Any regular reader of daily movie news knows how often actors are attached to a role one week, only to be in talks for a completely different project the following week. And while news items like that can be a lot of fun to speculate about, the really fun "What If?" game comes into play when you try to re-imagine iconic roles with different actors. Take Superman, for example. Plenty of leading men have had a crack at the man in tights over the years, but I think we can all agree that the most iconic iteration of the character belongs to Christopher Reeve. Had Clint Eastwood been a bigger fan of Superman,* though, that might never have been the case.
In a recent interview with the LA Times' Geoff Boucher, Eastwood recalls when ex Warner Bros. President Frank Wells offered him the role of Superman and explains why he passed on the opportunity:
That's not the only franchise role that Eastwood passed up in the '70s, either. In the same interview Eastwood explains that he turned down "pretty good money" to play James Bond because he felt uncomfortable taking on "somebody else's gig."I always liked characters that were more grounded in reality. Maybe they do super things or more-than-human things -- like Dirty Harry, he has a knack for doing crazy things, or the western guys -- but, still, they're not caped crusaders.
So my hypothetical to you is, if Clint Eastwood had taken on one of those roles, which would you rather it have been? I'm personally a little torn on the matter. On the one hand, I think he could have made for a similarly gritty Bond as Daniel Craig has, but I just can't shake wanting to see how he would have played Superman. Not only is Eastwood far from the tights-wearing type, he's also far too gruff to have ever pulled off the Golly-Gee nature of Clark Kent. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have loved to see him try, though.
What about you?