|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 29, 2018 4:29:51 GMT
Can you imagine, Lee performing the "evil" speech about Michael?! He was apparently offered the role but turned it down, which he later admitted he regretted. Donald Pleasence is an amazing actor in his own right, but Lee is whole different calibre of acting, but it would have also been a change of pace for Lee, playing the hero instead of the villain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 29, 2018 6:30:52 GMT
No. I think he would have been horrible for it. He was too tall and imposing. He would have been taller than Michael Myers! Peter Cushing would have been better, but I think he might have been too romantic a persona as well. Pleasence was best. He has that scene where he says he is afraid--I cannot see Lee doing that scene. Lee had played heroic characters already. Scream of Fear, the Gorgon, the Devil Rides Out... But let's take a minute to appreciate his singing voice too: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SSxuYOpjXs |
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Oct 29, 2018 11:08:23 GMT
I feel like with Christopher Lee in the role, his presence would overshadow the entire movie and it would've ended up as a footnote in his career and not the cultural phenomenon it has become. He would've been good, I'm sure, but the alchemy of the film would be off
No, I just can't imagine anyone else other than Pleasence in that role.
|
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 29, 2018 12:22:26 GMT
I'm not sure that Christopher Lee would have been able to play up the fear and anxiety that Donald Pleasance did. He just had such an imposing presence and voice, and his on screen power might have felt too stoic. I'm sure he could have been good, but it certainly would have been a different film and the film we got is the right one.
|
|
|
|
Post by northernlad on Oct 29, 2018 12:56:58 GMT
I don't think he would have been right for that part. It would have been difficult to believe that Michael wasn't afraid of Loomis with Christopher Lee in that part. He was too strong, nothing vulnerable or fearful there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo šš·š on Oct 29, 2018 12:57:59 GMT
Pleasence is so perfect and now iconic, I wouldn't want Lee. Lee, although I love him, would have been an even bigger star/draw and would have overshadowed everything else. It would have been just another Lee horror movie, lumped in with the hundreds of other Hammer horror movies. Pleasence contributed so much to the character and the movie with his performance choices. His ominous delivery is a thing of pure horror awesomeness.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Oct 29, 2018 21:21:16 GMT
I agree with everyone so far. Loomis just has this innocence to him that Pleasence perfectly captures.
Lee while a great actor in all respects, is a lot more imposing in his figure and would seem less of a contrast from the other characters in that heās seen as a subsided citizen. Heās looked down a lot, but carries wisdom for our main villain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 30, 2018 1:03:25 GMT
Lee had great facial acting abilities. Watch I, Monster where he is a meekish character and realizes he killed the cat...but he was so tall. I don't think it would make any sense for him to be the character just on that fact.
Plus his voice was so deep and sinister.
I can imagine him doing the "I tried to reach him for 6 years and spent another 6 trying to keep him locked up.." and it just wouldn't work.
He was also considered for the priest in the Fog but once again-if he had been, he would be as tall or taller than Blake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dramatic Look Gopher on Oct 30, 2018 2:22:05 GMT
Christopher Lee was the perfect Dracula, but as Sam Loomis? Nah, don't think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Nov 2, 2018 7:19:04 GMT
Brackett: I have a feeling that you're way off on this.
Loomis: You have the wrong feeling.
Brackett: You're not doing very much to prove me wrong!
Loomis: What more do you need?
Brackett: Well, it's going to take a lot more than fancy talk to keep me up all night crawling around these bushes.
Loomis: I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly. But you have elected the way of pain! *shoots him 6 times*
*Laurie pulls off Michael's mask as Loomis charges in, gun drawn*
Loomis: Your kitchen knife, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the babysitter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Nov 9, 2018 15:35:32 GMT
I agree with the general consensus here, on Leeās hypothetical playing and on loony Loomis. When he scares the kids going into the Myers house and smiles to himself about it, yeah, this character has a few screws loose. Is it just Pleasenceās playing, or what? I canāt imagine Carpenter meant to imply that Loomis is nuts, because that doesnāt go anywhere, but when I showed my cousin the movie this past Halloweāen (sheād never seen it before), she burst out with āthat guy [Loomis] is crazier than Michael Myers.ā I mean, if a new viewer sees it and all of us do, it has to be intentional on someoneās part, no? Anyway. I agree with nearly everything Primemovermithrax Pejorative wrote, but I think Peter Cushing would have made a fine Loomis. Heād have probably played it just like his Van Helsingāi.e., without Pleasenceās kookiness (which I guess answers my question above). Now that I think of it, my major problem with Halloween, that Loomis stays in that house pretty much all night while Michaelās out slicing up babysitters and their boyfriends, was preĆ«mpted by Horror of Dracula, in which Christopher Lee is biting Melissa Stribling while Cushing and Michael Gough are waiting for him outside. Cushing, though undeniably dashing even when playing villains, wasnāt at all romantic in Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed or Star Wars, so I think his casting would have worked. Heretically, I think I might have preferred him to Pleasence. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 9, 2018 18:51:48 GMT
I feel Loomis is a Van Helsing character. He has been compared to Ahab (maybe as a result of his burning in the sequel) but in the original he serves the same function as Van Helsing.
I am sure Cushing would have been fine as Loomis, but I think Pleasence's more mundane yet eccentric aspect--almost Columbo-like, seems like he borrowed his raincoat--works well, especially since Michael Myers is such an anonymous monster. Dracula he ain't.
Pleasence did play a romantic lead in Dr. Crippen--the most jarring role I have seen him in since his significant other is Samantha Eggar (who in 1962 was quite the looker).
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Nov 11, 2018 15:52:06 GMT
I think Donald Pleasence was a perfect fit for John Carpenter. They became friends and did great work on 'Halloween' (1978), 'Escape From New York' (1981) and 'Prince Of Darkness' (1987). |
|
|
|
Post by Ass_E9 on Oct 22, 2019 17:47:13 GMT
What if?!: Clint Eastwood as Dirty Loomis in Halloween II
"I SHOT HIM SIX TIMES! Or was it seven? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I've kind of lost track myself."
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 22, 2019 18:08:17 GMT
What if?!: Clint Eastwood as Dirty Loomis in Halloween II "I SHOT HIM SIX TIMES! Or was it seven? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I've kind of lost track myself." The movie we didnāt get but we deserve. |
|
|
|
Post by simest on Oct 25, 2019 7:26:24 GMT
Lee is a very imposing figure and his heavyweight standing as a Horror icon would have changed the feel of the movie considerably.
I think someone like Richard Attenborough or Richard Burton could have done well in the role but I can't fault Pleasence's performance as things stand.
|
|
