MacDonald
Anybody know why they changed the character of MacDonald (originally meant to be the same MacDonald from Conquest) to being his brother and played by a different actor.
shareHari Rhodes wasn't available due to another commitment. It is covered in the promotional herald issued for the film. Go here to read it: http://www.potamediaarchive.com/Battle.htm and scroll down. It is toward the bottom of the page.
shareThanx James
shareAll the same, I would have liked the story to have this MacDonald be the same man who helped Caesar in CONQUEST. Caesar cuts him some slack and makes him his "main man" out of respect. Austin Stoker could have still played the original MacDonald... it wouldn't be the only time a different actor played a character from a past film.
shareCompletely agree.
It also leaves us wondering what happened to the 'original' MacDonald.
Does anybody know why he wasn't playing the same character?
It wasnt me, it was the other three. Hang them!
I don't know for certain, but I would presume it was simply because Hari Rhodes was not available, so they didn't want to cast a different person as the same character. I honestly don't think many in the audience would have cared, or noticed.
After all, it's not like Hollywood hadn't done this for years already (ever see how many Blofelds James Bond faced?). They even had David Watson step in as Cornelius in BENEATH (though he was in makeup).
I wonder if the studio was worried that they would be accused of thinking you can't tell one black guy from another.
It wasnt me, it was the other three. Hang them!
Was it intended to be two different MacDonalds in the original script?
shareNo it was supposed to the same character as in Conquest. Breck was also the leader of the mutants instead of Kolp. Unfortunately, the actors weren't available so it became Kolp and the original MacDonald's brother.
shareOK, that makes sense. Stoker was good, and I'm glad they got Darden to play the leader instead of an unknown. But I suppose H. M. Wynant would've worked also.
share