You dont like Craig as Bond?
Cavill is only 27 years old. I say let Craig do a few more films and then let Cavill take over as Bond.
j.bladesCurrently? You must be joking?Posts: 530MI6 Agent
Cavill has to play Bond, give him a battleship grey Bentley and the hottest Bond-girl. And you've got the only man who can don the walther after Craig.
"I take a ridiculous pleasure in what I eat and drink."
You dont like Craig as Bond?
Cavill is only 27 years old. I say let Craig do a few more films and then let Cavill take over as Bond.
To me he is just not 007, I do enjoy CR and QOS as action films but not as Bond films.
In all honesty I think he has no charisma or polish at all and his constant pouting really grates on my nerves.
I did say in other post that I would not mind him doing 23 to tie up the Quantum nonsense and finish of Dame Judys M
but on reflection I would honestly like a complete fresh start for 23 with Cavill as Bond,Honeysuckle Weeks as Moneypenny,
Michael Kitchner as M and David Haigh as Q.
j.bladesCurrently? You must be joking?Posts: 530MI6 Agent
You dont like Craig as Bond?
Cavill is only 27 years old. I say let Craig do a few more films and then let Cavill take over as Bond.
To me he is just not 007, I do enjoy CR and QOS as action films but not as Bond films.
In all honesty I think he has no charisma or polish at all and his constant pouting really grates on my nerves.
I did say in other post that I would not mind him doing 23 to tie up the Quantum nonsense and finish of Dame Judys M
but on reflection I would honestly like a complete fresh start for 23 with Cavill as Bond,Honeysuckle Weeks as Moneypenny,
Michael Kitchner as M and David Haigh as Q.
Not bad, add in the Bentley and Muse for the title sequence and you might actually have the best Bond movie ever.
"I take a ridiculous pleasure in what I eat and drink."
Cavill IMO needs a couple more years, and would also give Craig his trilogy (and after his success with CR he definately deserves a triumphant finale following the average QOS). Cavill shows great promise in The Tudors, but needs a few years to 'man-up', the Dunhill shoot definately ticks the Bond boxes, it'd be great to see him in a gritty tv role to see how he fares. Muse is a great shout & the modern battleship grey Bentley would be great also.
How did I miss this thread? If it wasn't for Lexi (thank you Miss!) telling me I would never have known. Because I'm busy talking Cavill in the General Bond Chat forum )
it'd be great to see him in a gritty tv role to see how he fares
Well, better yet... Cavill has been filming his own action movie in Madrid and on the Spanish coast (amongst other locations) filming ended two weeks ago in Spain. The film is called "The Cold Light of Day". He's the leading man of the movie. His character's name is Will Shaw. This is the synopsis from the press release: "the movie focuses on a young American (Cavill) whose family is kidnapped while on a vacation to Spain. He is left with only hours to find the connection between their disappearance and his father’s secrets." The movie also stars Bruce Willis (guessing he plays the dad, since the leading role is Cavill's) and Sigourney Weaver. I would say this is the perfect token before he becomes Bond. The movie will be released in the US in 2011.
And, superdaddy, I completely share your feelings about Craig, but since I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel now, and it possibly (I HOPE) has Henry Cavill's face, I'll deal meantime :v I do agree with all your observations anyhow. The reasons you dislike Craig as Bond are the same ones I've always had. That said - while if it was for me, I'd always pick the Daltons/Brosnans/Cavills -I think it's not bad for the franchise to alternate actors that suit the taste of this or the other "faction" of fans in turn. Provided they give me Cavill next, and Craig only does one more. Otherwise as I said elsewhere, Barbara Broccoli will have a taste of my stilettos! )
Anyway... Cavill is Absolutely James Bond (look what I did here ) ) as far as I'm concerned. He's perfect. He certainly can act, which is the most important thing other than the obvious ridiculously good looks, and his way of walking/moving/looking at the camera in my opinion is pure James Bond material. Let's not even get into how well he scores amongst women He said himself that the Bond role came "very close" (same applies to the Superman one, he used those words in an interview I saw on youtube) back when they picked Craig, so I think if it was so close back then, he'd be perfect any time now (Including right now ) ).
I don't have decent filming pics of his movie, but there were some candids in between takes published in October, with him donning fake bruises, etc. for a scene:
There were other ones at the beach but they're really bad, he looks like he isn't in good shape or something, while normally he's super fit (he's been plenty naked in the Tudors and he looked damn fine), so I will avoid posting those ) (Loeffs has already had his share of "I feel much better about myself" seeing those in the other forum anyway ) )
These are a couple of videos for the Dunhill ad, including the one with the Bentley (it's funny how we discussed this too in the other forum, yet I had NO idea there was talk about Cavill here too. All the better!):
And may I add that (there's an interview on youtube where he says this) in real life, if he hadn't been an actor, he would have joined the forces? Or as a third option, pursued his interest in Egyptology. Doesn't get more perfect than that to play Bond
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
All I have to say is, so what ? What makes him stand-out so that he'd be a good Bond ?
All the stuff I posted above paired with this does IMO. (can people not see my posts though, I'm wondering ). Not to mention these two ads basically have him playing James Bond in them. And, he's a good actor. (this because I've seen him in various things, Tudors included). So basically he's got it all. He can act, he's got the style, the edge, the attitude and the looks to be Bond.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
All I have to say is, so what ? What makes him stand-out so that he'd be a good Bond ?
All the stuff I posted above paired with this does IMO. (can people not see my posts though, I'm wondering ). Not to mention these two ads basically have him playing James Bond in them. And, he's a good actor. (this because I've seen him in various things, Tudors included). So basically he's got it all. He can act, he's got the style, the edge, the attitude and the looks to be Bond.
You honestly don't think judging him by those commericals are on very superficial standards ? So I ask again, what makes him stand out ? I haven't seen the guy act so why don't you describe some role he had that'd convince he could be a ruthless, secret agent ? Or at least have the acting skills to pull off the role.
If you really want to go by looks, the prospect of him as Bond looks tiring. Once again, a guy being picked because he looks good in a tux. I think James Bond should be played by manly men which Daniel Craig certainly comes off as in terms of looks and attitude. I just wish they gave him some decent scripts.
All I have to say is, so what ? What makes him stand-out so that he'd be a good Bond ?
All the stuff I posted above paired with this does IMO. (can people not see my posts though, I'm wondering ). Not to mention these two ads basically have him playing James Bond in them. And, he's a good actor. (this because I've seen him in various things, Tudors included). So basically he's got it all. He can act, he's got the style, the edge, the attitude and the looks to be Bond.
You honestly don't think judging him by those commericals are on very superficial standards ? So I ask again, what makes him stand out ? I haven't seen the guy act so why don't you describe some role he had that'd convince he could be a ruthless, secret agent ? Or at least have the acting skills to pull off the role.
I'm not judging him by those commercials at all. I'm judging him having seen a lot of things he was in. (just like others on here, who mentioned the Tudors. That's four seasons of a primetime show in the US, I'd say you've got plenty of chance to see he's a good actor there.) The commercials are for the Bond attitude and looks merely. And they surely are there. Both the attitude, and the looks, and the style. If you can't see that, I certainly can't make you see it. We don't all have the same taste.
You haven't seen anything with Cavill, yet you seem determined to tell us (people who have seen him act) that we're wrong. If you dislike him by principle it's fine, but please don't imply we're being superficial about it. I have a long post above explaining the whys and hows of my preference for him. (I'm starting to wonder if that post is invisible since the same link I posted was posted below ) ) And I have stated above already that he CAN act which is the primary requirement. I think that's plenty of premise to then get to the commercial videos, just to show the looks.
He often plays the hero but in time pieces, and he certainly doesn't need to prove that he can act. He's already abundantly proved that. I'd say many of us here feel the same way re: his acting because we have actually seen him, so either you think we're giving an accurate and informed opinion, and accept it as such, or you need to form your own, which means you need to watch him yourself in what he's done recently for starters. You'll see the exact role you want to see to "prove" he can be Bond when he has his action movie coming out in 2011. I summarized the plot in my previous post.
Anyway as Charles Brandon on the Tudors he DID play the tough guy, faithful to the King, who goes to war (and he had fighting scenes as well) AND who is also a womanizer. That's basically a Bond in costume. He definitely has the acting skills to pull off the role, I'd say he may even be too good of an actor for Bond.
I presume you're unaware of the fact the Bond role came "very close" for him already (his own words) when Craig was picked? And that the main reason why he didn't get it was very simply that he was too young back then. But he's the one who got to the final line with Craig. That too should help you consider the fact that he actually does have the requirements to be Bond, or he would never have gotten so far with casting for CR in the first place. Many of us have been talking about Cavill ever since back then, which is why we don't every time list what he's been in... it's basically common knowledge around the forums. So that may have caused the misunderstanding, too.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
I'm not judging him by those commercials at all. I'm judging him having seen a lot of things he was in. (just like others on here, who mentioned the Tudors. That's four seasons of a primetime show in the US, I'd say you've got plenty of chance to see he's a good actor there.) The commercials are for the Bond attitude and looks merely. And they surely are there. Both the attitude, and the looks, and the style. If you can't see that, I certainly can't make you see it. We don't all have the same taste.
I never said I couldn't see it. What my point is that it isn't enough to convince me he's James Bond. Bond should not picked but such superficial standards.
You haven't seen anything with Cavill, yet you seem determined to tell us (people who have seen him act) that we're wrong. If you dislike him by principle it's fine, but please don't imply we're being superficial about it. I have a long post above explaining the whys and hows of my preference for him. (I'm starting to wonder if that post is invisible since the same link I posted was posted below ) ) And I have stated above already that he CAN act which is the primary requirement. I think that's plenty of premise to then get to the commercial videos, just to show the looks.
I am not "determined" to do anything. I just think some commericals aren't proof that Henry Cavill could be James Bond. I already admitted I hadn't seen him anything but your doing little to convince he had that Bondish quality. I'll watch the upcoming action film he's starring in, it sounds pretty decent.
I presume you're unaware of the fact the Bond role came "very close" for him already (his own words) when Craig was picked? And that the main reason why he didn't get it was very simply that he was too young back then. But he's the one who got to the final line with Craig. That too should help you consider the fact that he actually does have the requirements to be Bond, or he would never have gotten so far with casting for CR in the first place. Many of us have been talking about Cavill ever since back then, which is why we don't every time list what he's been in... it's basically common knowledge around the forums. So that may have caused the misunderstanding, too.
I already know he close to becoming Bond. So what if he was picked ? Since when is EON infallible ? I did not care for Pierce Brosnan. Dalton was perfect and yet they have him 3rd rate scripts. Craig is great now but they are letting him down like Dalton.
I'm with you, Ricardo. I don't see how this man would make a great Bond at all. He's handsome and cool. But he doesn't have that special charm or uniqueness I've seen in all the previous actors. Maybe, with some age on him, but I doubt it. I do think the commercials are shot in a way to sell us that he's Bond-worthy. I sincerely hope someone else emerges though.
I never said I couldn't see it. What my point is that it isn't enough to convince me he's James Bond. Bond should not picked but such superficial standards.
Again with the superficial remark? Do you realise you're being offensive here? I said "I've seen him in plenty of things" and I have an informed opinion on him as an actor. We're past that when the commercials are listed. I already have seen him in plenty of things, so I already know he's a very good actor and he can definitely pull off the Bond role. I said first and foremost that he's a good actor, and like most on here, I've seen him act. We're watching these because the acting premise is there already for all of us... so no, we aren't being superficial at all. The commercials are just the final thing of a process. I said that above already, but I guess I didn't explain myself properly.
I am not "determined" to do anything. I just think some commericals aren't proof that Henry Cavill could be James Bond. I already admitted I hadn't seen him anything but your doing little to convince he had that Bondish quality. I'll watch the upcoming action film he's starring in, it sounds pretty decent.
Nobody here thinks he can be Bond just based on two commercials, and it's offensive that you imply that. Again, we all already know he's a good actor and he can definitely be Bond, having actually seen him act. On top of that, he also has the style, the looks and the attitude, that can be seen in those commercials since the commercial basically has the main Bond style ingredients. Hence why the commercials were posted. I'm not going to repeat this again: we aren't being superficial at all.
I already know he close to becoming Bond. So what if he was picked ? Since when is EON infallible ? I did not care for Pierce Brosnan. Dalton was perfect and yet they have him 3rd rate scripts. Craig is great now but they are letting him down like Dalton.
And since when is the above fact? Those are just opinions. I LOVED Pierce Brosnan as Bond. I very much liked Dalton too, and I completely disagree he was given 3rd rate scripts. And I don't think Craig is great at all. I don't like him one bit as Bond. As others were saying above, he totally lacks the charisma, style and attitude to be Bond (not to mention the looks), an opinion I completely share. I don't think anyone is letting Craig down at all or that they let Dalton down. The Dalton movies didn't do well at the box office yet I liked them. The Craig movies did great, yet I happened to dislike both (CR I found absolutely boring, and QoS I thought was just a bad movie). It's just and only taste and opinion.
Now, if you want to form your own opinion on Cavill, I'd recommend to watch The Tudors. It's four seasons and plenty of episodes, you sure can see he can definitely act there.
This is a scene from the final season. He has beard and longer hair because for script reasons the character needed to age.
My personal choice for James Bond would between Andy Whitfield or Mathew Marsden. I saw Marsden in Rambo but he didn't come off as overly butch or tough. I think if they cleaned up, he'd be a great Bond. Andy would be great too but sadly, he seems no condition to considering Bond.
My personal choice for James Bond would between Andy Whitfield or Mathew Marsden. I saw Marsden in Rambo but he didn't come off as overly butch or tough. I think if they cleaned up, he'd be a great Bond. Andy would be great too but sadly, he seems no condition to considering Bond.
Andy Whitfield is a good pick. Strong. Emotionally investing. Cool. Inspiring. Manly. Sadly, he is having health problems. Cancer I'm afraid.
I think that this Matthew Marsden is worse than Cavill. I can see Cavill being picked 100% if he wasn't following Daniel Craig. Craig is very popular with audiences (maybe not Bond purists), so I think they will have to try exceptionally hard to find a replacement with the same amount of ruggedness and intimidation.
Alessandra, I agree that Dalton's scripts were fine and that Casino Royale is a total bore. : )
James (sorry I don't know whether that's your name or not! It's the only thing I can use), I don't think Craig is all that popular with mass audience. I think the type of movie they did was popular because it looked like the Bourne movies rather than Bond. It was about the type of movie, rather than about Craig IMO. Nobody knew him when CR was released, yet it did great at the box office (I'll never understand why but that's me, clearly I'm in the minority ) Glad I'm not the only one thinking it was a total bore ) ).
I also think they won't be looking for someone who is like or looks like Craig for the next Bond. I think they'll probably go back to more "traditional" Bond looks and formula. Actually I think Cavill is great, and has good chances of being picked exactly for the reason he's in between. He's very masculine and can definitely play the rugged guy and he's good at fighting scenes, but he also has gorgeous looks and great style. He also has the right amount of popularity: he's well known not just in Europe, but in the US too and women swoon over him (that I can guarantee ) ), but he's not yet at the big break point where he'd be too famous to play Bond. He's basically in the same position Pierce Brosnan was in when they picked him. Well known for Remington Steele but not such a big star that they wouldn't pick him because already too well-known. Other similarity with Brosnan is he almost got the role already.
That said, I'm not the one who picks ultimately, and given Barbara Broccoli's track record, I just need to hope someone will force her to make the right choice (which would be Cavill, of course ) ).
I don't know either of the above-mentioned actors so I can't express any judgment on them as actors. I'll assume they're both good. In terms of looks I like the Whitfield guy, he's not bad. But while being much better looking than Craig, he still reminds me of him, so... that's a big point against him for me ) Now, it's incredibly sad that such a young person is battling cancer. That is just awful. I hope he manages to recover, even though obviously it takes a very long time for that.
The Marsden guy looks (I'm just talking about looks here, I've seen him in nothing so I will just assume he is a good actor unless told otherwise) just not right for the Bond part IMO. He looks too soft-faced and too "ordinary" to me, for lack of a better word. I anyway also think these guys are already too old to start portraying Bond. One is 35 and the other is 37 already. Let me specify: I think that's absolutely young in everyday life, I just think it's old to begin a role in the Bond franchise. ) I'm their age ) It's one thing to be in the middle of the franchise at that age, but to start at 35 or 37 IMO is too old for today's requirements, especially following Craig when they'll need someone younger (I in fact think Craig also looks too old for the part).
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Nobody here thinks he can be Bond just based on two commercials, and it's offensive that you imply that. Again, we all already know he's a good actor and he can definitely be Bond, having actually seen him act. On top of that, he also has the style, the looks and the attitude, that can be seen in those commercials since the commercial basically has the main Bond style ingredients. Hence why the commercials were posted. I'm not going to repeat this again: we aren't being superficial at all.
But you seem to put alot of weight on those commericals. You can't deny that. You don't like word superficial ? Shallow perhaps ?
And since when is the above fact? Those are just opinions. I LOVED Pierce Brosnan as Bond. I very much liked Dalton too, and I completely disagree he was given 3rd rate scripts. And I don't think Craig is great at all. I don't like him one bit as Bond. As others were saying above, he totally lacks the charisma, style and attitude to be Bond (not to mention the looks), an opinion I completely share. I don't think anyone is letting Craig down at all or that they let Dalton down. The Dalton movies didn't do well at the box office yet I liked them. The Craig movies did great, yet I happened to dislike both (CR I found absolutely boring, and QoS I thought was just a bad movie). It's just and only taste and opinion.
I know just like you thinking Cavill would be a great James Bond. Timothy Dalton was wasted and now Craig is being done the same injustice, IMO. Pierce Brosnan was a wimp and he couldn't deliver the one liners as well as Connery or more. He hardly cut through the camera.
Now, if you want to form your own opinion on Cavill, I'd recommend to watch The Tudors. It's four seasons and plenty of episodes, you sure can see he can definitely act there.
This is a scene from the final season. He has beard and longer hair because for script reasons the character needed to age.
My personal choice for James Bond would between Andy Whitfield or Mathew Marsden. I saw Marsden in Rambo but he didn't come off as overly butch or tough. I think if they cleaned up, he'd be a great Bond. Andy would be great too but sadly, he seems no condition to considering Bond.
Andy Whitfield is a good pick. Strong. Emotionally investing. Cool. Inspiring. Manly. Sadly, he is having health problems. Cancer I'm afraid.
I think that this Matthew Marsden is worse than Cavill. I can see Cavill being picked 100% if he wasn't following Daniel Craig. Craig is very popular with audiences (maybe not Bond purists), so I think they will have to try exceptionally hard to find a replacement with the same amount of ruggedness and intimidation.
Alessandra, I agree that Dalton's scripts were fine and that Casino Royale is a total bore. : )
Did you see Marsden in Rambo ? I thought he was pretty good. Okay they are better choices, I'll give you that. I don't think it would be such a bad one though.
Let me specify: I think that's absolutely young in everyday life, I just think it's old to begin a role in the Bond franchise. ) I'm their age ) It's one thing to be in the middle of the franchise at that age, but to start at 35 or 37 IMO is too old for today's requirements, especially following Craig when they'll need someone younger (I in fact think Craig also looks too old for the part).
Are you joking ? How old do you think Bond actor should be when he starts ? They should really be no younger than 30 and no more than 43.
But you seem to put alot of weight on those commericals. You can't deny that. You don't like word superficial ? Shallow perhaps ?
I will make this point no further. Neither word applies, and if you cannot understand that we all start from the premise of KNOWING Cavill's work, thus being well-informed, which discards any superficial or shallow remark from the start, there's nothing else to add. I am NOT putting a lot of weight in the commercials, the commercials are the LAST step of a process, it's the umpteenth time I explain this to you because of your offensive remarks. Shown because they're a very good example of how he rocks a tux and how he definitely has the stylish, manly moves that Bond should have. AFTER already having seen him in plenty of things, thus knowing he is definitely a good actor and he can definitely play the part, as well as being good in fight scenes. So the substance is already there, and for Bond there needs to be the substance AND the looks. Thus the commercials. End of it.
I know just like you thinking Cavill would be a great James Bond. Timothy Dalton was wasted and now Craig is being done the same injustice, IMO. Pierce Brosnan was a wimp and he couldn't deliver the one liners as well as Connery or more. He hardly cut through the camera.
I didn't intend to present my opinion on Cavill as fact, it's merely an opinion, and I apologise if it came off otherwise. Well, given Brosnan made the franchise rise from the ashes, and had fantastic results at the box office, not to mention he was and is incredibly popular, most felt differently from you, me included. Luckily for the franchise as well. I thought he was a great Bond.
I also disagree Craig is being done any injustice. He had one of the best screenwriters available on the market for the movies, so if anything he's being treated way better than those who preceded him in recent times. I just don't think he's a good Bond. He's played two movies that couldn't be further from what Bond is as far as I'm concerned. They tried fixing it a bit with QoS to get back to something that vaguely resembles a more traditional Bond, but not nearly enough for my taste. And since we're veering definitely off-topic, given we're supposed to discuss Cavill here and not Craig or Brosnan or Dalton, I'll leave it at that. I really don't want this pleasant Cavill topic to turn into "Brosnan-Dalton-Craig", not to mention it's against the rules and I have contributed to going off-topic enough already )
He's not bad.
Good. That's just one scene so watching more you may either think he's bad or that he's good. I have no idea what you may think in the end, it depends on what your preferences are. Directors and people who do this for a living have praised him for his acting skills already... so he can definitely act, but that doesn't mean you'd like him. It all comes down to taste in the end.
Are you joking ? How old do you think Bond actor should be when he starts ? They should really be no younger than 30 and no more than 43.
43? Are you kidding? That's way too old to start playing Bond. I think given today's requirements they shouldn't be older than 32-33 tops when they start. Especially after Craig, who already looks too old for the part. In previous times, later age might have worked, but with how things work in Hollywood nowadays, I really think they shouldn't be older than that when they start. Unless they're a few years older but look way younger.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
I will make this point no further. Neither word applies, and if you cannot understand that we all start from the premise of KNOWING Cavill's work, thus being well-informed, which discards any superficial or shallow remark from the start, there's nothing else to add. I am NOT putting a lot of weight in the commercials, the commercials are the LAST step of a process, it's the umpteenth time I explain this to you because of your offensive remarks. Shown because they're a very good example of how he rocks a tux and how he definitely has the stylish, manly moves that Bond should have. AFTER already having seen him in plenty of things, thus knowing he is definitely a good actor and he can definitely play the part, as well as being good in fight scenes. So the substance is already there, and for Bond there needs to be the substance AND the looks. Thus the commercials. End of it.
And for the umpteenth time from me, that isn't enough to have justification as Bond. End of it.
I didn't intend to present my opinion on Cavill as fact, it's merely an opinion, and I apologise if it came off otherwise. Well, given Brosnan made the franchise rise from the ashes, and had fantastic results at the box office, not to mention he was and is incredibly popular, most felt differently from you, me included. Luckily for the franchise as well. I thought he was a great Bond.
That's great he accomplished so much. I still think he sucked, IMO.
I also disagree Craig is being done any injustice. He had one of the best screenwriters available on the market for the movies, so if anything he's being treated way better than those who preceded him in recent times.
I am sorry but I still have to disagree. Paul Haggis' scripts left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. I am sure EON had great intentions but that dosen't mean they suceeded. Also Haggis' other work was highly overrated to begin with.
43? Are you kidding? That's way too old to start playing Bond. I think given today's requirements they shouldn't be older than 32-33 tops when they start. Especially after Craig, who already looks too old for the part. In previous times, later age might have worked, but with how things work in Hollywood nowadays, I really think they shouldn't be older than that when they start. Unless they're a few years older but look way younger.
40 then. I think that is just fine. There is nothing wrong with Bond starting at that age at all. I think it's really silly to assume 35 or 37 is too old start playing a secret agent.
Researching Cavill, he has grown on me. I think he could age into a great Bond. Nothing new, but incredibly well-rounded.
Age isn't too important to me. Mid 30s is perfect. Especially if we're telling stories about the beginning of Bond's career.
Glad you seem to like him better. I do think he has all the necessary requirements to be a great Bond. Btw, he has a solid Shakespeare background to begin with. Which is always a great plus for an actor. Thing is (and I'll elaborate on this below), it's much better to be younger than older when you start carrying a franchise. Both for character and, even more so, for business purposes. And yes, like you, I'm starting from the premise they'll tell stories about the beginning of Bond's career.
And for the umpteenth time from me, that isn't enough to have justification as Bond. End of it.
That is NOT the justification, that's what you're not getting, or you're purposedly not getting in order to continue a sterile polemic aimed only at belittling me and others who made the previous comments. The one who isn't informed on Cavill here is you, not me or the others who posted. People who posted, me included, have seen him in a number of things and we formed our idea based on THAT, not based on a commercial. The commercial is just the cherry on the cake. I know he's a solid actor, I know he can act well, I have seen him in many things so I know from what I have seen that he'd be a great Bond for me (for me doesn't mean for everyone). Those commercials are just the final example because he's in a tux and they have Bond style written all over them. Example, not justification. Cherry on the cake, since examples are needed. The "justification" is all that comes before: he's a good actor, he's got the looks, the attitude, the style and everything that's required to be a good Bond. Plus, in the commercial you can see him in a tux and Bond environment, so that helps "visualize". The "justification" is his career and what he's done so far and how he carries himself, a whole bunch of things. The commercial video is just a very good visual example of how he'd look as Bond. THE END.
40 then. I think that is just fine. There is nothing wrong with Bond starting at that age at all. I think it's really silly to assume 35 or 37 is too old start playing a secret agent.
I'm not silly at all thank you. You can express your differing opinion without insulting others. As I have already explained, given the requirements Hollywood has for leading men today (and the fact they'd invest money only on someone who can carry on the project for a while) I think 33 tops is the right age. Unless, once again, the actor is older but looks younger. Nobody in Hollywood right now would give a 40-year-old man the lead role in a franchise that needs to carry on with that same face for at least 3 movies in general (which means 6 years at the very least). Especially when most money comes from the younger public.
Hugh Jackman was 32 when he started the X-Men franchise. Actually, younger. He was 32 when the movie was released, so probably around 30 when he was signed. That's an appropriate age for a leading man to start carrying a franchise. Or he'll be way too old way too quick. Same applies to Bond. Unless, again, someone has magnificent genes and at 40 they look like they're 30. In that case it can work, though it likely won't last for long. And, it is much easier to make a younger actor look older than to have an older actor look younger for character purposes. Despite having started at 32 and still looking fantastic, Jackman who is now 42 is starting to be too old for his own franchise (and I love him and I would never trade him with anyone but what's true is true.) He would never have been able to carry it had he started only two years ago, not a chance. But he started at a right age, so meantime the franchise thrived mainly on his big personal success (in fact they did the Wolverine spin-off for him). He's got the new Wolverine movie coming out but he can do at best another one, if any other one at all. They picked him at the right age and made tons of money because of it, so now at 42 he can end it whenever necessary. I'd think the Bond producers want the same result for the future, especially considering the horrible situation the production company is/has been in. So, in my opinion, not older than 33 when they begin, unless, again, actor is a few years older but looks way younger.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
I'm not silly at all thank you. You can express your differing opinion without insulting others. As I have already explained, given the requirements Hollywood has for leading men today (and the fact they'd invest money only on someone who can carry on the project for a while) I think 33 tops is the right age. Unless, once again, the actor is older but looks younger. Nobody in Hollywood right now would give a 40-year-old man the lead role in a franchise that needs to carry on with that same face for at least 3 movies in general (which means 6 years at the very least). Especially when most money comes from the younger public.
And yet a nearly 40 year old man who was virtually unknown was not only chosen as a leading man of a major movie franchise but an entire reboot of it. So much for that line of logic. 8-)
Hugh Jackman was 32 when he started the X-Men franchise. Actually, younger. He was 32 when the movie was released, so probably around 30 when he was signed. That's an appropriate age for a leading man to start carrying a franchise. Or he'll be way too old way too quick. Same applies to Bond. Unless, again, someone has magnificent genes and at 40 they look like they're 30. In that case it can work, though it likely won't last for long. And, it is much easier to make a younger actor look older than to have an older actor look younger for character purposes. Despite having started at 32 and still looking fantastic, Jackman who is now 42 is starting to be too old for his own franchise (and I love him and I would never trade him with anyone but what's true is true.) He would never have been able to carry it had he started only two years ago, not a chance. But he started at a right age, so meantime the franchise thrived mainly on his big personal success (in fact they did the Wolverine spin-off for him). He's got the new Wolverine movie coming out but he can do at best another one, if any other one at all. They picked him at the right age and made tons of money because of it, so now at 42 he can end it whenever necessary. I'd think the Bond producers want the same result for the future, especially considering the horrible situation the production company is/has been in. So, in my opinion, not older than 33 when they begin, unless, again, actor is a few years older but looks way younger.
You must have a serious hang up on age. At 42, Hugh Jackman still looks great. I really don't see any validity in your argument in the least bit. I am so glad that you aren't in charge of casting Bond because you'd probably cast 20 year old. ) Also surely you have noticed the reprisal of roles by men being being over 60 or close to it. So no one is going to cry if a 40 year old man is going to be cast as Bond.
M'eh. He seems pretty generic in his look, which would make him pretty boring to watch. Whatever one thinks of Craig, at least he's unique. Cavill looks the type who should be modeling for cologne or underwear ads or something equally vapid and ubiqitous.
And yet a nearly 40 year old man who was virtually unknown was not only chosen as a leading man of a major movie franchise but an entire reboot of it. So much for that line of logic. 8-)
What part of "six years ago there wasn't any financial crisis, not to mention he's only done two movies so far" escapes you? And meantime the production company is also bankrupt. So much for your line of logic. The situation today is completely different from what it was back then. There isn't nearly as much money and people only invest certain sums on young talent because that guarantees them to go on with a franchise for a long time. And I say this with first-hand knowledge, since I've been working in this exact environment in the past three years.
You must have a serious hang up on age. At 42, Hugh Jackman still looks great. I really don't see any validity in your argument in the least bit. I am so glad that you aren't in charge of casting Bond because you'd probably cast 20 year old. ) Also surely you have noticed the reprisal of roles by men being being over 60 or close to it. So no one is going to cry if a 40 year old man is going to be cast as Bond.
Except you're not even considering the facts because just like in the previous case, all you're interested in is sterile polemic (and insulting those who don't share your thoughts). I actually may end up casting for Bond too, much to your dismay (depending on how things evolve), and I never talked about 20 year olds. I said 32-33 tops AND Hugh Jackman perfectly proves my point with the age he started being Wolverine at (30) and how he made the company make tons of money. Not to mention the fact at 42 he's too old for the part, and that's exactly the point, he started at the right age, and things went great exactly because of that.
Go check the ages of actors who are in franchises or were the last to start franchises that are still going. They all started around the age I said. Christian Bale started Batman at 31 (actually no, he was younger because he was 31 when Batman Begins was released), Tobey Maguire was 27 when the first Spiderman was released (and he's nevertheless being replaced now, because of age, too), James Franco, also on Spiderman, was only 22 during the first movie (which is way younger than the ages I've been talking about. I think between 27 and 33 is the ideal). Taylor Kitsch, who just started with John Carter of Mars, was 28 when he started, now 29. They're casting for Superman again, (and btw that part also came very close for Cavill they then picked Routh... and the Batman role, too back then) and people they're considering are all around or under 30. Chris Evans, who will play Captain America, is 29. And other contenders for the role were younger than him. Plus as I explained, there's the perfect example of Hugh Jackman being 30 when he started X-Men.
Not that I should even bother given you don't listen and ignore facts in order to just be uselessly polemic.(And insult me in the process). By the way you introduced the age discussion, not I. Difference is, I speak having figures handy and having actually witnessed how they pick people and why these days. Which no, is not the same as when they picked Craig at all. Things have radically changed in the past three years. And production companies only invest in a franchise on certain terms, that sure don't include the leading man being 40 years old, unless it's a "comedy" franchise. These are facts and numbers, not opinions.
The fact 60-year-old people have roles has got nothing to do with an actor having to carry a franchise, and an action one at that. 60-year-old people aren't picked to start being the leading man in a franchise. Again, nobody would pick a 40-year-old now unless they looked considerably younger and were a guarantee for many movies to come (three being the BARE minimum...). Especially, once again, when the public that spends the most is the younger public. This is first and foremost a business. Reason why certain decisions are made. Also reason why Henry Cavill is considered an ideal candidate. He's reasonably well-known but not too well-known yet (which means he wouldn't have a stellar cost), he's a solid actor, has the perfect looks for the part, and he's young enough to be able to carry on for a long time with a franchise, but old enough to already have the necessary experience. (And he came very close to both Superman and Batman because of these reasons, too. Except he was too young back then, same thing as when he got to the "final two" round against Craig for Bond.)
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
In the I think first series of the Tudors Cavills character Bond sorry I mean Brandon has to escort the kings sister to portugal to marry an old king and on the voyage Cavill and the sister play ye ol game of cards and flirt like mad with each other,that scene to me was more Bondian than the whole of Craigs two outings put together.
Anyone who does not think Cavill would not make a GREAT Bond should check out that one scene[hope your reading this Babs].
In the I think first series of the Tudors Cavills character Bond sorry I mean Brandon has to escort the kings sister to portugal to marry an old king and on the voyage Cavill and the sister play ye ol game of cards and flirt like mad with each other,that scene to me was more Bondian than the whole of Craigs two outings put together.
Anyone who does not think Cavill would not make a GREAT Bond should check out that one scene[hope your reading this Babs].
) it's funny how I was just talking with a friend about exactly that scene being very James Bond-like. The episode you're talking about is episode 4 of Season 1. The part when he says "Pity, I had a winning hand" makes me see him in a tux at a casino rather than on a boat with Henry VIII's sister every time I watch the scene ) It's the cockiness he has while saying that, the attitude, the way he looks and all that. And, totally agree with you, that's more Bondian than the whole of Craig's two outings put together. Despite being in a costume )
I can't find a link with the whole conversation, which really is what is needed.
ETA: Got it.. though this probably includes too much, given many scenes in the Tudors were pretty "graphic" )
Anyway this includes almost all of the conversation (they cut the first part when he arrives and she clearly is finding an excuse to make him play cards with her)
DanielCraig007
Posts: 588MI6 Agent
Comments
You dont like Craig as Bond?
Cavill is only 27 years old. I say let Craig do a few more films and then let Cavill take over as Bond.
~ Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
In all honesty I think he has no charisma or polish at all and his constant pouting really grates on my nerves.
I did say in other post that I would not mind him doing 23 to tie up the Quantum nonsense and finish of Dame Judys M
but on reflection I would honestly like a complete fresh start for 23 with Cavill as Bond,Honeysuckle Weeks as Moneypenny,
Michael Kitchner as M and David Haigh as Q.
~ Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
How did I miss this thread? If it wasn't for Lexi (thank you Miss!) telling me I would never have known. Because I'm busy talking Cavill in the General Bond Chat forum
Well, better yet... Cavill has been filming his own action movie in Madrid and on the Spanish coast (amongst other locations) filming ended two weeks ago in Spain. The film is called "The Cold Light of Day". He's the leading man of the movie. His character's name is Will Shaw. This is the synopsis from the press release: "the movie focuses on a young American (Cavill) whose family is kidnapped while on a vacation to Spain. He is left with only hours to find the connection between their disappearance and his father’s secrets." The movie also stars Bruce Willis (guessing he plays the dad, since the leading role is Cavill's) and Sigourney Weaver. I would say this is the perfect token before he becomes Bond. The movie will be released in the US in 2011.
And, superdaddy, I completely share your feelings about Craig, but since I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel now, and it possibly (I HOPE) has Henry Cavill's face, I'll deal meantime :v I do agree with all your observations anyhow. The reasons you dislike Craig as Bond are the same ones I've always had. That said - while if it was for me, I'd always pick the Daltons/Brosnans/Cavills -I think it's not bad for the franchise to alternate actors that suit the taste of this or the other "faction" of fans in turn. Provided they give me Cavill next, and Craig only does one more. Otherwise as I said elsewhere, Barbara Broccoli will have a taste of my stilettos!
Anyway... Cavill is Absolutely James Bond (look what I did here
I don't have decent filming pics of his movie, but there were some candids in between takes published in October, with him donning fake bruises, etc. for a scene:
http://justjared.buzznet.com/2010/11/02/henry-cavill-cold-light-of-day-in-madrid/
There were other ones at the beach but they're really bad, he looks like he isn't in good shape or something, while normally he's super fit (he's been plenty naked in the Tudors and he looked damn fine), so I will avoid posting those
These are a couple of videos for the Dunhill ad, including the one with the Bentley (it's funny how we discussed this too in the other forum, yet I had NO idea there was talk about Cavill here too. All the better!):
With Bentley and Bond girl (girl is hot, and stylish, would be perfect if she can act!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s3Y1NA29tA
And backstage, where those who cast him for the ad IMO say exactly why he should be Bond:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mpgED5ZxUY
If this man isn't Bond, I do not know who is.
And may I add that (there's an interview on youtube where he says this) in real life, if he hadn't been an actor, he would have joined the forces? Or as a third option, pursued his interest in Egyptology. Doesn't get more perfect than that to play Bond
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKqFMxdN3Pc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s3Y1NA29tA
I swear the best part about those are some of the comments (other than mine haha). I won't quote some because they're frankly embarassing, but these:
Considering they come from random people, I'd say they're pretty indicative of how he comes across...
All I have to say is, so what ? What makes him stand-out so that he'd be a good Bond ?
All the stuff I posted above paired with this does IMO. (can people not see my posts though, I'm wondering
You honestly don't think judging him by those commericals are on very superficial standards ? So I ask again, what makes him stand out ? I haven't seen the guy act so why don't you describe some role he had that'd convince he could be a ruthless, secret agent ? Or at least have the acting skills to pull off the role.
If you really want to go by looks, the prospect of him as Bond looks tiring. Once again, a guy being picked because he looks good in a tux. I think James Bond should be played by manly men which Daniel Craig certainly comes off as in terms of looks and attitude. I just wish they gave him some decent scripts.
I'm not judging him by those commercials at all. I'm judging him having seen a lot of things he was in. (just like others on here, who mentioned the Tudors. That's four seasons of a primetime show in the US, I'd say you've got plenty of chance to see he's a good actor there.) The commercials are for the Bond attitude and looks merely. And they surely are there. Both the attitude, and the looks, and the style. If you can't see that, I certainly can't make you see it. We don't all have the same taste.
You haven't seen anything with Cavill, yet you seem determined to tell us (people who have seen him act) that we're wrong. If you dislike him by principle it's fine, but please don't imply we're being superficial about it. I have a long post above explaining the whys and hows of my preference for him. (I'm starting to wonder if that post is invisible since the same link I posted was posted below
He often plays the hero but in time pieces, and he certainly doesn't need to prove that he can act. He's already abundantly proved that. I'd say many of us here feel the same way re: his acting because we have actually seen him, so either you think we're giving an accurate and informed opinion, and accept it as such, or you need to form your own, which means you need to watch him yourself in what he's done recently for starters. You'll see the exact role you want to see to "prove" he can be Bond when he has his action movie coming out in 2011. I summarized the plot in my previous post.
Anyway as Charles Brandon on the Tudors he DID play the tough guy, faithful to the King, who goes to war (and he had fighting scenes as well) AND who is also a womanizer. That's basically a Bond in costume. He definitely has the acting skills to pull off the role, I'd say he may even be too good of an actor for Bond.
I presume you're unaware of the fact the Bond role came "very close" for him already (his own words) when Craig was picked? And that the main reason why he didn't get it was very simply that he was too young back then. But he's the one who got to the final line with Craig. That too should help you consider the fact that he actually does have the requirements to be Bond, or he would never have gotten so far with casting for CR in the first place. Many of us have been talking about Cavill ever since back then, which is why we don't every time list what he's been in... it's basically common knowledge around the forums. So that may have caused the misunderstanding, too.
I never said I couldn't see it. What my point is that it isn't enough to convince me he's James Bond. Bond should not picked but such superficial standards.
I am not "determined" to do anything. I just think some commericals aren't proof that Henry Cavill could be James Bond. I already admitted I hadn't seen him anything but your doing little to convince he had that Bondish quality. I'll watch the upcoming action film he's starring in, it sounds pretty decent.
I already know he close to becoming Bond. So what if he was picked ? Since when is EON infallible ? I did not care for Pierce Brosnan. Dalton was perfect and yet they have him 3rd rate scripts. Craig is great now but they are letting him down like Dalton.
Again with the superficial remark? Do you realise you're being offensive here? I said "I've seen him in plenty of things" and I have an informed opinion on him as an actor. We're past that when the commercials are listed. I already have seen him in plenty of things, so I already know he's a very good actor and he can definitely pull off the Bond role. I said first and foremost that he's a good actor, and like most on here, I've seen him act. We're watching these because the acting premise is there already for all of us... so no, we aren't being superficial at all. The commercials are just the final thing of a process. I said that above already, but I guess I didn't explain myself properly.
Nobody here thinks he can be Bond just based on two commercials, and it's offensive that you imply that. Again, we all already know he's a good actor and he can definitely be Bond, having actually seen him act. On top of that, he also has the style, the looks and the attitude, that can be seen in those commercials since the commercial basically has the main Bond style ingredients. Hence why the commercials were posted. I'm not going to repeat this again: we aren't being superficial at all.
And since when is the above fact? Those are just opinions. I LOVED Pierce Brosnan as Bond. I very much liked Dalton too, and I completely disagree he was given 3rd rate scripts. And I don't think Craig is great at all. I don't like him one bit as Bond. As others were saying above, he totally lacks the charisma, style and attitude to be Bond (not to mention the looks), an opinion I completely share. I don't think anyone is letting Craig down at all or that they let Dalton down. The Dalton movies didn't do well at the box office yet I liked them. The Craig movies did great, yet I happened to dislike both (CR I found absolutely boring, and QoS I thought was just a bad movie). It's just and only taste and opinion.
Now, if you want to form your own opinion on Cavill, I'd recommend to watch The Tudors. It's four seasons and plenty of episodes, you sure can see he can definitely act there.
This is a scene from the final season. He has beard and longer hair because for script reasons the character needed to age.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ysnvqmqBAQ&feature=related
Andy Whitfield is a good pick. Strong. Emotionally investing. Cool. Inspiring. Manly. Sadly, he is having health problems. Cancer I'm afraid.
I think that this Matthew Marsden is worse than Cavill. I can see Cavill being picked 100% if he wasn't following Daniel Craig. Craig is very popular with audiences (maybe not Bond purists), so I think they will have to try exceptionally hard to find a replacement with the same amount of ruggedness and intimidation.
Alessandra, I agree that Dalton's scripts were fine and that Casino Royale is a total bore. : )
I also think they won't be looking for someone who is like or looks like Craig for the next Bond. I think they'll probably go back to more "traditional" Bond looks and formula. Actually I think Cavill is great, and has good chances of being picked exactly for the reason he's in between. He's very masculine and can definitely play the rugged guy and he's good at fighting scenes, but he also has gorgeous looks and great style. He also has the right amount of popularity: he's well known not just in Europe, but in the US too and women swoon over him (that I can guarantee
That said, I'm not the one who picks ultimately, and given Barbara Broccoli's track record, I just need to hope someone will force her to make the right choice (which would be Cavill, of course
I don't know either of the above-mentioned actors so I can't express any judgment on them as actors. I'll assume they're both good. In terms of looks I like the Whitfield guy, he's not bad. But while being much better looking than Craig, he still reminds me of him, so... that's a big point against him for me
The Marsden guy looks (I'm just talking about looks here, I've seen him in nothing so I will just assume he is a good actor unless told otherwise) just not right for the Bond part IMO. He looks too soft-faced and too "ordinary" to me, for lack of a better word. I anyway also think these guys are already too old to start portraying Bond. One is 35 and the other is 37 already. Let me specify: I think that's absolutely young in everyday life, I just think it's old to begin a role in the Bond franchise.
But you seem to put alot of weight on those commericals. You can't deny that. You don't like word superficial ? Shallow perhaps ?
I know just like you thinking Cavill would be a great James Bond. Timothy Dalton was wasted and now Craig is being done the same injustice, IMO. Pierce Brosnan was a wimp and he couldn't deliver the one liners as well as Connery or more. He hardly cut through the camera.
He's not bad.
Did you see Marsden in Rambo ? I thought he was pretty good. Okay they are better choices, I'll give you that. I don't think it would be such a bad one though.
Are you joking ? How old do you think Bond actor should be when he starts ? They should really be no younger than 30 and no more than 43.
I will make this point no further. Neither word applies, and if you cannot understand that we all start from the premise of KNOWING Cavill's work, thus being well-informed, which discards any superficial or shallow remark from the start, there's nothing else to add. I am NOT putting a lot of weight in the commercials, the commercials are the LAST step of a process, it's the umpteenth time I explain this to you because of your offensive remarks. Shown because they're a very good example of how he rocks a tux and how he definitely has the stylish, manly moves that Bond should have. AFTER already having seen him in plenty of things, thus knowing he is definitely a good actor and he can definitely play the part, as well as being good in fight scenes. So the substance is already there, and for Bond there needs to be the substance AND the looks. Thus the commercials. End of it.
I didn't intend to present my opinion on Cavill as fact, it's merely an opinion, and I apologise if it came off otherwise. Well, given Brosnan made the franchise rise from the ashes, and had fantastic results at the box office, not to mention he was and is incredibly popular, most felt differently from you, me included. Luckily for the franchise as well. I thought he was a great Bond.
I also disagree Craig is being done any injustice. He had one of the best screenwriters available on the market for the movies, so if anything he's being treated way better than those who preceded him in recent times. I just don't think he's a good Bond. He's played two movies that couldn't be further from what Bond is as far as I'm concerned. They tried fixing it a bit with QoS to get back to something that vaguely resembles a more traditional Bond, but not nearly enough for my taste. And since we're veering definitely off-topic, given we're supposed to discuss Cavill here and not Craig or Brosnan or Dalton, I'll leave it at that. I really don't want this pleasant Cavill topic to turn into "Brosnan-Dalton-Craig", not to mention it's against the rules and I have contributed to going off-topic enough already
Good. That's just one scene so watching more you may either think he's bad or that he's good. I have no idea what you may think in the end, it depends on what your preferences are. Directors and people who do this for a living have praised him for his acting skills already... so he can definitely act, but that doesn't mean you'd like him. It all comes down to taste in the end.
43? Are you kidding? That's way too old to start playing Bond. I think given today's requirements they shouldn't be older than 32-33 tops when they start. Especially after Craig, who already looks too old for the part. In previous times, later age might have worked, but with how things work in Hollywood nowadays, I really think they shouldn't be older than that when they start. Unless they're a few years older but look way younger.
And for the umpteenth time from me, that isn't enough to have justification as Bond. End of it.
That's great he accomplished so much. I still think he sucked, IMO.
I am sorry but I still have to disagree. Paul Haggis' scripts left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. I am sure EON had great intentions but that dosen't mean they suceeded. Also Haggis' other work was highly overrated to begin with.
40 then. I think that is just fine. There is nothing wrong with Bond starting at that age at all. I think it's really silly to assume 35 or 37 is too old start playing a secret agent.
Age isn't too important to me. Mid 30s is perfect. Especially if we're telling stories about the beginning of Bond's career.
Glad you seem to like him better.
That is NOT the justification, that's what you're not getting, or you're purposedly not getting in order to continue a sterile polemic aimed only at belittling me and others who made the previous comments. The one who isn't informed on Cavill here is you, not me or the others who posted. People who posted, me included, have seen him in a number of things and we formed our idea based on THAT, not based on a commercial. The commercial is just the cherry on the cake. I know he's a solid actor, I know he can act well, I have seen him in many things so I know from what I have seen that he'd be a great Bond for me (for me doesn't mean for everyone). Those commercials are just the final example because he's in a tux and they have Bond style written all over them. Example, not justification. Cherry on the cake, since examples are needed. The "justification" is all that comes before: he's a good actor, he's got the looks, the attitude, the style and everything that's required to be a good Bond. Plus, in the commercial you can see him in a tux and Bond environment, so that helps "visualize". The "justification" is his career and what he's done so far and how he carries himself, a whole bunch of things. The commercial video is just a very good visual example of how he'd look as Bond. THE END.
I'm not silly at all thank you. You can express your differing opinion without insulting others. As I have already explained, given the requirements Hollywood has for leading men today (and the fact they'd invest money only on someone who can carry on the project for a while) I think 33 tops is the right age. Unless, once again, the actor is older but looks younger. Nobody in Hollywood right now would give a 40-year-old man the lead role in a franchise that needs to carry on with that same face for at least 3 movies in general (which means 6 years at the very least). Especially when most money comes from the younger public.
Hugh Jackman was 32 when he started the X-Men franchise. Actually, younger. He was 32 when the movie was released, so probably around 30 when he was signed. That's an appropriate age for a leading man to start carrying a franchise. Or he'll be way too old way too quick. Same applies to Bond. Unless, again, someone has magnificent genes and at 40 they look like they're 30. In that case it can work, though it likely won't last for long. And, it is much easier to make a younger actor look older than to have an older actor look younger for character purposes. Despite having started at 32 and still looking fantastic, Jackman who is now 42 is starting to be too old for his own franchise (and I love him and I would never trade him with anyone but what's true is true.) He would never have been able to carry it had he started only two years ago, not a chance. But he started at a right age, so meantime the franchise thrived mainly on his big personal success (in fact they did the Wolverine spin-off for him). He's got the new Wolverine movie coming out but he can do at best another one, if any other one at all. They picked him at the right age and made tons of money because of it, so now at 42 he can end it whenever necessary. I'd think the Bond producers want the same result for the future, especially considering the horrible situation the production company is/has been in. So, in my opinion, not older than 33 when they begin, unless, again, actor is a few years older but looks way younger.
And yet a nearly 40 year old man who was virtually unknown was not only chosen as a leading man of a major movie franchise but an entire reboot of it. So much for that line of logic. 8-)
You must have a serious hang up on age. At 42, Hugh Jackman still looks great. I really don't see any validity in your argument in the least bit. I am so glad that you aren't in charge of casting Bond because you'd probably cast 20 year old.
What part of "six years ago there wasn't any financial crisis, not to mention he's only done two movies so far" escapes you? And meantime the production company is also bankrupt. So much for your line of logic. The situation today is completely different from what it was back then. There isn't nearly as much money and people only invest certain sums on young talent because that guarantees them to go on with a franchise for a long time. And I say this with first-hand knowledge, since I've been working in this exact environment in the past three years.
Except you're not even considering the facts because just like in the previous case, all you're interested in is sterile polemic (and insulting those who don't share your thoughts). I actually may end up casting for Bond too, much to your dismay (depending on how things evolve), and I never talked about 20 year olds. I said 32-33 tops AND Hugh Jackman perfectly proves my point with the age he started being Wolverine at (30) and how he made the company make tons of money. Not to mention the fact at 42 he's too old for the part, and that's exactly the point, he started at the right age, and things went great exactly because of that.
Go check the ages of actors who are in franchises or were the last to start franchises that are still going. They all started around the age I said. Christian Bale started Batman at 31 (actually no, he was younger because he was 31 when Batman Begins was released), Tobey Maguire was 27 when the first Spiderman was released (and he's nevertheless being replaced now, because of age, too), James Franco, also on Spiderman, was only 22 during the first movie (which is way younger than the ages I've been talking about. I think between 27 and 33 is the ideal). Taylor Kitsch, who just started with John Carter of Mars, was 28 when he started, now 29. They're casting for Superman again, (and btw that part also came very close for Cavill they then picked Routh... and the Batman role, too back then) and people they're considering are all around or under 30. Chris Evans, who will play Captain America, is 29. And other contenders for the role were younger than him. Plus as I explained, there's the perfect example of Hugh Jackman being 30 when he started X-Men.
Not that I should even bother given you don't listen and ignore facts in order to just be uselessly polemic.(And insult me in the process). By the way you introduced the age discussion, not I. Difference is, I speak having figures handy and having actually witnessed how they pick people and why these days. Which no, is not the same as when they picked Craig at all. Things have radically changed in the past three years. And production companies only invest in a franchise on certain terms, that sure don't include the leading man being 40 years old, unless it's a "comedy" franchise. These are facts and numbers, not opinions.
The fact 60-year-old people have roles has got nothing to do with an actor having to carry a franchise, and an action one at that. 60-year-old people aren't picked to start being the leading man in a franchise. Again, nobody would pick a 40-year-old now unless they looked considerably younger and were a guarantee for many movies to come (three being the BARE minimum...). Especially, once again, when the public that spends the most is the younger public. This is first and foremost a business. Reason why certain decisions are made. Also reason why Henry Cavill is considered an ideal candidate. He's reasonably well-known but not too well-known yet (which means he wouldn't have a stellar cost), he's a solid actor, has the perfect looks for the part, and he's young enough to be able to carry on for a long time with a franchise, but old enough to already have the necessary experience. (And he came very close to both Superman and Batman because of these reasons, too. Except he was too young back then, same thing as when he got to the "final two" round against Craig for Bond.)
Anyone who does not think Cavill would not make a GREAT Bond should check out that one scene[hope your reading this Babs].
I can't find a link with the whole conversation, which really is what is needed.
ETA: Got it.. though this probably includes too much, given many scenes in the Tudors were pretty "graphic"
Anyway this includes almost all of the conversation (they cut the first part when he arrives and she clearly is finding an excuse to make him play cards with her)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AU7qC23rqI