I know he would've absolutely
-
ChrEberle — 9 years ago(September 25, 2016 09:22 AM)
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 - -
-
Fluke_Skywalker — 10 years ago(October 03, 2015 12:50 AM)
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/ -
cybopath — 9 years ago(June 11, 2016 01:54 PM)
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. -
TMC-4 — 9 years ago(July 13, 2016 09:46 PM)
https://lebeauleblog.com/2015/01/03/what-might-have-been-mel-gibson/7/
Gibson turned down the role of Robin Hood because he had just done Hamlet.
Fall Out:
That statement is open to interpretation. There seems to be some suggestion that Gibson thought doing Robin Hood right after Hamlet would be repetitive. And maybe the fact that they are both period pieces played into his decision. But I suspect Gibson passed because he needed a break. In 1990, he appeared in three movies; Bird on a Wire, Air America and Hamlet. He took 1991 off and returned in 1992 with Lethal Weapon 3 and Forever Young. So Im guessing his decision had less to do with the material than with the fact he was busy.
Verdict:
Missed Opportunity.