MovieChat Forums > Rubicon (2010) Discussion > Spangler: New version of cigarette smok...

Spangler: New version of cigarette smoking man?


Remember that guy from the X Files?

Why do I see the guy from the X Files when I see Spangler? They were both the ultimate "insiders" working the system for the benefit of a secret cabal.

reply

I like it!

I'd personally name him "Crazy Eyes" because of that wild eyed blinking thing he has going on, especially when he's smiling and trying to appear friendly and giving fatherly advice.


When you shake my hand, better count your fingers. - Megadeth

reply

Spangler is more evil than the smoking man was because spangler's motivation seems to be money and power while the smoking man's was not. he had a miss guided sense of duty to country.

reply

I'm pretty sure that's a distinction without a difference.

reply

His motivation is not money and power...it is CHANGE....were you not paying attention? Its so much bigger than that....and it really is.

reply

what do you mean "change"??? he was willing to help colonization happen because he felt it would happen anyway and if he helped he would at least save himself and his family at the cost of everyone else (instead of trying to help). Then kills anyone who goes against this (such as Bill Mulder) - pure evil

anyway i too thought to myself that they are similar and the relationship between spangler/will was similar to that of mulder(fox)/CSM

reply

We should probably call Spangler "The Cereal Eating Man" .... but that would probably get me a four-leaf clover in the mail.

And it's probably a good thing that Spangler doesn't eat Lucky Charms, eh?

"I believe it is peace for our time." Neville Chamberlain(1938)
Mike Wiggins

reply

All XFiles analogies eagerly welcomed. Both shows ignored any presumed obligation of coherent scripts, and depended on creepy background music and sloppy innuendo.
In addition to Spangler gesticulating wildly with his eyebrows.

reply

Cancer Man. His name, as originally stated, was Cancer Man. Don't give in to the revisionism.

reply