This message has been deleted.

Hehe, number 22, classic answer.
Scientologists love Narnia, there's plenty of closet space.

I know in an interview he was asked how long he was going to play Dr. Sam Loomis and he said he's stop at # 22
"What are we supposed to use? Harsh language?"

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

I remember in 1997 reading that Sir Anthony Hopkins only did movies at that point for the money. At first I was surprised, but then it made sense. At the point in his life/career, he could retire and 10 years later come out of retirement and still have a pile of movie offers

This message has been deleted.

From his qoutes:
"There was a sort of horror picture that I did called The Mutations (1974). I think I did that solely for the money."
I find his honesty refreshing. At least he had the balls to admit it. Donald never got half the acclaim he should have. RIP.

Donald played so many great characters it's hard to count them all. A very adapt practitioner of his craft. That's sorely lacking in today's current crop of actors. I met Danielle Harris once who starred with him in Halloween 4 & 5. She said he was a typical cultured English gentleman who treated her with the utmost kindness and consideration. We took a hit when we lost him.

I thought he was in Dr. No as well, but I may be wrong.

Pleasence wasn't in Dr No.
I think the OP got that mixed up with another 007 movie, You Only Live Twice, where Pleasence played Blofeld.

Pleasence wasn't in Dr No.

Would you say then that European actors are fine with being typecasted, or doing the same roles over and over again?
Not necessarily, though Boris Karloff said on many occasions that he was grateful for his typecasting as it assured that he would always work.
Are they not particularly concerned of their image for being in bad films, o5b4r are European audiences more apologetic and can recognize that it's the film, not the actor, that's the one at fault?
It's not that they're not concerned, but it does seem European actors are less susceptible to the stink of bad films than Americans, which you could call the Michael Caine Syndrome. Maybe it's the accents.
Explore the Dark Corners of Classic Cinema with the best B-Movie Reviews:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmxXHmHyfFQYVVzqexOk-lQ

Would you say then that European actors are fine with being typecasted, or doing the same roles over and over again? Are they not particularly concerned of their image for being in bad films, or are European audiences more apologetic and can recognize that it's the film, not the actor, that's the one at fault?
Plenty of times when I watch Nostalgic Critic, for example, really famous and beloved actors in crappy movies are made fun of in his reviews, as if their taking the role in that particularly bad film was a conscious choice on their part like "Yeah this movie's gonna be great!" instead of "well, it pays, so I'll do it. Maybe it'll be fun. I like this character, at least"
You shut your mouth when you're talking to me!

This message has been deleted.

Film historian Kim Newman made an observation once which I found quite insightful, which is that the idea of being "too good" to do certain projects is typically exclusive to American actors. European actors generally just like to work. That of course doesn't mean they have no standards, but that they see a job as a job. This is often why most screen villains are Europeans, as American film stars usually only want themselves to be seen in certain lights.
Interestingly, though, there was a role in a very low budget slasher film that fellow Englishmen Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing both turned down as they thought the project beneath them, which was then accepted by Pleasence. Christopher Lee later referred to that decision as the worst of his career as that film was, of course, the original
Halloween
. So you can't always hold your cards too close.
Explore the Dark Corners of Classic Cinema with the best B-Movie Reviews:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmxXHmHyfFQYVVzqexOk-lQ