So, watching Mission Impossible II and remembered how Dougray Scott very well would have been Wolverine were it not for MI II.

Of course, got me thinking about all the casting choices that could have been and how they would have affected now iconic movies/roles. Tom Selleck as Indy, Eric Stoltz as Marty. Would Godfather III been more favorably viewed if Winona Ryder been able to stay? Are there any choices that could have reversed the bad fortune of movie?

What do you think might have been better, worse or the same?

With the recent mention of Wild Wild West in the opinion thread, I think Matrix would have been awful with Will Smith. Maybe awful is too strong but it would have had a completely different vibe.

I think JAWS would have been different with Lee Marvin as Quint. I don't think the role would have been as colorful as the way Shaw portrayed him.

I've often wondered how my second-favorite movie, Almost Famous, would have turned out if Brad Pitt had stuck around after being cast as guitarist Russell Hammond instead of getting replaced with Billy Crudup. Crudup is amazing in the role and has palpable chemistry with Kate Hudson, so I doubt it would have been better. But 2000 Brad Pitt was as huge a star as we've seen and it would have been fun to see how he played a Golden God rather than a dour Joe Black, which is what he gave us instead. If Pitt played Russell, the t-shirt would have been funnier. And I bet the movie would have been a bigger hit in theaters.

I don’t know if Winona Ryder would have brought anything special to The Godfather III but I think the movie would have benefitted greatly if they had been able to get Robert Duvall back. George Harrison was a weak substitute. Dare I say Duvall’s presence could have pushed part III into the same league as parts I and II? Maybe.


Will Smith in Django Unchained would have been a mistake too. Jamie Foxx brought the right level of fun and badassness to the role than Smith. I don’t think Tarantino would have let Smith completely sanitize the movie but it wouldn’t have felt as gritty.

That would have been interesting to see. But you are right, there was a certain twinkle in Shaw's eyes with his line deliver that made that character that I'm not sure Marvin could have pulled off.

Biggest was Tom Selleck was originally offered Indiana Jones, but had to turn it down due to his Magnum PI contract.

While I like Selleck, it would have been a very different movie. Selleck was never able to find that role later on to become a big movie star. But, he’s been a major TV star for over 4 decades.

I just recalled that Pierce Brosnan should have been Bond a lot sooner but since he couldn't get our of Remington Steele, we got Dalton instead. Frankly, I love Dalton's take on Bond. I wonder if they would have kept the same tone if Brosnan was able to take over as planned.

Shit!

I meant George Hamilton.

I don't think it has anything to do with what Winona Ryder would have added to the film, It's what Sofia Coppola brought to the film in her place.

It's key to the plot that Vincent is romantically/sexually drawn to his cousin, Mary, and doesn't want to give her up, even when Michael orders him to. Sofia Coppola is miscast as a young woman who would generate such fierce devotion from Vincent.
And the fact that FF Coppola handed the role to his (never had a substantial acting role before) daughter just provided an immediate target by which to criticize the film. Not her acting per se, but how it was representative of how FF Coppola didn't know/care what he was doing.

I don't think Indiana Jones would have become the iconic character that he did with Selleck instead of Ford. Selleck looks like exactly the kind of hero who would be running around fighting bad guys and having adventures. Harrison Ford comes across, physically, as a completely different type of person, less physically imposing and less "heroic" looking. As a result his Indy played as more of an underdog who was really busting his ass to stay alive.

Not saying the movies would not have worked or been good with Selleck. I just don't think audiences would have embraced Indy the same way they did with Ford in the role. Plus, there are reasons like talent and charisma for why 40 years later, Ford is one of Hollywood's great Movie Stars, and Selleck is one of Hollywood's great TV stars.

NBC was ready to get rid of Remington Steele, which would have freed Brosnan to play Bond. But then NBC decided that the interest in Brosnan to play Bond might increase the interest in Remington Steele, and renewed the show for a final season.

Brosnan really got fucked by NBC in my opinion.

I can't imagine Pulp Fiction with Tarantino's original choice of Michael Madsen playing Vincent. Travolta brings such natural comedy to the character, making him a doofus without turning into a cartoon. I picture Madsen playing the character closer to Mr. Blonde, making Vincent less charismatic, more gritty, and I think that change alone would be enough to make it so Pulp Fiction is well-received and recalled fondly, but doesn't become the phenomena it was in 1994.

Sofia Coppola was terrible in the role for sure but based on the description of the character you mention, I’m not sure Ryder was the right actor for the role either. And aside from being a better actor, she wouldn’t have brought a lot more development to the character than we got from Coppola. Someone like Jennifer Connelly may have brought that “irresistible forbidden temptation” to the role that was needed instead.

My point was that Duvall’s presence in the movie would have made much more of a positive impact to the film as a whole than any actress playing Mary Corleone.

After having watched The Hot Spot again recently, I concur with this observation ...

I think casting Sofia Coppola in a smaller role would have been fine.

No issue with what you said about Duvall. That's why I never mentioned him.

No offense to Sofia Coppolla, but by the time Winona Ryder was supposed to make GF3, she was already well-known as a movie star (no caps yet) and a young sex symbol. What Ryder would have brought to the part based just on her being Winona Ryder would have made a difference versus what the much less talented, practically unknown, and less sexy Sofia Copolla did. Plus, as I explained, casting his daughter in the important role gave an easy in for criticism of the film, which would not have been possible with Ryder.

But you're right, if the point of the role was for Mary just to be sex on a stick, you couldn't have done better than Connelly. However, I will note that Ryder does look like she could be the daughter of a Sicilian and Diane Keaton. I think Jennifer Connelly would raise questions about being adopted.

So, what if Sean Young got the role of Catwoman that she wanted so badly for Batman Returns? I know Pfeifer is now iconic for her interpretation of the character, but I think Young could have brought something to the role, maybe a little more dark/manic energy to it.

Charles Bronson was originally offered the co-lead role on The Delta Force, but backed out and it went to Lee Marvin. I can't imagine Bronson and Norris working together

and Cannon originally wanted Chuck Norris as the lead of American Ninja. And marketing material went out with Norris in it. But, he backed out and Michael Dudikoff was hired

I'm going to refer to the Dark Knight thread where Heath Ledger was announced as Joker. 90% of people were complaining and a sizeable portion wanted Crispin Glover. That made it painfully clear that nobody here is a casting director. So in most cases I'm not going to definitively say that someone would have sucked in X or Y role. In all of these "Actor X almost had the role", they were on the list for a reason, and the casting director saw something we didn't. It could have also been a failed chemistry test with the co-lead that didn't work out, and Actor X would have been better than what we got, if their co-lead was someone else.

I would be interested in seeing Lawrence Fishburne as Jules in Pulp Fiction and Zeus in Die Hard 3, both of which he could have had. Tarantino had some good insight into that:

Wow, I don't know how I missed that tidbit about Pitt almost getting the role. Crudup was fantastic in the role, but I'm curious how Pitt would have handled the part. I hold the film in almost as high regard as you do, it's definitely well into my top 10 favorite films.

My big one: Tom Hanks as Zefram Cochrane in Star Trek: First Contact.

James Cromwell was just all kinds of wrong for part. Too old. Too tall. Couldn't pull off the obnoxious douchebag aspect of the character they had written into the story. And he looked nothing like the guy who played the character in an episode of TOS.

I would have liked to see Rosemary's Baby with their 1st choice of Robert Redford as the husband. John Cassavetes was OK, but Redford fits more with the role, you would be more surprised to see him turn to the dark side.

Wasn't the plan to have Lon Chaney play the Frankenstein monster but he got cancer and died?

Karloff in film version of Arsenic and Old Lace. Only reason he's not in it is he was still doing it every night on Broadway.

Wow, that would have made a huge difference for sure. He's a great everyman and his image as an actor/person would have been more of a shock for audiences.

Chaney Sr. was in mind for Dracula right before he died.

And on the flipside of Dracula, Bela Lugosi was considered for Frankenstein's Monster (A "Coming Soon" poster still exists with his name on it) but after a failed makeup test with Lugosi as the monster, he was let go.