MovieChat Forums > Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) Discussion > Mel Gibson should've done this instead o...

Mel Gibson should've done this instead of Costner


I know he would've absolutely killed it as Robin Hood. It was a part he was born to play. He would've been way better than Costner, that's for sure. Costner's OK, but he just wasn't right for the part. Plus, Gibson would've easily pulled off a British accent. Who else agrees?

All those who hate Katherine Heigl can eat s-t and die!!!

reply

100% agreed. Gibson was also near the height of his popularity in 1991.

Originality needs a reboot.

reply

Mel would have been different but great nonetheless.

To me, Kevin is stellar in the role - I grew up on his Robin Hood and I'd never want anybody else to play the role. He's the ultimate Robin Hood, to me.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

reply

Here's the thing about Costner. Every time I see him in a role, I always think Gibson could do it a lot better, and this one is no exception. Gibson feels far more at home in a sword-swinging, arrow-slinging adventure than Costner does (as proven by Braveheart), and he can pull off an English accent with ease. Gibson remains one of the few actors I can think of who could probably fit easily into any genre and just about any period piece. On the First Knight board, there's also posts (from myself included) agreeing that Gibson would have rocked as Lancelot.

reply

That's your opinion and I do respect it though I disagree with it.

I love Mel, think he's a terrific actor but I've always been a far bigger Kevin fan.

I think they're boh extremely talented filmmakers.

reply

Agree with you, I liked Mel back then but I love Kevin,he has a greater sense of fun about him and i dont know if Mel has the same athletic ability.

reply

Ha! But don't you think it's funny considering the quite comedic, light-hearted and sometimes ridiculous tones of said movies would really require to have Mel Gibson in them?

Especially "First Knight" (although one of my 'guilty pleasures) is such a fantasy-cheesefest that I find Richard Gere perfect for that role.



NightAxe - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJzZ4jkYd40

reply

An American in a Halloween costume running around Medieval England is hardly the definitive Robin Hood.

Imagine Michael Cain in a white suit playing Tom Sawyer and you get how preposterous the notion really is.


reply

no mel gibson was and is too short

just ask julia phillips!!

reply

Only an idiot would think 5'10" is "too short".

All those who hate Katherine Heigl can eat s-t and die!!!

reply

No doubt he would have if his nationality had been changed so he was fighting the English rather than fighting for them.

The Long Walk stops every year, just once.

reply

no mel gibson was and is too short


Too short? I don't know, he would've been playing Robin Hood, not power forward for the Lakers. Gibson's height never limited his ability to effectively play action roles from Martin Riggs to William Wallace believably.

----
A journey into the realm of the obscure: http://saturdayshowcase.blogspot.com/

reply

I've long thought Daniel Day Lewis would have been terrific in this role.

reply

Pierce Brosnan hosts the making of documentary from the time of its release. He's got longer hair and a slight beard. He'd have been perfect

reply

Acting Maybe, Directing it definitely. But the script would still need work.

What if right, just an idea they got an actual Englishman to play Robin Hood. I know it's a wacky idea.

That said someone from that era I'd throw out would be Timothy Dalton (Although Welsh he could do a convincing English accent) who had just been 007.

reply

Michael Wincott shouting abuse wouldn't hold a candle to Mel on a good day

reply