it is a name Westlake coins. The name is, I believe, introduced right after Westlake first removes his bandages and realizes the extent of the burns. It is suggested that right then is when his mind snaps. Westlake's inner monologue says the bad guys "didn't just steal his future, they stole his face as well." That chapter ends with Boyll's narration saying something akin to, "Peyton Westlake died then, and the Darkman was born."
The implication seems to be that "Darkman" is another personality. Westlake himself is a fairly ordinary, nonviolent man. Very non-confrontational. It's why he meekly accepts Julie's insistence that they wait to get married, and why he doesn't really fight back against Durant's gang. Darkman is that part of him where he's kept his anger and rage stored up and the psychological trauma of his torture, culminating in the realization that he no longer has a face, causes this to all come boiling to the surface.
The business of his rage being the result of his mind being hungry for sensory input due to the severing of his pain and touch sensations, is still there, and this only makes his already existing anger that much greater, allowing it to run unchecked, turning him into even more of a juggernaut than he already was.
So, "Darkman" is introduced as Westlake's name for the nagging and increasingly more powerful side of him that wants bloody, violent revenge against the villains.
|
|
