This 'A Cinderella Story' Fact Will Blow Your Mind

If you're anything like me, you're able to quote A Cinderella Story in its entirety. Maybe you even made a wedding vision board with the exact dress that Sam wears as your dress inspiration, or maybe you just watched the movie over and over. But one thing is certain: A Cinderella Story is a cinematic masterpiece that should be worshipped by all. Being so familiar with it, there's not much that could be said about the movie that would shock me. It was made in the a tumultuous early aughts, right in the middle of the Lohan/Duff battle royale over Aaron Carter. What other pieces of movie trivia do we need? Well, it turns out there is one major fact about A Cinderella Story that did, in fact, manage to totally shock me.

Now, I spent a lot of time as a young pre-teen watching and re-watching A Cinderella Story. I watched the kiss in the rain so many times, I thought I had actually experienced it (and dreamed of my first kiss being that magical. Note: it wasn't.) Mostly, I worshipped Chad Michael Murray, memorizing every dimple and wrinkle on his face. I mean, it was Chad Michael Murray. He was the tween dream, so tall, so soft-spoken, so handsome. Watching him in the movie, it made me wonder how on Earth anyone else could have been considered for his role. But someone you won't believe had the part of the dreamy Austin Ames before our beloved Murray came into the picture. Ready to hear who? None other than Rupert Grint.


I know — you thought I was going to say Adam Brody or Justin Timberlake, didn't you? As hunky and delicious as Grint is now, it's hard to imagine his younger self taking on the role of Austin, because back in 2004, Grint was basically still in the midst of puberty. He was in-between Chamber of Secrets and Prisoner of Azkaban, and while he was totally adorable, it's not exactly easy to picture him as a movie-leading dreamboat. Here's a visual:


According to Teen Vogue, though, Grint was cast in the role, but turned it down because he had to start filming Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Should we be grateful that the Ministry stepped in to whisk Grint back to Hogwarts? Or should we be lamenting the fact that we may never know what it's like to see Ronald Weasley in a football uniform, secretly writing poetry, and willingly dressing like Prince Charming?

I'm sure that had Grint stayed in the role, Austin Ames as we know and love him now might be a bit different. Murray certainly does his best brooding popular guy look in the movie, but I wonder if the filmmakers would have made Austin a bit more goofy, even more affable, if Grint was in the lead role. It's not uncommon for roles to be shifted and rewritten depending on the actor cast, and I wonder if this situation would have been no different. Of course, the script could simply have stayed as is, and we would have gotten to see Grint uttering the squeal-worthy line, "sorry, I waited for the rain."


I think I would have liked to see Grint as Austin if only to see a different side of him during the Harry Potter era. As he's proven over the years, Grint is a talented actor, and there's no reason to believe he would have done the part of Austin a disservice. Actually, I think he would've been pretty great playing Austin, making him far more believable a character and one everyone would root for.

Yet while I don't doubt that Grint would have been a fantastic Austin, it's also hard to now imagine the movie with anyone other than Murray. Yes, it would be hard to even imagine Timberlake as the film's Prince Charming. Either way, I definitely think I need to go re-watch A Cinderella Story. And then maybe follow-up with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

Images: Warner Bros. Pictures; Giphy (3)