An interesting exercise, I thought. Since I'm goofing off this afternoon
I will take them from the top:
THE MATRIX starring Will Smith instead of Keanu Reeves -- would have
worked just as well. Despite its cult status and the fact that I loved
the film, the role of Nero was that of a comic-book character and not
particularly challenging. Swapping Smith for Reeves would not have
affected either the financial or critical results for the film.
FERRIS BUELLER starring Johnny Depp instead of Matthew Broderick-- would
have been an even bigger hit than it was. Probably much bigger. Depp
would have burst upon the public consciousness 4 years earlier than he
did in 1990's EDWARD SCISSORHANDS.
PRETTY WOMAN starring Al Pacino and Meg Ryan instead of Richard Gere and
Julia Roberts -- a tough call. Pacino in 1990 was younger and good
looking enough (in a Bogart kind of way) to pull it off and his greater
depth as an actor would have sold the flimsy story better than Richard
Gere did. But Meg Ryan ain't no Julia Roberts. Besides, the big draw for
this film was the hordes of females of all ages who flocked to see it
over and over, picturing themselves as the beautiful princess hooker
with the heart of gold falling in love with and snagging the wealthy
prince in the form of the classically-handsome Richard Gere in the
film's fairy tale ending. But that success formula depended a lot on how
very young and good-looking Gere was. Even if Pacino is a much better
actor, physically he simply could not have brought the ultra-handsome
face the role needed to work for the target audience as well as Gere
did. So in the end, while the poster would have been more valuable, the
film probably would have not done as well financially, although critical
results would have been better.
SPEED starring Richard Grieco instead of Keanu Reeves -- simply would
not have been anywhere near as big a hit. Made some money, yes, but not
a blockbuster.
BENJAMIN BUTTON starring John Travolta instead of Brad Pitt -- ouch.
Would have been a flop. Pitt carried the film completely with the kind
of range and sensitivity that Travolta could not master even in his
dreams. The producers dodged a bullet on that one.
BACK TO THE FUTURE starring Ralph Macchio instead of Michael J. Fox --
double ouch. Even with Christopher Lloyd on board, it was Michael J. Fox
stepping out in the middle of his 7 year run as wise-cracking Alex
Keaton on TV's FAMILY TIES that made this film work as well as it did.
Maybe it would not have been a total flop (Lloyd was a superb Mad
Scientist after all and Zemeckis is a great director), but without Fox
it simply would not have been the big hit it was. Another bullet dodged.
In reality they shot for the first 4 weeks with Eric Stolz before
replacing him with Fox (which, while a typically cruel Hollywood stunt,
was clearly the right move financially and probably critically as well,
since Stolz was terribly miscast in the role).
CLOCKWORK ORANGE -- starring Tim Curry instead of Malcolm McDowell. I've
always felt McDowell was perfect for the role and did a great job, but
Curry could certainly have done well with it, although he doesn't have
the misleading boy-next-door look that made McDowell so chilling in the
role. But since the only reason anyone went to see the film was because
of Kubrick's name, there would have not been much change as far as
financial or critical results goes.
THELMA AND LOUISE -- starring Melanie Griffith instead of Susan Sarandon
-- no change. Sarandon obviously has more range and depth as an actress,
but Griffith could have done a very presentable job and the results
would have been essentially the same.
ROGER RABBIT -- starring (is that Samuel L. Jackson under the mustache
and goatee?) instead of Bob Hoskins. Zemeckis did the right thing
choosing a lesser-known actor for the role (and a black actor in this
particular role would have been taking an additional risk on what was
already a risky project) -- but most important is the fact that Hoskins
*looks* like a real-life toon character. Very important to making the
meld of real-life and animation work well. But I don't think the change
would have affected the financial or critical results much.
JFK starring Mel Gibson instead of Kevin Costner -- is a toss-up. I'm
not a big Mel Gibson fan, but he could have done the job if he really
stretched, but for Costner it was a walk in the park. If Gibson had been
made to really work it, there probably would not have been much change
in the film's results financially. Critically, it would not have fared
as well.
HOME ALONE -- no change in the starring role, so I don't know what this
is doing on the list. Changing the supporting actors would not have
changed the films results -- it was the kid with the big mouth that sold
it. Better actors in the supporting roles would have helped with the
critics, but didn't they love it anyway?
FIELD OF DREAMS -- starring Tom Hanks instead of Kevin Costner --
probably would have been even better.
LORD OF THE RINGS -- starring Russell Crow instead of Viggo Mortensen --
yes, please. I always felt Mortensen's casting as Aragon was the only
significantly bad move in the entire 11-hour epic. I know he was a
last-second replacement, but in my opinion they should have taken a few
more seconds and found someone else. Anyway, there is some dispute if
Russell Crow was ever actually cast (or considered) for the role. Still,
almost any decent actor would have been an improvement on Mortensen's
characterization (as witness his significant lack of success in any
subsequent film). But, since the focus was on Frodo, Sam and Gandalf,
any switch in who played Aragon would not likely have caused any change
in the film's financial or critical results.
FABULOUS BAKER BOYS -- starring Madonna instead of Michelle Pfeiffer --
would have made a lot more money. Clearly no comparison between the two
as actresses, but in 1989 Madonna's name would have generated far more
box office. Critically, the results would not have been as good, but the
role was not so challenging that Madonna could not have done a decent
job with it in her capacity as an MTV Marilyn Monroe.
FOOTLOOSE -- starring Tom Cruise instead of Kevin Bacon -- would not
have changed much. Different styles, but either one well-suited to this
role. Cruise did TOP GUN the same year, which was the better property,
career-wise. I think both financial and critical results would have been
pretty much the same either way. More interesting to consider what might
have been if Kevin Bacon had landed the TOP GUN role...
-- JR
David Lieberman wrote:
disturbing
http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/04/20/movie-posters-with-stars-originally-cast/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl2|link3|http%3A%2F%2Finsidemovies.moviefone.com%2F2010%2F04%2F20%2Fmovie-posters-with-stars-originally-cast%2F
<http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/04/20/movie-posters-with-stars-originally-cast/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl2%7Clink3%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Finsidemovies.moviefone.com%2F2010%2F04%2F20%2Fmovie-posters-with-stars-originally-cast%2F>
*David Lieberman
*
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
