It's intriguing to think of Brando in this role, but one aspect that occurs to me is that Brando might have been too much of a diva and thrown out of whack the balance between the two characters.

This message has been deleted.

Thank goodness Elvis didn't take that part. He could barely act, and Lord knows he could barely sing. I know I am upsetting a lot of people by saying that, but just because someone is popular doesn't mean they are talented. In fact, while I don't remember for myself what happened in The Bodyguard, my mother said Whitney was the worst actor in it. While I don't remember that for myself I do remember thinking to myself how badly she did in Waiting to Exhale. Anyway, so yes, Curtis was best for this role.

Brando backed out, because Stanley Kramer waited for Sidney Poitier to be free for his part. He was doing Porgy and Bess at the time, and wasn't free to do it. So Kramer waited, and lost Brando.
Also, Elvis could have had that role, but the Colonel passed on it.
Enter Tony Curtis.

This message has been deleted.

~laughs~ That's pretty good, uk
I guess it's like looking at clouds. You see one thing and I see another. Peace.

This message has been deleted.

I don't know. After seeing Brando playing a rough and tumble guy in Streetcar Named Desire, he may have done well in this role. Anyway, I know it would've been good to watch him (oh how good). He was quite yummy in his younger days. Very yummy. However, I understand he was going through his bi-curious days at that time, but I'll overlook that so it doesn't interfere with my fantasy.

Well, it was more of a frankly-expressed opinion than it was an insult. I think the other poster meant that Curtis was a good, but not great actor, which was better for the movie than having arguably the greatest motion picture actor of all time playing the part. Whenever Brando was miscast, his performance and the whole movie suffered; and I do agree with the other poster that "The Defiant Ones" needed someone like Tony Curtisno more and no less; no lesser and no greater.
Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sigACKKK!!!
TOO LATE!!!

"Curtis wasn't 1/10th the actor Brando was, but he flourished in the role; the movie didn't need Brando, and it probably would have been worse off with him in place of Curtis."
I love how you managed to insult and praise Tony Curtis in the same sentence. But you didn't stop there, you also took a shot at Brando. Very classy!

Curtis wasn't 1/10th the actor Brando was, but he flourished in the role; the movie didn't need Brando, and it probably would have been worse off with him in place of Curtis.
Found out two nights ago
Yeah? Is there any underlying significance there?
"
if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street.
" ~ an irate Tarantino