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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.