u/Consistent-Bear4200

To be clear, this is about about which is the stronger overall production.

It's tricky, because while I love them both, they also each have strengths over the other. They both have incredible casts, two great leads (Scott especially).

On one hand, 1996 has a great cast (for the most part), takes full advantage of the cinematic medium go convey the story. It also keeps all the larger political themes that most versions (including 2017 somewhat) steer away from so you feel like there's a nation at stake, in-between all the family drama and revenge plot.

However, it does this by being 4 hours long. Brananagh was apparently determined to make this thebmost comprehensive version of Hamlet put on film.

There's even a bit in the behind the scenes where the editor says he wasn't allowed to cut any lines of dialogue from the movie. It's still strong overall, but I would find it harder to recommend to people, especially if they weren't so familiar with Shakespeare.

On the other other hand, 2017 is more concise and while I love Branagh's cast, 2017's is often just as strong and in some cases even outmatches them. Both leads are good, but I lean towards Scott as the better Hamlet.

And while I personally feel Julie Christie was a bit of a dud in 1996, Juliet Stevenson's version in 2017 was a revelation and gave so much more dimension than I'd felt the character had before.

But then I think about the visual storytelling. As long as Branagh's films is, it also conveys so much through visuals, silent flashbacks to things only discussed in the play. You see Hamlet on Yorick's back, or Gertrude start to take a shine toward Claudius. Or that opening, with confetti and celebration in the ballroom and Hamlet as the one solitary man in black still in morning.

But that's not to speak ill of 2017's. It's two different mediums after all. Neither are bad at any element so it is hard to choose.

Which one would you prefer?

These are about roles these actors were almost up for. Often I like the people who did get it but am still curious what these ones would have done different.

1. Robin Williams has a few, but the one I would have loved to have seen the most is Jack in the Shining (1980). Stephen King is on the record as having hated the casting of Nicholson, whereas I feel like Williams could have provided that intriguing balance between warm affable father that could then spiral into madness.

2. Toshiro Mifune for Obi Wan Kenobi in Star Wars (1977) . Lucas has often spoke about how impactful Kurosawa's work was on the series and Mifune is one of the longest standing contributors. It would have been a great nod but also been fascinating to see what someone with that kind if range did with the role.

3. Jack Black for Syndrome in The Incredibles (2004). Again Jason Lee was great for the role and kind of underrated imo. But there is something of the excitable fan boy that suits Black's typical persona. The idea of that enthusiasm being twisted into something else does make me curious what he'd be like.

4. Peter O'Toole as the Joker in Batman (1989). Very different to what Jack Nicholson ended up doing, those eyebrows, the grin and that playful persona do fit the character well. He does seem like an obvious choice. But then I look at panels from the Killing Joke, those gaunt features and I can see O'Toole pulling it off. I think there was discussion of the sad clown, rather than Nicholson's anarcic gangster. But I think of that deep rich voice, that razor wit and wonder what kind of Joker could have come from that.

Do you have any castings like this that keep you wondering?