Toby Stephens confesses to typecasting worries after 'Die Another Day'

actonsteve

He should be more worried that the actors union takes away his union card.

Worst performance of the series

http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=11015&t=mi6&s=news

Samuel001

I can understand this but isn't it up to the individual to find different roles each time they look for work?

It's nice to see Stephens realise how bad that Graves character was. I wonder if he could have given something better with a better villain to play?

Dragonpol

I think he was very poor as Gustav Graves, though there were the odd good scene here and there. He has since played James Bond on radio no less than three separate times - talk about typecasting!

Risico

Yes, Gustav Graves was a thinly-written part in a crappy Bond film, but then so was Scaramanga in TMWTGG. Toby Stephens is clearly bored in the film, hams it up awfully and I'm sure only did it for the money. Christopher Lee, in contrast, approached his part with deadly earnestness, jet-black humour and total respect... and was awesome!

Ludovico

The character was very badly written, but Stephens did not do anything to make Graves better, far from it. I don't think a petulant spoiled brat makes much of a villain, but he could have tried to play him as Caligula instead of Minime.

CraigMooreOHMSS

As soon as he put on the robo-suit, he became one of the worst villains of the series.

Dragonpol

CraigMooreOHMSS wrote:

As soon as he put on the robo-suit, he became one of the worst villains of the series.

Agreed.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

Not that I'm defending Stephens, but I'd still take him over Michael Lonsdale.

Dragonpol

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

Not that I'm defending Stephens, but I'd still take him over Michael Lonsdale.

Joke, right? Michael Lonsdale was one of the best villains in my view.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

Dragonpol wrote:

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

Not that I'm defending Stephens, but I'd still take him over Michael Lonsdale.

Joke, right? Michael Lonsdale was one of the best villains in my view.

He had some great lines to say, but does that alone make Drax a great villain? Except for 1 or 2 occasions, each and every delivery is more monotone than most of Lazenby's and he rarely changes his facial expressions either. At least Stephens gets a reaction of some sort from me, granted they mostly aren't good reactions, but the only reaction Drax gives me is boredom and the feeling that I am watching paint dry.

Dragonpol

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

Not that I'm defending Stephens, but I'd still take him over Michael Lonsdale.

Joke, right? Michael Lonsdale was one of the best villains in my view.

He had some great lines to say, but does that alone make Drax a great villain? Except for 1 or 2 occasions, each and every delivery is more monotone than most of Lazenby's and he rarely changes his facial expressions either. At least Stephens gets a reaction of some sort from me, granted they mostly aren't good reactions, but the only reaction Drax gives me is boredom and the feeling that I am watching paint dry.

Yes, well he was a rather low-key and that avoids a pantomime villain so I think that that may have actually been one of his strengths.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'd rather have a big slice of Stephens brand ham than the oatmeal that is Lonsdale. He is exactly the same actor in every role I've ever seen and the worst lead villain of the entire series IMHO. I'd rather laugh than be bored.

Dragonpol

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'd rather have a big slice of Stephens brand ham than the oatmeal that is Lonsdale. He is exactly the same actor in every role I've ever seen and the worst lead villain of the entire series IMHO. I'd rather laugh than be bored.

I've always liked Lonsdale as an actor myself. We'll agree to disagree then, Sir Henry.

BAIN123

Has anyone listened to his audiobook of FRWL? He hams it up a bit as Grant but I think does a good job. His personal thoughts on the novel at the end are good too.

Dragonpol

BAIN123 wrote:

Has anyone listened to his audiobook of FRWL? He hams it up a bit as Grant but I think does a good job. His personal thoughts on the novel at the end are good too.

Yes, I bought a collection of these audio book CDs from The Works quite recently.

Ludovico

CraigMooreOHMSS wrote:

As soon as he put on the robo-suit, he became one of the worst villains of the series.

As soon as he showed up imo. When he put on the suit he became the worst. Period.

Dragonpol

He shouldn't worry about typecasting but he should worry about where his next role will come from...

M_Balje

Dragonpol wrote:

He shouldn't worry about typecasting but he should worry about where his next role will come from...

I don't think he should worry. I think Will Yun Lee earlier with a simalar part in Elektra and The Wolverine. No wonder with all three movies be made by Fox, who experimentel with les/unknown directers

I agree also about he did it for the money. Because that's my idea when i read this interview.

The sword fight he/chacter whas at his best.

RC7

I like Stephens, just putting it out there. DAD is a load of nonsense and the last thing I'm going to do is sit and judge it on the same terms as a FRWL or an OHMSS. I actually get a kick out of his overly theatrical performance, if only because a fantastic bit of character work would have been wasted in this movie anyway. It's all 2D preposterous grandiosity, on those terms it delivers.

WillyGalore

RC7 wrote:

I like Stephens, just putting it out there. DAD is a load of nonsense and the last thing I'm going to do is sit and judge it on the same terms as a FRWL or an OHMSS. I actually get a kick out of his overly theatrical performance, if only because a fantastic bit of character work would have been wasted in this movie anyway. It's all 2D preposterous grandiosity, on those terms it delivers.

Agreed. I quite like Stephens as an actor (and yes, he did ham it up in DAD). I think Rosamund Pike is a real talent also. Their characters were so badly underwritten and the dialogue was terrible, that I don't care who you are as an actor, if your script is piss poor it's going to be nigh on impossible to expect your actors to give decent performances.

Dragonpol

WillyGalore wrote:

RC7 wrote:

I like Stephens, just putting it out there. DAD is a load of nonsense and the last thing I'm going to do is sit and judge it on the same terms as a FRWL or an OHMSS. I actually get a kick out of his overly theatrical performance, if only because a fantastic bit of character work would have been wasted in this movie anyway. It's all 2D preposterous grandiosity, on those terms it delivers.

Agreed. I quite like Stephens as an actor (and yes, he did ham it up in DAD). I think Rosamund Pike is a real talent also. Their characters were so badly underwritten and the dialogue was terrible, that I don't care who you are as an actor, if your script is piss poor it's going to be nigh on impossible to expect your actors to give decent performances.

Agreed again. Things were very underwritten in DAD, but Purvis and Wade are solely responsible for this - on the other films they had co-writers. Bond films should always be written by committee as Cubby Broccoli had done on TSWLM. There have been some exceptions, but most writers have worked with someone else - it adds a bit of polish to the dialogue and script, if nothing else.

WillyGalore

Dragonpol wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

RC7 wrote:

I like Stephens, just putting it out there. DAD is a load of nonsense and the last thing I'm going to do is sit and judge it on the same terms as a FRWL or an OHMSS. I actually get a kick out of his overly theatrical performance, if only because a fantastic bit of character work would have been wasted in this movie anyway. It's all 2D preposterous grandiosity, on those terms it delivers.

Agreed. I quite like Stephens as an actor (and yes, he did ham it up in DAD). I think Rosamund Pike is a real talent also. Their characters were so badly underwritten and the dialogue was terrible, that I don't care who you are as an actor, if your script is piss poor it's going to be nigh on impossible to expect your actors to give decent performances.

Agreed again. Things were very underwritten in DAD, but Purvis and Wade are solely responsible for this - on the other films they had co-writers. Bond films should always be written by committee as Cubby Broccoli had done on TSWLM. There have been some exceptions, but most writers have worked with someone else - it adds a bit of polish to the dialogue and script, if nothing else.

Double agreed ;-)

I thought the initial news of Mendes returning was great but then when hearing Purvis & Wade had walked away from Bond, it was like all my birthdays and Christmases had come at once. I hope they're never brought back into the fold.

Gonna have slight rant about Beavis & Butthead now so please forgive me:

Do you know what angered me the most about DAD? It wasn't the invisible Aston, it wasn't the SEGA Megadrive-CGI parasailing, it wasn't even the crap Robocop.

It was the complete cop out by the writers at actually delivering on their promise of a "broken Bond".

Early on during production, one of the first stills released showed Brosnan on the bridge in North Korea with his long scraggly hair and beard and I had read the plot synopsis. "Bond betrayed. Captured. Tortured etc" and I thought to myself, 'that's great. Finally we're going to get proper character development'.

And guess what, when the film was released, within 5 minutes of Bond being released by the North Koreans to the British, not only has he managed to escape from the Frigate (by reducing his heartbeat no less!) but he finds himself in the best suite of a five star Hong Kong hotel, perfectly trimmed and manicured, with all the finest food and wines and tailored shirts that money can buy.

And my reaction was to this? "What a load of absolute f***ing bulls***". I can have no respect for any writer(s) who lack the conviction in their writing. Unsurprisingly, the film went downhill fast after that.

Rant over.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

WillyGalore wrote:

RC7 wrote:

I like Stephens, just putting it out there. DAD is a load of nonsense and the last thing I'm going to do is sit and judge it on the same terms as a FRWL or an OHMSS. I actually get a kick out of his overly theatrical performance, if only because a fantastic bit of character work would have been wasted in this movie anyway. It's all 2D preposterous grandiosity, on those terms it delivers.

Agreed. I quite like Stephens as an actor (and yes, he did ham it up in DAD). I think Rosamund Pike is a real talent also. Their characters were so badly underwritten and the dialogue was terrible, that I don't care who you are as an actor, if your script is piss poor it's going to be nigh on impossible to expect your actors to give decent performances.

I think it's bit ironic that despite a script far less complete in polish and considered by a fair share of detractors to be worse than DAD as both a script and movie (that wouldn't be me in the detractor fold), QOS gives us many great individual performances. I think I will suggest this to Dimi as a thesis if he hasn't done so already. Perhaps the cast of actors (short of Rosamund Pike and Emilio Echevarria) is as bad as the script after all?

I see P&W as two guys who had some good ideas from time to time, but two guys who definitely needed oversight. Perhaps if they'd gotten some TWINE and DAD wouldn't be as poor as I generally find them to be.

Dragonpol

WillyGalore wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

RC7 wrote:

I like Stephens, just putting it out there. DAD is a load of nonsense and the last thing I'm going to do is sit and judge it on the same terms as a FRWL or an OHMSS. I actually get a kick out of his overly theatrical performance, if only because a fantastic bit of character work would have been wasted in this movie anyway. It's all 2D preposterous grandiosity, on those terms it delivers.

Agreed. I quite like Stephens as an actor (and yes, he did ham it up in DAD). I think Rosamund Pike is a real talent also. Their characters were so badly underwritten and the dialogue was terrible, that I don't care who you are as an actor, if your script is piss poor it's going to be nigh on impossible to expect your actors to give decent performances.

Agreed again. Things were very underwritten in DAD, but Purvis and Wade are solely responsible for this - on the other films they had co-writers. Bond films should always be written by committee as Cubby Broccoli had done on TSWLM. There have been some exceptions, but most writers have worked with someone else - it adds a bit of polish to the dialogue and script, if nothing else.

Double agreed ;-)

I thought the initial news of Mendes returning was great but then when hearing Purvis & Wade had walked away from Bond, it was like all my birthdays and Christmases had come at once. I hope they're never brought back into the fold.

Gonna have slight rant about Beavis & Butthead now so please forgive me:

Do you know what angered me the most about DAD? It wasn't the invisible Aston, it wasn't the SEGA Megadrive-CGI parasailing, it wasn't even the crap Robocop.

It was the complete cop out by the writers at actually delivering on their promise of a "broken Bond".

Early on during production, one of the first stills released showed Brosnan on the bridge in North Korea with his long scraggly hair and beard and I had read the plot synopsis. "Bond betrayed. Captured. Tortured etc" and I thought to myself, 'that's great. Finally we're going to get proper character development'.

And guess what, when the film was released, within 5 minutes of Bond being released by the North Koreans to the British, not only has he managed to escape from the Frigate (by reducing his heartbeat no less!) but he finds himself in the best suite of a five star Hong Kong hotel, perfectly trimmed and manicured, with all the finest food and wines and tailored shirts that money can buy.

And my reaction was to this? "What a load of absolute f***ing bulls***". I can have no respect for any writer(s) who lack the conviction in their writing. Unsurprisingly, the film went downhill fast after that.

Rant over.

Agreed on the character development point - I have an article for my blog to write on the lack of character development in GoldenEye. Character development isn't a big part of Bond films generally, especially in the Brosnan and Moore eras, and even in the later Connery era. More's the pity...

WillyGalore

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

RC7 wrote:

I like Stephens, just putting it out there. DAD is a load of nonsense and the last thing I'm going to do is sit and judge it on the same terms as a FRWL or an OHMSS. I actually get a kick out of his overly theatrical performance, if only because a fantastic bit of character work would have been wasted in this movie anyway. It's all 2D preposterous grandiosity, on those terms it delivers.

Agreed. I quite like Stephens as an actor (and yes, he did ham it up in DAD). I think Rosamund Pike is a real talent also. Their characters were so badly underwritten and the dialogue was terrible, that I don't care who you are as an actor, if your script is piss poor it's going to be nigh on impossible to expect your actors to give decent performances.

I think it's bit ironic that despite a script far less complete in polish and considered by a fair share of detractors to be worse than DAD as both a script and movie (that wouldn't be me in the detractor fold), QOS gives us many great individual performances. I think I will suggest this to Dimi as a thesis if he hasn't done so already. Perhaps the cast of actors (short of Rosamund Pike and Emilio Echevarria) is as bad as the script after all?

I see P&W as two guys who had some good ideas from time to time, but two guys who definitely needed oversight. Perhaps if they'd gotten some TWINE and DAD wouldn't be as poor as I generally find them to be.

I'm not a great lover of QoS either but anyone who thinks the script and movie is worse than DAD, needs their head examined. I'm not sure I agreed with you about the performances though. Craig is at his weakest here, Amalric's portrayal as Greene is utterly forgettable and Gemma Artertons' character only serves the purpose to die in an homage to Goldfinger. On the positives, Giannini and Wright are the definite stand outs.

WillyGalore

Dragonpol wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

RC7 wrote:

I like Stephens, just putting it out there. DAD is a load of nonsense and the last thing I'm going to do is sit and judge it on the same terms as a FRWL or an OHMSS. I actually get a kick out of his overly theatrical performance, if only because a fantastic bit of character work would have been wasted in this movie anyway. It's all 2D preposterous grandiosity, on those terms it delivers.

Agreed. I quite like Stephens as an actor (and yes, he did ham it up in DAD). I think Rosamund Pike is a real talent also. Their characters were so badly underwritten and the dialogue was terrible, that I don't care who you are as an actor, if your script is piss poor it's going to be nigh on impossible to expect your actors to give decent performances.

Agreed again. Things were very underwritten in DAD, but Purvis and Wade are solely responsible for this - on the other films they had co-writers. Bond films should always be written by committee as Cubby Broccoli had done on TSWLM. There have been some exceptions, but most writers have worked with someone else - it adds a bit of polish to the dialogue and script, if nothing else.

Double agreed ;-)

I thought the initial news of Mendes returning was great but then when hearing Purvis & Wade had walked away from Bond, it was like all my birthdays and Christmases had come at once. I hope they're never brought back into the fold.

Gonna have slight rant about Beavis & Butthead now so please forgive me:

Do you know what angered me the most about DAD? It wasn't the invisible Aston, it wasn't the SEGA Megadrive-CGI parasailing, it wasn't even the crap Robocop.

It was the complete cop out by the writers at actually delivering on their promise of a "broken Bond".

Early on during production, one of the first stills released showed Brosnan on the bridge in North Korea with his long scraggly hair and beard and I had read the plot synopsis. "Bond betrayed. Captured. Tortured etc" and I thought to myself, 'that's great. Finally we're going to get proper character development'.

And guess what, when the film was released, within 5 minutes of Bond being released by the North Koreans to the British, not only has he managed to escape from the Frigate (by reducing his heartbeat no less!) but he finds himself in the best suite of a five star Hong Kong hotel, perfectly trimmed and manicured, with all the finest food and wines and tailored shirts that money can buy.

And my reaction was to this? "What a load of absolute f***ing bulls***". I can have no respect for any writer(s) who lack the conviction in their writing. Unsurprisingly, the film went downhill fast after that.

Rant over.

Agreed on the character development point - I have an article for my blog to write on the lack of character development in GoldenEye. Character development isn't a big part of Bond films generally, especially in the Brosnan and Moore eras, and even in the later Connery era. More's the pity...

Were you as angry as I was with the whole 'escape to a nice hotel after being brutally tortured for 14 months'?

Murdock

I thought Dominic Greene was the worst villain in the series. Graves at least could fight instead of swing an axe around and scream like a child in a temper tantrum.

WillyGalore

Murdock wrote:

I thought Dominic Greene was the worst villain in the series. Graves at least could fight instead of swing an axe around and scream like a child in a temper tantrum.

That's not what I had a problem with. He was just bland. It really was a nothing role. He just didn't look or act the villain. He was like a petulant child with trust issues. I know MR gets a bad press but give me Hugo Drax any day over Graves and Greene. At least Drax had personality.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

WillyGalore wrote:

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

RC7 wrote:

I like Stephens, just putting it out there. DAD is a load of nonsense and the last thing I'm going to do is sit and judge it on the same terms as a FRWL or an OHMSS. I actually get a kick out of his overly theatrical performance, if only because a fantastic bit of character work would have been wasted in this movie anyway. It's all 2D preposterous grandiosity, on those terms it delivers.

Agreed. I quite like Stephens as an actor (and yes, he did ham it up in DAD). I think Rosamund Pike is a real talent also. Their characters were so badly underwritten and the dialogue was terrible, that I don't care who you are as an actor, if your script is piss poor it's going to be nigh on impossible to expect your actors to give decent performances.

I think it's bit ironic that despite a script far less complete in polish and considered by a fair share of detractors to be worse than DAD as both a script and movie (that wouldn't be me in the detractor fold), QOS gives us many great individual performances. I think I will suggest this to Dimi as a thesis if he hasn't done so already. Perhaps the cast of actors (short of Rosamund Pike and Emilio Echevarria) is as bad as the script after all?

I see P&W as two guys who had some good ideas from time to time, but two guys who definitely needed oversight. Perhaps if they'd gotten some TWINE and DAD wouldn't be as poor as I generally find them to be.

I'm not a great lover of QoS either but anyone who thinks the script and movie is worse than DAD, needs their head examined. I'm not sure I agreed with you about the performances though. Craig is at his weakest here, Amalric's portrayal as Greene is utterly forgettable and Gemma Artertons' character only serves the purpose to die in an homage to Goldfinger. On the positives, Giannini and Wright are the definite stand outs.

I utterly agree with your first line, but I mostly hear and read that Craig's performance was the best of all in QOS and often lumped in with those of Giannini and Wright as saving graces. I agree with those who feel that way.

What angered me about the initial hotel scene was how Bond walked in. His overall appearance seemed right as far as needing a shave, haircut, and good long hot shower, but I often ask myself would the real James Bond sacrificed his vanity in this manner when he surely had many places he could have first gone to clean up?

@Murdock- Amalric definitely still beats Lonnie and Stevie as a villain for me. Which isn't saying much because Stevie had too much personality and Drax absolutely nothing but clever lines and no real sense of menace. A "fail" version of Stromberg.

Dragonpol

Murdock wrote:

I thought Dominic Greene was the worst villain in the series. Graves at least could fight instead of swing an axe around and scream like a child in a temper tantrum.

I think Dominic Greene's amateurishness was part of what made him so unpredictable as the main villain - he was not a fighter per se a la Alec Trevelyan. It was a theme of QoS and I for one think that it was rather refreshing and well done. He puts the axe through his foot, for heaven's sake!

Murdock

WillyGalore wrote:

Murdock wrote:

I thought Dominic Greene was the worst villain in the series. Graves at least could fight instead of swing an axe around and scream like a child in a temper tantrum.

That's not what I had a problem with. He was just bland. It really was a nothing role. He just didn't look or act the villain. He was like a petulant child with trust issues. I know MR gets a bad press but give me Hugo Drax any day over Graves and Greene. At least Drax had personality.

Agreed. Heck Drax had more Personality in 007 Legends! Michael Lonsdale Even returned as Drax.
http://youtu.be/woOEzu0SrF8?t=8m11s