• pjwestin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    20 minutes ago

    I heard this story, not sure if it’s true, but I choose to believe it and will not hear any corrections; apparently, he was approached about Gandalf, but he turned it down because he didn’t really understand it. Then he was approached about Dumbledore, but turned it down because he didn’t really understand it. After seeing how those two franchises turned out, he said, “screw it, I’m taking the next role that I don’t get.” That role was Alan Quartermaine in League of Extraordinary Gentleman. After that movie bombed he retired from acting altogether.

    • faythofdragons@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Yeah, it’s called “I was young and broke, and needed the money”.

      Although, I really do recommend watching Zardoz at least once. It’s a trip.

  • bizarroland@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    4 hours ago

    There was a population boost in the town they filmed Zardoz in due to all of the drug-induced revelry that was going on during the making of that movie.

    There is a good chance that town is populated with tens if not scores of Sean Connery’s illegitimate grandchildren now.

  • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I don’t think he’ he’d be a good Gandalf anyways

    nothing against him, but what we got was perfect.

  • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    6 hours ago

    To be fair to Connery, Zardoz was right after 007. He was type casted and nobody would hire him. He had to do something different to get new work. Also, Zardoz is legit a good movie… If you get past the weird and laughable aesthetic choices, the plot is a decent sci fi plot.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Zardoz is legit a good movie

      I assumed it was going to be, but when I watched I found it aggressively terrible.

      • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        29 minutes ago

        But, did you watch it a second time? Honestly it’s awful the first watch because you can’t get past the aesthetic of it. When I watched it again I realized the movie itself is pretty good. It’s practically the definition of a good bad movie.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 minutes ago

          I have not. Maybe I’ll try it again someday because I actually have more than once hated a movie first try and liked it on second viewing.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Zardoz is legit a good movie

      Well, ok. But we are comparing it with the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

      (But then, committing to a trilogy probably has a huge opportunity cost.)

      • UnspecificGravity@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Bear in mind that very few people thought a film adaptation of LOTR was actually going to be any good. It seems obvious now, but it was not seen a really viable project with how trilogies were made at the time (with many years between them) the amount of budget needed, and the effects challenges. The guys who made the movies deserve a lot of credit for doing something so well that it looks obvious when they are done, but little thinks like how to do the hobbits were seen as effects challenges with no real solution that wouldn’t look stupid or be insanely expensive.

        Connery would have been the biggest name in the film and getting attached to something that wound up looking like shit or making him look stupid would have been a bigger problem for him than anyone. Again, its obvious that they turned out great, but look at what Peter Jackson made before this and its not really as obvious a choice as one would think now (although I am personally a fan of his early work, I get why people might not be and why people maybe wouldn’t hand him the biggest film franchise in history).

        And just for a fun tidbit, at the time that Connery bailed on the offer the film was being produced by Weinstein, so I get maybe not wanting to work with that dirtbag. They almost lost Liv Tyler for the same reason and reportedly did lose them Ashley Judd and Mia Sorvino, who flat out refused to be attached to anything involving him.

  • Ghostie@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    6 hours ago

    “And sho do all who live to shee shuch timesh. But that ish not for them to deshide. All we have to deshide ish what to do with the time that ish give to ush.”

  • totesmygoat@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I’m sure his time on league of extraordinary gentlemen made him never want to do anything even near that kind of movie ever again.

  • agingelderly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I didn’t realize he died during the plague. I thought he died during the Lord of the Rings and my first thought was good thing he didn’t take it, for that reason

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Michael Gambon took over for Richard Harris, who passed in 2002 after Chamber of Secrets. Michael Gambon did pass, but in 2023, which was long after the book movies.