Or, what if Mel Gibson was cast as Luke Skywalker instead of Mark Hamill?
Let's say the POD is Gibson decides to take a year-off between graduating high school and going to Australia's National Institute for the Dramatic Arts. So, circa 1974 he travels to his family's homeland* for a working holiday. Let's say he hitchhikes from upstate New York (where he's staying with family friends) to NYC that summer, and for a lark decides to audition for some small acting part. He gets it, delays returning to Australia**, and is working in California when Lucas is casting Star Wars.
So, the young Mel is advised by his agent to read for a part with the acclaimed director of American Grafitti. George Lucas interviews Gibson before he sees Hamill--he is impressed, and thinks this guy is perfect. He has it. There's no need for anyone else to audition...
I think young Mel is perfect as Luke. After all, Max Rockatansky and Skywalker are very similar in a 'Hero with a thousand faces' kind of way, and Gibson is several years younger than he would be in OTL when he made Mad Max. He's just the right age to play our teenage hero.
The movie that is later known as Episode IV: A New Hope is filmed and released to the same acclaim it would be in OTL. It's a monster hit, it will reshape the landscape of popular cinema.
But things will start to diverge at this point. Gibson is a confessed alcholic, and without the discipline he would gain at NIDA and in Australia's low budget film and TV industry he might not adapt well to being an overnight worldwide success in 1977 (seven years before his first Hollywood movie in OT). I assume that Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi go ahead as planned. But Gibson will be living a pretty extreme life by the third installment.
(Though I suppose Carrie Fisher was on stronger medicine than alcohol at this time.)
Assuming he doesn't drink himself to death during the eighties or early nineties, I think Gibson should have a bigger career than Hamill did.
Now, as we all know, our star in OTL is pretty controversial.
What are the effects of having the Star Wars franchise linked to an ultra-conservative, anti-semitic religious fundamentalist? How does pop culture deal with a guy capable of producing The Passion of the Christ as the cinematic hero of so many of our childhoods?
(BTW, I don't think the absence of Gibson from the Mad Max trilogy would have a major effect, at least not until Beyond Thunderdome. The first two movies were never intended as star-vehicles for Gibson, and I don't think anyone in this country has ever seen them as such.)
*The United States of America, of course.
**It's the seventies, man. Even if he can't get back into NIDA, as long as his marks were good enough he can still go and study drama in any Australian university free of charge.
Let's say the POD is Gibson decides to take a year-off between graduating high school and going to Australia's National Institute for the Dramatic Arts. So, circa 1974 he travels to his family's homeland* for a working holiday. Let's say he hitchhikes from upstate New York (where he's staying with family friends) to NYC that summer, and for a lark decides to audition for some small acting part. He gets it, delays returning to Australia**, and is working in California when Lucas is casting Star Wars.
So, the young Mel is advised by his agent to read for a part with the acclaimed director of American Grafitti. George Lucas interviews Gibson before he sees Hamill--he is impressed, and thinks this guy is perfect. He has it. There's no need for anyone else to audition...
I think young Mel is perfect as Luke. After all, Max Rockatansky and Skywalker are very similar in a 'Hero with a thousand faces' kind of way, and Gibson is several years younger than he would be in OTL when he made Mad Max. He's just the right age to play our teenage hero.
The movie that is later known as Episode IV: A New Hope is filmed and released to the same acclaim it would be in OTL. It's a monster hit, it will reshape the landscape of popular cinema.
But things will start to diverge at this point. Gibson is a confessed alcholic, and without the discipline he would gain at NIDA and in Australia's low budget film and TV industry he might not adapt well to being an overnight worldwide success in 1977 (seven years before his first Hollywood movie in OT). I assume that Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi go ahead as planned. But Gibson will be living a pretty extreme life by the third installment.
(Though I suppose Carrie Fisher was on stronger medicine than alcohol at this time.)
Assuming he doesn't drink himself to death during the eighties or early nineties, I think Gibson should have a bigger career than Hamill did.
Now, as we all know, our star in OTL is pretty controversial.
What are the effects of having the Star Wars franchise linked to an ultra-conservative, anti-semitic religious fundamentalist? How does pop culture deal with a guy capable of producing The Passion of the Christ as the cinematic hero of so many of our childhoods?
(BTW, I don't think the absence of Gibson from the Mad Max trilogy would have a major effect, at least not until Beyond Thunderdome. The first two movies were never intended as star-vehicles for Gibson, and I don't think anyone in this country has ever seen them as such.)
*The United States of America, of course.
**It's the seventies, man. Even if he can't get back into NIDA, as long as his marks were good enough he can still go and study drama in any Australian university free of charge.
