That's a tough one... both are among my favorites :)

I think both men were handsome, charismatic and different. I think Flynn would have been excellent in more challenging parts if given the chance more often. I'm certain I read somewhere that Laurence Olivier felt that Flynn would have been a fantastic actor. Power certainly displayed more versatility in the 50s, but it's not about range in the end. It's really about presence. A movie star really has to be larger than life and exciting. Flynn and Power exceeded that demand for excitement and I cannot compare the two, I enjoy their work and wouldn't trade either of them. BTW, there is no evidence that Power was bisexual.

Power was more talented than Flynn, although both were gifted actors and wonderfully charismatic. Flynn was the better looking of the two, with far more sex appeal. Both were from well-heeled backgrounds, although the Tasmanian-born Flynn's family was descended from genuine aristocracy, while Tyrone Power, born in Ohio, hailed from an Irish acting dynasty. Dirt has since been dished on both of these Hollywood icons who died within a year of each other, although Flynn, (who, unlike the bi-sexual Power, never escaped typecasting as a swashbuckler) has been tagged as a racist and a pedophile. Tyrone Power also never had to face the disgrace of a public trial for statutory rape. It is lucky for Flynn that he was acquitted. No wonder he was nicknamed The Tasmanian Devil.

Just on Flynn in The Mark of Zorro He would obviously have made a terrific Zorro, but what about the effete Don Diego? I don't recall him trying something like that. -- I'm sure that Flynn could have made Zorro. But it's interesting that I have never once thought of what it would have been like if Flynn or Power swapped roles in action-adventure roles. Both were unique stars that put actors of today to shame.

Hi 398, You make a good point that maybe in Taylor's case it was Metro that didn't play it safe. Taylor's darker visage, his deep voice, made him acceptable in darker or tougher roles than, say, Ty Power, who was a more open, cheerier, more charming sort, by nature. Clearly, in their cases and in others, the studios were careful to put their stars in films that showed them to their best advantage -- which in some cases meant giving them a range of roles, if their personalities fit, and in others, meant limiting them to particular genres. I think Errol Flynn (the original subject of this thread) had great problems with Warner Bros. in this last regard. Jack Warner kept him in heroic, swashbuckling or action roles, rarely letting him do anything different. Robert Taylor certainly fared much better in this regard at MGM. Power fell somewhere in between: Fox gave him some leeway in roles and gave him some good dramatic parts, but did tend to keep him within certain bounds. Power had to fight to convince Darryl Zanuck to make and let him star in Nightmare Alley, a very dark film noir in which Power played an unscrupulous carnival charlatan. Most people consider it his best performance on film. But Zanuck hated it and made sure the film was given only a brief release and quickly buried. He much preferred keeping Power in adventure films, and as Power's box-office numbers declined in the late 40s and early 50s Fox gave him only roles in such films, while Power pursued stage opportunities and did movies only to fulfill his contract and earn money. Zanuck made things worse for Power following their joint disappointment with the way he was wasted in Metro's Marie Antoinette in 1938. Power wasn't happy with his incidental role in that film (though he was listed as the co-star), but he wanted better parts. Zanuck, however, determined to never again let Power be so shabbily treated at other studios, thereafter refused to loan him out for anything, which cost Power the leads in such films as Golden Boy (Columbia 1939), Kings Row (WB 1942) and several others. It's notable that he finally relented only late in Power's contract, when he was no longer Zanuck's top star, by agreeing to Power's request to be loaned to Universal for The Mississippi Gambler in 1953. You're absolutely right that most if not all actors aren't suited to just anything. Your examples of other actors in Taylor roles is very funny, but then could Taylor have starred in Harvey, Yankee Doodle Dandy or True Grit? (For Wayne, many of whose roles could have been done by Taylor, I was going to say The Conqueror!) Stewart was desperate to star in North by Northwest, a role for which he was totally unsuited (a sophisticated Madison Avenue ad exec?), but Hitchcock just ducked his calls since he had Cary Grant in mind. Cagney was Warner's first choice for the title role in The Adventures of Robin Hood instead of Errol Flynn! You mentioned Broderick Crawford in All the King's Men but the first person approached to play the part was John Wayne (who turned it down because he considered it un-American). You're right, versatility is not necessarily the same as talent. (I didn't think you meant otherwise.) Taylor is a good example: versatile but with a limited range. This sounds contradictory but it's quite common. Fred MacMurray is another such person. He acted convincingly in many kinds of films (though comedy was his bread and butter) but had a limited range within those genres.

hobnob53 Okay, fair enough on both points. On "playing it safe" your point is weaker. Yes, he took what MGM offered and apparently never refused a role. For a star in that era, he did end up playing some very dark characters--not uniquely so though. I guess it boils down to MGM didn't play it safe. It might be revealing of his status. Like Ray Milland and unlike Cary Grant, like Fred MacMurry and unlike Gary Cooper, he played outright stygian-hued villains--and indeed played "bad guys" in about 10% of his roles. "That's ridiculous." Okay. Good point about Tyrone Power who was also a rather elastic leading man who could fit into almost any genre. But what about Jimmy Stewart as a Knight of the Round Table or Roman general? How would James Cagney have fared in Camille? John Wayne as Ivanhoe? That is what I was thinking of. The bigger stars tended to have more defined personas as a whole, and I think fit well into fewer roles and genres, although of course some, like Cagney and Stewart, had different sorts of versatility. But, of course, I might just be wrong. *by the way, I didn't mean to equate versatility with talent. The most versatile actors are often forgettable, while one-note actors--for example, Broderick Crawford--can be very effective and memorable. Taylor was dependable, but hardly striking, able to fit into a lot of roles. I think he did tough or hard-bitten better than Power, but otherwise Power was generally a more persuasive actor.

398, You may be right in that my phrase "play it safe" may be somewhat oversimplified regarding Taylor's career. Still, these were all films he was offered, or rather, asked to make, by MGM. He didn't have much choice in them, and in any case was disinclined to defy the studio. He played the darker roles he took on reasonably well, but they were not the norm of his career path but rather aberrations. But few actors were shoved into so many different genres. Oh, come on. That's ridiculous. Most actors in the studio era were handed roles in a wide variety of genres. That was standard operating procedure. There were exceptions, of course, but it was true for most stars. Since this is the board for Tyrone Power, just look at his career: he was cast in all the genres you named for Taylor, excluding Disney (if that's really a genre). Most actors in the 30s, 40s and 50s wound up in many kinds and varieties of roles. Taylor was hardly unique or exceptional, and many stars did just what he did and certainly didn't look "very foolish". Indeed, many were often better.

Just on Flynn in The Mark of Zorro He would obviously have made a terrific Zorro, but what about the effete Don Diego? I don't recall him trying something like that.

agreed, and sorting it all out can be very confusing. There are a lot of different ways to look at it. I used to transcribe medical conventions, and you can't believe what doctors would do to a page of data - but if you look at the top 10%, but look at the ages of patients -- unbelievable. Those were three very good, handsome, and popular stars for sure. As far as decades, there used to be a great site called the top ten something - and it would list the top actors by decade, by genre, just males, just females, combinations - and it included EVERYONE including George Arliss, C. Aubrey Smith, and lots of character actors. Tyrone never had a complete decade so it's remarkable that he placed so high - he didn't start until 1936, he had the war in the '40s, and he died in the '50s! And if you look at Wikipedia's breakdown of each year in film, sometimes he had as many as three films in the top 15. I think they're all impressive.

hobnob53 "Taylor basically just took what he was given and was content to play it safe." I have to disagree with the "play it safe" part. Taylor often went to the dark side and portrayed cement-thick heavies--Undercurrent, Conspirator, and especially The Last Hunt. His role in The Last Hunt has to be one of the more despicable ones played by a star in that era. There is no attempt to mine any audience sympathy for Taylor's psycho racist. "just took what he was given" But few actors were shoved into so many different genres. From musicals (Broadway Melody of 1936-actually taking part in a production number and displaying a pleasant singing voice) to chick flicks (Camille, Waterloo Bridge), romantic comedies, gritty war films (Bataan), gangster and urban crime films (Johnny Eager, Rogue Cop), westerns (Westward the Woman, The Last Hunt), exotic adventures, noirs (Undercurrent, High Wall), costume epics (Quo Vadis, Ivanhoe, Knights of the Round Table), and even Disney. Taylor was perhaps never striking, but he was dependable, and a lot of actors with bigger reps would have looked very foolish indeed if they tried to match Taylor in all these genres.

Blanche-2 "The reality is that Tyrone Power is one of the top 100 box office stars of all time, and Flynn is not there." I must dispute the "Flynn is not there" part of this statement. I assume this conclusion is based on the Quigley polls, often quoted as if gospel on which stars were the biggest at the box office, but they are very flawed. The many small neighborhood or small town theatres seating a few hundred and with possibly limited showings (my small town theatre only had one show in the evening and only from Thursday through Sunday, except for a Saturday matinee)dominated the voting. There were many more of these theatres than the big urban theatres seating thousands and open almost all the time, but those theatres were where the big money was. The Quigley polls were also, I think, distorted by politics, with theatre owners going for "moral" choices in the 1930's (with child stars at the top) and safely anti-communist choices in the fifties. In the 1930's stars like Jean Harlow and Mae West did not do as well in the Quigley polls as their ticket sales would indicate they should have. In the fifties, liberal stars like Burt Lancaster and Frank Sinatra did not do as well as their ticket sales indicated they should have. To get to my point, I think overall ticket sales is a much better measurement than the Quigley polls. I have a list of estimated ticket sales for the 20th century. Flynn is in the top fifty, and I don't find that surprising. Position in estimated ticket sales in 20th century-- Tyrone Power-----#39 (est. 559 million tickets sold) Errol Flynn------#45 (est. 517 million tickets sold) Robert Taylor----#48 (est. 509 million tickets sold) Taylor has been mentioned often in this thread so I added him. So Power on balance was a slightly bigger star than Flynn at the American box-office, and this despite dying a bit younger and missing around three years for WWII duty at the peak of his career. Power remained a top tier star, and I think the term is "bankable" right to the end. Flynn's career tailed off in the fifties, and I don't think he was first-tier, or bankable, during his last few years. Taylor seems to have been a bit behind these two, actually peaking at the box-office with costume epics like Quo Vadis, Ivanhoe, and Knights of the Round Table in the early fifties. His career tailed off badly after he left MGM. *On Power, reaching #39 is quite impressive considering his relatively short career. Had it not been for WWII service, and had he lived out a more normal life span, he would have certainly been in the top fifteen, and possibly the top ten. **On Flynn, it is often said that the rape trial did not harm his career, but it really does appear it did. Of course, age and swashbuckling films going out of style contributed, but Flynn's decline seems to have dated from that trial.

I think you misread blanche-2's quote, cited in your previous post. Her reference to Flynn making low-budget films concerned the last three years of his career, if you re-read what she wrote. Not his 1938 films. (I misread it the first time too.) Actually, I think she's wrong because in fact all but one of the films Flynn made in the late 50s was a major studio production, though of variable quality. The lone exception was Flynn's very last film, the abysmal Cuban Rebel Girls, whose low budget was the least of its problems. -- Point taken, even if it took almost two years. -- Another interesting aspect is Errol Flynn, Tyrone Power, Clark Gable and Robert Taylor were the four big rugged matinee idols of the 1930s and all four of them aged before their time and did not make it to sixty.

I agree it is a matter of opinion as their styles were so markedly different from each other. So it is a matter of which flavor you preferred. In any case, they were both "great" Hollywood icons.

As I'm a heterosexual guy, I can't really know what women find when looking at 'Who's Better Looking'. Flynn could ABSOLUTELY NOT have given a better performance as Zorro than Tyrone did. As to who is the better actor, I'd imagine that is a matter of opinion. Generosity, that was my first mistake

I think Flynn could have played "The Mark of Zorro," but I agree he could not have played the Duchin musical bio or "The Long Gray Line." On the other hand, Power could not have remotely played Jim Corbett in "Gentleman Jim." Most or many of the swashbuckling films could have been done by either.

I'm a fan of both but Power was a better actor imo, not a great actor maybe but he had more range than Flynn. I just can't imagine Flynn in The Long Gray Line, The Eddy Duchin Story or even The Mark Of Zorro but can't immediately think of a role played by Errol that couldn't have been played by Power. I actually think Flynn had the ability to broaden his range but never really stretched himself whereas Power was more interested in seeking out new challenges. Both though are legendary performers and it's obvious why they continue to be huge stars over 50 years after their deaths.

I fell in love with Tyrone Power when I was 6 years old ,the first time I watched him on TV in Jessie James . He had died when I was 1. He was a far better actor than Flynn who was very one dimensional . I was heart broken when my mother eventually told me at the age of 9 that he had died some years before .

Taylor was an acceptable actor who made up for the lack of depth in his acting abilities by taking his work seriously and working hard at it. Like anyone who stays at a job for over thirty years eventually he got better at it, and Taylor was helped by usually being assigned roles within his comfort zone. As an actor, he was never considered in the same league as many of his MGM colleagues such as Clark Gable or Spencer Tracy. He was also known as an obedient company man who proudly said he never turned down a role MGM boss Louis B. Mayer asked him to do, and of never making outsized salary demands, the result of which is that he was the lowest-paid major star in Hollywood. Although I'm a little past 57 myself, I still can't think of that as "young", much as I'd like to. Not old, as I said, but certainly not young. Robert Taylor died of lung cancer about two months before his 58th birthday in 1969, very much indeed as the result of his heavy smoking. I think Tyrone Power was inherently a better actor than Taylor with a broader range, though I could never call him (as someone did on another board) a "superb" actor. But he and Taylor shared the same traits of taking their acting seriously and being thoroughly dedicated professionals. But I also think Power made the effort to expand his range and branch out in the variety of roles and formats (plays as well as movies) he worked in, while Taylor basically just took what he was given and was content to play it safe. Errol Flynn fell somewhere in between -- I think he lacked some discipline as an actor but did take his work seriously and yearned for better parts, but wasn't very lucky in getting many, and ultimately didn't let dedication to his work get in the way of having a good time. Well, there are worse things I suppose.

Taylor was great in "Johnny Eager." He was helped by a great cast including possibly the best ever performance by a supporting actor- Van Heflin, and a very beautiful Lana Turner. Well, of course 57 is young to die, regardless of whether Taylor's two contemporaries- Power and Flynn- died even at a younger age. His 3 a day cigarette habit may have been the major cause; cigarette smoking also contributed to Ty's passing.

Yes, both Flynn and Power were frequently typecast by their studios in similar types of films, so I agree that they could have swapped at least some of one another's roles and done them about as well. I believe you're right about GWTW. But while Flynn's name may have been mentioned Clark Gable was the only real choice for Rhett Butler. I think Power's name was more seriously considered for Ashley Wilkes, because that role proved difficult to cast, and Selznick was never happy about finally settling for Leslie Howard, whom he felt (correctly) was too old for the part. Yes, Robert Taylor was considered one of Hollywood's handsomest stars, though personally I never saw him as anywhere near as good-looking as Power or Flynn. He also aged noticeably, though in his case it was a matter of his looks hardening rather than looking unhealthy. I don't know that I'd say Taylor died "young", as he was 57 -- certainly not old, but middle-aged, and in any event older than either Power (44) or Flynn (50).

They were both swashbuckling stars and very good with the sword. There were many, or at least some, films that both could have made. I have read that Flynn was the only other actor considered besides Gable for the Rhett Butler part in GWTW. But I recall reading that Power was considered for the part of Ashley Wilkes. I think they both could have played Zorro. On the other hand, I can't see Power in "Gentleman Jim" or Flynn in "Son of Fury." Of the best looking stars of that era Robert Taylor is often considered along with Flynn and Power as the top three. However, I think Taylor's style was somewhat different. Of course, Taylor died at a young age also.

Interesting list of similarities, metalman, though some career "coincidences" are less coincidental than they may seem. I think you misread blanche-2's quote, cited in your previous post. Her reference to Flynn making low-budget films concerned the last three years of his career, if you re-read what she wrote. Not his 1938 films. (I misread it the first time too.) Actually, I think she's wrong because in fact all but one of the films Flynn made in the late 50s was a major studio production, though of variable quality. The lone exception was Flynn's very last film, the abysmal Cuban Rebel Girls, whose low budget was the least of its problems. Nevertheless both Flynn and Power were bound by studio contracts for most of their careers and so their choice of roles was limited during their heyday. Only late were they able to look for better parts. But the difference between them was that by the mid-50s Power was in his early 40s and regarded as a serious, dedicated and most of all reliable performer. Flynn, five years older, was, sadly, seen as unreliable and still more interested in having a good time than in performing. I think this rap was a bit unfair or overdone but it stuck and led to his getting smaller roles or being in lesser films than Power. I think if you could have told anyone in, say, 1955, that Flynn would be dead in four years they'd have believed it. But they would have been shocked to be told Power would be gone in three. For all of Flynn's self-destructive habits and overall worse health (he was 4F during the war, while Power served in the Marines) he not only outlived Power by 11 months but was six years older (50 vs. 44) when he died. As to who was "better", overall I think Power was the better actor. Both men were somewhat limited in their range and tried for a wider variety of roles but Power worked harder at improving his acting. But I actually think Flynn's acting was better in swashbuckling roles than was Power's. Power was a better dramatic actor. Yet that said, in their one pairing, The Sun Also Rises, I think Flynn gave the better performance. Power was okay but Flynn brought more pathos and introspection to his role. Some have said (a bit cruelly) that he was only playing an aging drunk like himself, but simply being a drunk doesn't mean you'll play one well. There was even talk of Flynn receiving an Oscar nomination for his performance in that film. As to their looks, hard to choose. Errol looked more dashing with that mustache, Ty more boyishly handsome. Flynn began to look dissipated in his later years, and again he was five years older, but near the very end I think even a dissipated Errol Flynn looked better than Power, who was suddenly simply older looking, with thinning hair, sagging chin, hollow eyes and gaining a bit of weight. Maybe it's because in his youth Power was basically just really good-looking, almost too perfect, and thus when his looks began to dissipate he seemed to fall farther; while Errol had looks but also that extra bit of dash, that particular panache he had more than did Power, that remained even after his looks had begun to crumble away.

The career similarities between Power and Flynn are extraordinary. Flynn was Robin Hood and Power was Zorro. Power appeared in MARIE ANTOINETTE while Flynn appeared in THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX. Flynn's first western was DODGE CITY. Power's first western was JESSE JAMES. Both were released in 1939. Both became stars within a year of each other. Both aged rather quickly [for different reasons]. Both appeared in films involving pirates in the 1940s [although Flynn had become a star with CAPTAIN BLOOD in 1935]. Both appeared in less heroic roles in 1947 [Power with NIGHTMARE ALLEY and Flynn with CRY WOLF]. Both had more challenging parts in the 1950s. Both died within a year of each other, and much too early and outside the United States.

The other thing about Power is that if you go on Wikipedia and look at 1938 in Film, etc., you will see that in the top ten top grosses for the year, he would have as many as three films in the top ten. And his films grossed in the top ten in the last years of his career, when Flynn was making low budget films. -- Errol Flynn was still a popular star and was not making low budget films [THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD and THE DAWN PATROL were not low budget]. It can be said that Flynn's two other 1938 releases were nothing major in terms of "great" movies, but they were popular films, and Power made some of the same types as well. While Power was ahead, Flynn was still one of the most popular stars of the 1930s and early 40s. Both were great stars and very charismatic.

They were both good in their own way. I like both. They have a few things in common, they played similar characters and they both died young and aged. I prefer Errol's swashbuckling films but Tyrone's are pretty good too. I think Errol was more typecast than Tyrone even though he played in different genres. I don't think Errol ever did a film noir though. As for looks, they were both handsome, there's no point in comparing them. I wonder what they thought of each other and how they got along during the filming of The Sun also rises.

Power is the best. His sword fight was better too

Agreed blanche-2, Ty Power was a disciplined stage-trained actor, while Flynn, talented though he was, had a more limited range. If Zanuck had been less protective of his big star, we would have seen Ty show even more range on film. I agree with you about the candid shots of Ty in later life. When Ty was rested and relaxed, he looked fabulous. The two men did work together in The Sun Also Rises. In my opinion, Ty looked better. Like you, I don't understand the comment from a previous poster about Flynn holding on to his looks longer. He ruined them with his lifestyle. I love the work of both men and while I can see Ty in most of Flynn's roles, the reverse wasn't true.

I guess it's a question of preference, but the reality is that Tyrone Power is one of the top 100 box office stars of all time, and Flynn is not there. He only made the top 10 box office once, and Power made it three times. What is interesting about that is that Power's career was really only 19 years because he spent time in the service. Flynn's career was longer. The other thing about Power is that if you go on Wikipedia and look at 1938 in Film, etc., you will see that in the top ten top grosses for the year, he would have as many as three films in the top ten. And his films grossed in the top ten in the last years of his career, when Flynn was making low budget films. People always talk about Tyrone losing his looks, but honestly, if you see him in candids in the last three years of his life, he looked great. As I've often said, he went to work on very little sleep. Also, at the very end, he had symptoms of heart disease, one of which is thinning hair. I think Flynn looked very dissipated; in fact, I don't think he kept his looks at all. By the late '40s he looked bloated. When he died it was said he had the body of someone in his eighties. He lived hard. I like both. I think they were both very charming and charismatic. I think Flynn's range was more limited, but what he did, he did beautifully.

I like them both and didn't realize that Flynn was considered better looking or more talented than Power or vice versa. Power was more versatile, while Flynn was more limited in his roles. But they were both actors of vast charisma and for some reason I cannot imagine either of them swapping roles [and this despite the fact that both were swashbuckling stars].

I've never heard of anyone who thinks Errol Flynn was better looking or a better actor than Tyrone Power. Flynn was definitely more macho and thus appealed more to men but his sex appeal was more in his masculinity than his looks and he certainly was not anywhere near the actor Tyrone was.

When young both of them were just absolutely gorgeous, but Errol Flynn kept his looks longer and just had that rakishness about him.

Ditto ! Flanagan