What These Famous Characters Would Have Been Like With Different Actors

When you think of a famous movie character, you're not really thinking about the character — you're thinking about the actor playing them. With books, you create an image of a character in your mind's eye, but with a movie, you're associating the character with that particular actor's looks, voice, and mannerisms. This is true even when a character jumps from page to screen. When you picture James Bond, you're not picturing Ian Fleming's description of a man with a vertical scar on his right cheek, a "comma" of hair that falls on his forehead, and a "cruel" mouth. You're thinking of Sean Connery. 

So it's always shocking when we find out certain movie characters were almost played by different actors. When we discover what could've been, we're left scratching our heads, wondering which sector of the multiverse this actor played that character. It's wild. It wouldn't just change the character — it'd change the actor's career, the movie itself, and its place in popular culture. Sure, some of these may just be rumor and innuendo, as casting decisions happen behind closed doors, but it's still fun to speculate: What would these famous characters have been like with different actors?

Nicolas Cage's raison d'etre is playing unconventional characters. Or rather playing conventional characters unconventionally. So the idea of the master of manic energy playing Aragorn — the lead human protagonist in the classic fantasy epic "The Lord of the Rings" and the cultural standard for the strong, stoic hero — sounds wrong. Sure, Cage can play parts straight ... more or less ... including conventional action-adventure heroes in "The Rock," "Con Air," and the "National Treasure" movies. But as great as he is in those movies, he's still playing Nicolas Cage. Which is awesome in most circumstances — not in "The Lord of the Rings." 

Though Stuart Townsend was actually hired, then fired, by Peter Jackson, Viggo Mortensen was perfect for the part because he wasn't playing Aragorn; he was Aragorn. You weren't watching Mortensen, you were watching Strider, Chieftain of the Dúnedain, Isildur's Heir, and the True King of Gondor. Mortensen did an incredible job, to be sure, but he was helped out by the fact he was a virtual unknown at the time. Mortensen could play Aragorn without carrying the movie star baggage that Cage, a certified A-lister, would've had. "The Lord of the Rings" was an ensemble, and having a movie star at the center wouldn't have worked. Cage doesn't regret turning down the iconic part, as the lengthy New Zealand shoot would've kept him from his family.

"Star Wars" is largely credited with ending the New Hollywood heyday of the 1970s and ushering in the blockbuster era we still live in today. However, it's important to remember the movie was released in 1977, right in the middle of the New Hollywood movement. This was when the biggest names weren't tall, traditional, square-jawed leading men but wiry New York actors who would've been supporting players in any other era. In this galaxy far, far away (1970s Hollywood), two of these thespians almost nabbed the role of space swashbuckler Han Solo, a part made legendary by Harrison Ford but one that both Christopher Walken and Al Pacino turned down. 

Walken admits he "would have been terrible" and we agree, as his svelte, snake-like charm would be more suited to a "Star Wars" villain than the Millennium Falcon's daring captain. Thankfully, Walken walked. Pacino says he turned down the part because he didn't understand the script, and he was only offered the role because after "The Godfather," he was "offered everything," and "they didn't care if I was right or wrong for the role." We can say definitively, Pacino would've been very wrong for Han Solo. Pacino as Solo might've been a career-killer, and it certainly would've been a franchise killer, as Pacino pursuing Princess Leia would've played more predatory than romantic. That said, we would've loved to see Scarface trade barbs with Chewbacca. "Say hello to my furry friend!"

In a career filled with ups and downs, "Braveheart" is undeniably one of Mel Gibson's masterpieces. While Gibson nabbed Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director, it's his lead performance as the blue-faced, long-haired, rebellious Scotsman William Wallace that's stood the test of time (a performance for which he was inexplicably not nominated for an Oscar). Seriously, imagine any other actor shouting "freedom!" with as much fury and passion, and it just doesn't ring true. And yet, while Gibson was always attached to direct, the part was originally meant for ... Jason Patric? 

In an interview with Vulture, Patric claims that Gibson at first wanted him to take up the broadsword. Why? Rumor has it that Gibson originally felt that at around 40 years old, he was past his prime to play the part, as William Wallace is believed to have died at 35. So instead, he wanted Patric, an up-and-comer who still hadn't made primetime as a movie star. Alas, Paramount played hardball and told Gibson they wouldn't finance his film unless he wore the kilt. It was for the best. Nothing against Patric, but he's just not a movie star. Say what you will about Mel Gibson, but he is. While Patric would've given a solid, thoughtful performance, "Braveheart" would've been largely forgotten without Gibson's gravitas.

"The Silence of the Lambs" has gone down in cinematic history largely because of Anthony Hopkins' scene-chewing (and, y'know, people-chewing) as Dr. Hannibal Lecter. But as iconic as Hopkins is, "The Silence of the Lambs" belongs to Jodie Foster. As neophyte FBI trainee Clarice Starling, Foster deftly balances strength with vulnerability, giving both an "actor's actor" performance and a movie star performance. It's a brilliant piece of work, one that rightly won Foster her second Oscar, but the part almost went to another talented actor and charismatic movie star: Michelle Pfeiffer. 

Pfeiffer had stolen the show in Jonathan Demme's comedy "Married to the Mob," and he wanted his star back for his foray into horror. However, Pfeiffer turned it down because she found the film too "evil," in particular the ending (where it's heavily implied Lecter is going to consume his psychiatrist), telling The New Yorker that, "I didn't want to put that out into the world." While we disagree with her take on the film, she's right in that she was wrong for the role. Pfeiffer is best as the icy blonde (she would've been great in an Alfred Hitchcock movie) who's rarely in over her head. Foster's Starling was always in over her head but rose above, making her a great underdog hero. That said, had they gone with a gender-swap, Pfeiffer might've made a great Lecter.

Keanu Reeves had already established himself as an A-list action star by 1999, but the role of Neo in "The Matrix" almost went to his "Speed" co-star, Sandra Bullock. According to producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura, Warner Brothers insisted on a star to headline the mind-bending sci-fi film, as insurance against the outlandish plot and the fact the film's creators, the Wachowskis, only had one film to their name, 1996's bomb "Bound." When A-listers like Will Smith, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Brad Pitt (presumably) turned it down or were at least considered, the producers contemplated a gender swap and making Neo a lady. 

We can get there but not with Sandra Bullock. She's better as the girl next door, not the hacker next door, as proven by her unsuccessful film "The Net." Granted, she wasn't helped at all by that film's script, but she still wasn't convincing in the part. Besides the hacker factor, there's also the fact that "The Matrix" is really violent. Watching America's Sweetheart blow people away with automatic weapons sounds more like a SNL skit than a movie, which is why we also wouldn't have liked her as Trinity, which she was also offered.

Leona​​rdo DiCaprio has been in high demand since before he could drive, but two of the biggest roles he declined came after his career changed with 1997's "Titanic." On the "The Howard Stern Show," James Cameron revealed he wanted DiCaprio to star as Peter Parker in an absolutely wild version of "Spider-Man." Studio bigwigs also wanted the actor to lead the 2002 Sam Raimi blockbuster, a part that went to DiCaprio's buddy, Tobey Maguire. While "Spider-Man" was destined to be a big hit, DiCaprio might've hurt the film's box office prospects. By 2002, the culture had gotten "Leo OD'd" after his insane overexposure from "Titanic." Rooting for him as an underdog geek who never gets the girl wouldn't have been believable. 

More interesting is the other huge part DiCaprio turned down, Anakin Skywalker in George Lucas' "Star Wars" prequels. DiCaprio as Darth would've been great (or at least as great as anything could be in Lucas' lukewarm trilogy) as he could've conveyed the pathos of Skywalker's descent into the Dark Side. Well, maybe. Leo wasn't the actor in 2002 that he is today, and a big reason why Leo leveled up is because he turned down Skywalker to star in Martin Scorsese's "Gangs of New York." While that decision saved DiCaprio's career, he couldn't have saved the "Star Wars" prequels from mediocrity. Had DiCaprio played Anakin, his career would have sunk like the Titanic.