When it comes to casting decisions in Hollywood, few are as intriguing as the choice of Kurt Russell for the role of Colonel Jack O'Neil in the 1994 sci-fi adventure Stargate. But here's where it gets controversial: was Russell truly the only actor who could bring this character to life? Directors Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin thought so, and their reasoning was as bold as it was unconventional. They didn’t just want a tough guy; they wanted someone universally likable to play a character who, on paper, was anything but. And this is where Kurt Russell’s unique charm came into play—or so they believed.
Colonel Jack O'Neil is the quintessential straight man, a no-nonsense military officer who serves as the perfect foil to James Spader’s eccentric Dr. Daniel Jackson. While the role could have easily gone to a stereotypical hard-edged actor, Emmerich and Devlin took a different approach. Instead of casting someone in the vein of Lee Marvin (who, by the way, had passed away by then), they opted for Russell—a star whose appeal transcends generations and genres. And this is the part most people miss: Russell’s casting wasn’t just about his acting chops; it was about his ability to make an inherently unlikable character relatable.
Stargate itself is often dismissed as a B-movie with impressive production values, but the dynamic between O'Neil and Jackson is what elevates it. Despite some on-set tensions between Russell and Spader, their chemistry on screen is undeniable. Both actors lean into their archetypes, creating a partnership that adds much-needed energy to the film. Interestingly, Russell initially turned down the role multiple times, only agreeing when Emmerich and Devlin offered him double his market value. Even then, he was baffled by their insistence on casting him.
In a 2016 GQ profile, Russell recalled the directors’ unusual justification: they had conducted a global questionnaire to find the most universally likable actor. Here’s the kicker: Russell scored 'zero unlikability.' As he put it, laughing, 'That number may have changed significantly since then.' But the question remains: was this casting choice genius or overreach? Did Russell’s inherent charm truly transform O'Neil, or was the role simply a retread of his previous tough-guy characters, like Snake Plissken in Escape from New York or MacReady in The Thing?
The GQ piece argues that Stargate allowed Russell to stretch his acting muscles and challenge his image. However, aside from a military haircut, O'Neil doesn’t feel drastically different from Russell’s other gruff, authoritative roles. Even so, Russell’s likability is undeniable—a trait he’s come to accept as part of his persona. 'Inherent likability or dislikability is something we all carry with us,' he told GQ, though he quickly added, 'Now, when you talk about yourself in those terms, I find that unlikable.'
Here’s where I’ll spark some debate: Despite a few missteps in his career (Soldier, 3,000 Miles to Graceland, and Crypto come to mind), Russell remains a beloved figure in cinema. But is his 'zero unlikability' a blessing or a curse? Does it limit his range as an actor, or is it the secret sauce that makes his performances so rewatchable? Personally, I’ve yet to meet someone who doesn’t light up at the mention of a Kurt Russell movie. He’s the undisputed king of the 'dad movie,' and for that, we should all be grateful.
So, was Kurt Russell truly the only choice for Colonel Jack O'Neil? Or was this a case of clever casting masking a lack of risk-taking? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments. Do you think Russell’s likability elevated the role, or was it just another day at the office for this Hollywood icon?
