Kevin's Watch

And no, I'm not talking about dream casting. Actual actors who auditioned for a role and didn't get it, or actual actors who passed on a role.

It's pretty common knowledge that Tom Selleck was the original choice for Indiana Jones. For years I've thought about this, and I kept coming back to the same conclusion Mr. Selleck arrived at.....That Harrison Ford was the better fit for the part.

But the other night I was watching a Magnum, P.I. rerun (the excellent "All for One" two-parter), and I was struck by how well Selleck was able to transition between world-weary, hard-as-nails, and humor. Selleck may not be the greatest actor who ever lived, but the essence of Indy is certainly within his skill set.

Trouble is, that Indy is Harrison Ford's signature role......It's nigh impossible to separate the two. Indy works so well for Ford's......Let's be charitable and call it his "lazy" acting style. Selleck, despite being only 3 years younger than Ford, seems younger and more physical.

Though I'd like to see a Selleck-starring Indy film, it's a tough argument that anyone could fit the role better than Harrison Ford.



On the other hand, once I found out that Kurt Russell auditioned for the role of Han Solo, all I can think about is how awesome that would have been. Go watch Star Wars (I'll wait). Ford's basically doing a Kurt Russell impression throughout the entire film. Think about how awesome those movies would have been with RJ MacReady/Snake Plissken/Jack Burton playing Solo, instead of Harrison Ford putting on his best Russell affectation.

Of course the downside to that is that we probably wouldn't have gotten some great Kurt Russell films.....Would he have done all the Carpenter films? Who knows? Maybe he would have done bigger and better things.

It's a tough call.

Russell's an incredibly entertaining actor who would have sunk his teeth into a role like Han......Look at the gusto with which he played Jack Burton.

Would that have made the film better? I dunno.....I think it would have made the character better/more distinctive.


The Raiders question is more problematic.

Selleck had the poor fortune to pick some less than stellar films. But when he's given the chance to stretch out, he can deliver the goods. It's a post for the TV forum, but Magnum, P.I. was a groundbreaking show and it wouldn't have been if not for the serious dramatic chops that Selleck displayed. And the fact that he was able to do that dramatic heavy lifting while being able to do the humor and the physical stuff that the series required at the same time speaks volumes for his range.

Consider his role in High Road to China. That's about as close to an "Indy" character as he played. Say what you will, but it's a fun movie, and viewing it, it's easy to see what he could have done playing Dr. Jones.

I'd bet that Indy was written (or directed) down to Ford's style. Ford's not a particularly engaging or dynamic actor, but within the framework of the three Raiders movies (that's right, three) he works well with the material.....Maybe he's playing above his level, but Ford as Indy is not just serviceable, he's good. Ford actually disappears into the character (though less so in Last Crusade than the prior films).

Like I said, it'd be interesting to see them with both actors.

"I love you."
"I know."

Right there is where it would have failed if it had been Russell.
Rogue captain: yes. Self-serving princess chaser: sure. Love interest: no.

Just my two cents.

Cail wrote: (or directed) down to Ford's style. Ford's not a particularly engaging or dynamic actor, but within the framework of the three Raiders movies (that's right, three) he works well with the material.....Maybe he's playing above his level, but Ford as Indy is not just serviceable, he's good. Ford actually disappears into the character (though less so in Last Crusade than the prior films).

That I agree is likely the case. Off the top of my head, all the Ford performances I think best happen in films with directors that tend to get better-than-usual performances from their actors. [[though there are a number of ways for the performance to seem better besides actual better acting.]]

wayfriend wrote:"I love you."
"I know."

Right there is where it would have failed if it had been Russell.
Rogue captain: yes. Self-serving princess chaser: sure. Love interest: no.

Just my two cents.

I dunno about that.....Russell held his own against Mel Gibson in Tequila Sunrise. I agree that we just don't have many examples of Russell playing that combination of badass and romantic lead (maybe The Mean Season too though.

Vraith wrote:

Cail wrote: (or directed) down to Ford's style. Ford's not a particularly engaging or dynamic actor, but within the framework of the three Raiders movies (that's right, three) he works well with the material.....Maybe he's playing above his level, but Ford as Indy is not just serviceable, he's good. Ford actually disappears into the character (though less so in Last Crusade than the prior films).

That I agree is likely the case. Off the top of my head, all the Ford performances I think best happen in films with directors that tend to get better-than-usual performances from their actors. [[though there are a number of ways for the performance to seem better besides actual better acting.]]

I'll give Ford Witness too, but as you said, that's a very strong script and a very strong director. Even still, Ford seems like he's half-asleep throughout the film.

Ford's a guy I really want to like given his iconic roles. But dammit, the guy's just so one-note. I can't think of anything he's been in in which he's truly arresting....Where his performance really carries the film. It's always the material which carries him. Russell, though he's no Olivier, can carry a mediocre film and make something of it.....And with good material he's electric (the aforementioned The Mean Season, Breakdown, and Dark Blue).



Speaking of Mel Gibson, he turned down the lead in Gladiator....I don't like Russell Crowe one little bit, so I would have been all over that.

Cail wrote: Speaking of Mel Gibson, he turned down the lead in Gladiator....I don't like Russell Crowe one little bit, so I would have been all over that.

Crowe...he's like DiCaprio and Tom Cruise to me, though I used to like him a bit more. Their best work is competent. They never impress or really reach me [or the heart of their characters], but...at least lately...they don't ruin perfectly good films.

Gibson seems to have turned into an ass as a human being...[maybe he always was].
But he's done roles that he just nails. And there's a certain tension he brings even to his less successful work. Even his Hamlet...though it had some wince moments, it had some very good ones, too. [and the other aspects of the film were quite good]. With Gladiator, I can see him doing a damn good job, and making the film better overall....definitely would be fun to see.

I couldn't care any less about Gibson's personal life. The man can act.

The role of Harry Callahan was offered to John Wayne, Frank Sinatra, and later to Robert Mitchum and Burt Lancaster, before it was offered to Clint Eastwood.

dANdeLION wrote:The role of Harry Callahan was offered to John Wayne, Frank Sinatra, and later to Robert Mitchum and Burt Lancaster, before it was offered to Clint Eastwood.

Mitchum would have been awesome as Harry Callahan. Dunno about better, but he would have been great.

Supposedly the role of Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz was originally offered to Shirley Temple, and the Tin Woodsman to Buddy Ebsen. I do not know if any of the other roles were offered to other actors than the ones we know.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Burt Reynolds, Harrison Ford and Richard Gere were offered and turned down the part of John McClane. Personally, I can't imagine anyone else other than Bruce Willis playing the role.

StevieG wrote:Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Burt Reynolds, Harrison Ford and Richard Gere were offered and turned down the part of John McClane. Personally, I can't imagine anyone else other than Bruce Willis playing the role.

All of them would have been completely wrong for that role.

Apparently Schwarzenegger was first choice for the role. Imagine how wrong that would have been.

I just read that Stanley Kubrick considered Robert de Niro and Robin Williams for the role of Jack Torrance in the Shining. He decided on Jack Nicholson.

StevieG wrote:Apparently Schwarzenegger was first choice for the role. Imagine how wrong that would have been.

I just read that Stanley Kubrick considered Robert de Niro and Robin Williams for the role of Jack Torrance in the Shining. He decided on Jack Nicholson.

While neither could have topped Nicholson, either would have done a great job and been interesting to see. I think de Niro would have done a better job, with more intensity, but I'd love to have seen the craziness Williams could have brought to it. I suppose Nicholson was a perfect middle between those extremes.

Schwarzenegger would have been awful in Die Hard. All the accents would have been from the same continent.

I wish I could get Moonlighting on Netflix. Bruce Willis was never better.

I would have loved Selleck in the Indy films, and Russel as Han. Ford is very overrated, and Cail's right that the material carries him. I've gone back to watch a couple episodes of Magum (especially after watching Archer, with the Magnum homage) and it really holds up to my childhood memories. I used to love that show.

Menolly wrote:Supposedly the role of Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz was originally offered to Shirley Temple, and the Tin Woodsman to Buddy Ebsen. I do not know if any of the other roles were offered to other actors than the ones we know.

Ebsen was allergic to the silver make up.

Garland was perfect. Temple did a handful of roles as an adult, but I've never seen any of them to be able to tell if she could actually act.

Zarathustra wrote: I suppose Nicholson was a perfect middle between those extremes.

Schwarzenegger would have been awful in Die Hard. All the accents would have been from the same continent.

I wish I could get Moonlighting on Netflix. Bruce Willis was never better.

Bottom to top: Yea, I enjoyed Willis in that show.

Schwarzenegger WOULD have sucked big time because of the accent...but not only cuz of that.

Speaking of Nicholson...I heard somewhere sometime he was one [and I THINK the first] of an impressive list that were offered and turned down Corleone in The Godfather before Pacino.
I don't want to lose the Pacino version...I thought he was pretty fucking great...but I'd love to see Nicholson do it in some parallel universe.
[[I like Dustin Hoffman generally, but he was also offered the part and I do NOT want to see that version.]]

Nicholson is just too erratic as an actor. He's dead-perfect for certain roles, but shortly after Witches of Eastwick he stopped acting and started playing Jack Nicholson (same thing Pacino's done for nearly two decades).

Nicholson would have been all wrong for The Godfather.

It's funny, we watched Dead Again last night (first time I've seen it since its theatrical run), and I was struck by how good Robin Williams was in it. The guys's got some serious creepy/dramatic chops (watch One Hour Photo), but he was too young and too manic to play Jack Torrance in 1980.

Zarathustra wrote:I wish I could get Moonlighting on Netflix. Bruce Willis was never better.

It's a show I'd like to revisit. It was a Tuesday night tradition when it was on.

Zarathustra wrote:I would have loved Selleck in the Indy films, and Russel as Han. Ford is very overrated, and Cail's right that the material carries him. I've gone back to watch a couple episodes of Magum (especially after watching Archer, with the Magnum homage) and it really holds up to my childhood memories. I used to love that show.

I'll eventually get around to writing something up in the TV Forum about Magnum, but yes, the show stands up very well after all this time. Sure, there were some silly, dated episodes, but when the show was on-point with "arc" episodes it was just fantastic. It was the first TV show to directly and honestly address the bond of friendship between men, and more specifically the impact that the Vietnam War had.

wayfriend wrote:"I love you."
"I know."

Right there is where it would have failed if it had been Russell.
Rogue captain: yes. Self-serving princess chaser: sure. Love interest: no.

Just my two cents.

I could buy him in that role, but would Russell have ad-libbed this line like Harrison Ford did? And another key scene that might not have come around except for Harrison Ford - this one:



Ford was sick on the day of shooting what was supposed to be a big sword fight thing. He asked Spielberg if he could just shoot him instead, and they gave it a try and it was one of the funniest scenes in all the Indiana Jones movies.

I was a pretty big Harrison Ford fan for a while, but then he started making pretty standard fare, and I lost interest. I've always thought he was horrible in interviews, although he has brightened up a bit in the last few I saw. I get the impression that he is a painfully shy person, and isn't good with crowds, which explains why he looks so comfortable in movies, but looks nervous and awkward at, say, presenting at the Oscars.
I do think one of the best acting jobs he has done was Regarding Henry. I think he is at his best when he is playing wounded and vulnerable. But he also especially good at deadpan comedy. I just wish he had continued picking good roles, as it feels to me like he jumped the shark around the time of Air Force One.