What if classic sitcoms had cast different actors?

Another thread got me thinking about whether many classic sitcoms would've been as acclaimed had they cast different or the original fist choice actors in the main roles. Was the success of these mostly down to the writing but the actors were potentially interchangeable or was the way the actual actors delivered the lines just as essential for the laughs. Kicking things off...

OFAH - I reckon Richard Beckinsale would've made a great Rodney. Would first choice Enn Reitel have been as good a Del Boy as David Jason?

Jon Pertwee was ahead of Arthur Lowe in the casting for Captain Mainwairing. Do you reckon he'd would've done as good a job?

So, what about other 'classic' shows like Porridge, Yes Minster, Reggie Perrin, The Good Life etc etc?

Clearly the writer is the only important person in these shows.

I've mentioned this before in another thread. Trevor Bannister was completely miscast for the role of Mr. Lucas imo. Lucas is supposed to be a young, easy going and womanising bachelor. Bannister looked like a fat, middle aged Elvis Presley impersonator with a depression.

A sex God?

Being co-written by Croft it would have made a lot more sense to give the role to James Beck. Trevor Adams would have been my second choice.

Quote: Alexei Q @ 21st January 2015, 10:59 AM GMT

Another thread got me thinking about whether many classic sitcoms would've been as acclaimed had they cast different or the original fist choice

View original

Wow, I've heard of the casting couch, but are the actors really chosen by fist?

Quote: Nogget @ 21st January 2015, 1:02 PM GMT

Wow, I've heard of the casting couch, but are the actors really chosen by fist?

View original

Obviously.

Quote: Nogget @ 21st January 2015, 1:02 PM GMT

Wow, I've heard of the casting couch, but are the actors really chosen by fist?

View original

Quote: Gordon Bennett @ 21st January 2015, 1:01 PM GMT

I've mentioned this before in another thread. Trevor Bannister was completely miscast for the role of Mr. Lucas imo. Lucas is supposed to be a young, easy going and womanising bachelor. Bannister looked like a fat, middle aged Elvis Presley impersonator with a depression.

View original

I do agree.
To be honest any show from back then featuring a 'ladies man' - they're all bloody shocking looking.
I'm not sure if anyone looked good in the '70s, but casting directors (presumably mostly male?) certainly didn't seem to have a clue what a sexy man was.

Quote: Nogget @ 21st January 2015, 1:02 PM GMT

Wow, I've heard of the casting couch, but are the actors really chosen by fist?

View original

Well, I'll be blowed.

Quote: Gordon Bennett @ 21st January 2015, 1:01 PM GMT

I've mentioned this before in another thread. Trevor Bannister was completely miscast for the role of Mr. Lucas imo. Lucas is supposed to be a young, easy going and womanising bachelor. Bannister looked like a fat, middle aged Elvis Presley impersonator with a depression.

View original

Well AYBS? was conceived essentially as a vehicle for Bannister, so had he not played Mr Lucas the show would have been wildly different anyway - if existing at all!

And perhaps, do you think, you are assessing their appearances with 21st Century ideas of attractiveness, fashion, grooming and style, rather than 1970s?

I always thought of Mr Lucas as simply being lecherous, a quality which is unrelated to good looks.

Let's not forget the erstwhile pop singer Mike Berry who was his replacement as Bert Spooner.

Are you suggesting Bannister was rather wooden?

Quote: Aaron @ 21st January 2015, 3:52 PM GMT

And perhaps, do you think, you are assessing their appearances with 21st Century ideas of attractiveness, fashion, grooming and style, rather than 1970s?

View original

It's not necessarily his lack of good looks that doesn't work for me. But he didn't give the impression he even cared. He wasn't in the slightest dynamic or charismatic. There are ugly men in real life who nevertheless are womanisers because they are interesting, dynamic and self assured and that's what makes them attractive.
He was a lazy git with a miserable look on his face. Even Austin Powers is more believable as a womaniser...or Del Boy.

Quote: Nogget @ 21st January 2015, 4:51 PM GMT

I always thought of Mr Lucas as simply being lecherous

View original

That's how he appeared. But I don't think that was the intention of the writers.

Quote: Hercules Grytpype Thynne @ 21st January 2015, 5:03 PM GMT

Let's not forget the erstwhile pop singer Mike Berry who was his replacement as Bert Spooner.

View original

Good point. Bannister was a comedy God compared to him.

Quote: Gordon Bennett @ 21st January 2015, 5:36 PM GMT

It's not necessarily his lack of good looks that doesn't work for me. But he didn't give the impression he even cared. He wasn't in the slightest dynamic or charismatic. There are ugly men in real life who nevertheless are womanisers because they are interesting, dynamic and self assured and that's what makes them attractive.
He was a lazy git with a miserable look on his face. Even Austin Powers is more believable as a womaniser...or Del Boy.

View original

Ah, fair enough. Not the most charismatic I suppose, no - but a cheeky chancer, I think, and represented a lot of wannabe sex gods of the age.

I was in the tailoring trade in the mid 60s and met characters just like them (the men), so they all seemed to me to be perfect in their parts. I remember one who was John Inman personified.