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.
Well, Gassy, it seems that the young up and coming actors seem to fit that style. Atleast, here in America they do (Zac Efron, the Twilight guy). Pretty boys with light builds. Attractive but sort of ordinary looks. Solid actors but nothing really new or exciting. Its unfortunate but actors seem to get less individualistic with each new generation.
All of the Bond actors have been pretty unique for their generation of actors. It might be interesting to have a man with more average qualities as a hero. Who knows?
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.
I personnely think there is nothing unique about Craig and in all his films Bonds, Defiance,Munich he appears drab and completely unintresting.
That might be fine for some of the roles [a jewish partisan in Defiance is not supposed to be sauve ] but not Bond.
Also whats wrong with looking like a model both Connery and Moore worked as models and when I was in the forces manymoons ago a few of my mates in there used to moonlight as models so there is nothing fey or cissy about having model good looks.All the talk about what a great actor DC is Ipersonnely have yet to see this,as I have said before all he seems to do is pout,tries to look posh[fails imho] or look miserable.
Again this is just me and Im not antiCraig he probaly is a really nice chap he is just not Bond to me whereas I think Cavill could be amazing.
You have a point, James, considered you're not convinced about him. (But warming up... haha you WILL be assimilated! )
But Pattinson (horrid! :O) and Zac Efron have nothing to do with Cavill though IMO, not phisically (Cavill is 1 mt 85, or 6 ft 1 if you prefer, and he played rugby... certainly not a sport for people with light builds. He stopped playing because of injuries. He has big shoulders and arms, and muscular legs) and least of all acting-wise (solid Shakespeare background, serious actor, and already pretty damn good at his age). I think Cavill is anything but ordinary or generic. He's incredibly gorgeous (which in itself is no ordinary quality), he's got lots of personality, he's got an edge to him, and he has that gentleman way of talking and carrying himself that really make him different from not just men his age, but the average current man in general! ) If where you come from it's ordinary to look like him, be as good as he is at acting and have this edge plus gentleman quality to oneself, by all means I beg you guys to give me your addresses, because I need to check that zone immediately ) (not valid for US or England, I know both countries very well and the US has been my second home for the past 15 years... no way men like Cavill are common in either of those places ) ).
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.
Being unique is not a good reason to be Bond IMO. And I personally don't see Craig as unique. One of the things I said many times is that to me he looks very "blue collar" and way too "ordinary people" to be Bond. Bond needs to have specific qualities that Craig IMO is sorely lacking. We don't all like the same things and see the same things in people. This is just and only my taste. Cavill is neither vapid nor ubiquitous. He's a good actor who started out with Shakespeare ever since he was in college. And he's actually never been in any production that was "vapid". Bond is required to be handsome, actually very handsome and successful with the ladies, so the fact Cavill has great looks is a point in his favor if anything, not against. The fact he does cologne ads (for Dunhill, not for some cheap grocery store brand) is just a way to make money that maaany actors nowadays use. Nothing wrong with it, and he also gets to be in a far more prestigious and high level campaign than mos others. George Clooney advertises coffee with John Malkovich here in Italy, the guy who played Sawyer in "Lost" is the face of the Cool Water cologne campaign for Davidoff, John Travolta does telephone company commercials, and so on (there are De Niro and Dustin Hoffman even in commercials here! )).
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Connery was 32 when he started playing Bond. I've looked at the film clips posted here, and while Henry Cavill appear superficially to be good (he has the looks, he's tall enough, he has the attitude, and he has a very masculine, deep voice), I can't comment objectively on his acting abilities. But I would support his appointment as James Bond in five or six years, but certainly not now.
My view is that an actor who starts playing James Bond should be about 32 to 38 years of age. I don't think that James Bond's age was given in any Fleming novel, but it would be reasonable to assume that he was a character in his mid 30s. Henry Cavill may be too young to play Bond now, but I think in five or six years, he can definitely make the grade.
Connery was 32 when he started playing Bond. I've looked at the film clips posted here, and while Henry Cavill appear superficially to be good (he has the looks, he's tall enough, he has the attitude, and he has a very masculine, deep voice), I can't comment objectively on his acting abilities. But I would support his appointment as James Bond in five or six years, but certainly not now.
My view is that an actor who starts playing James Bond should be about 32 to 38 years of age. I don't think that James Bond's age was given in any Fleming novel, but it would be reasonable to assume that he was a character in his mid 30s. Henry Cavill may be too young to play Bond now, but I think in five or six years, he can definitely make the grade.
Lazenby was 28 and Cubby wanted Dalton to play Bond when he was 23 so I think Cavill could easily play him at 27/28 after all he plays an older man in the Tudors.
Also i know its not really that important but Henry comes from a military family and has said if he hadnt gone into acting he would have joined the forces so he has probaly got an insight into weapons and suchlike which might be a bonus for realism fans.
Connery was 32 when he started playing Bond. I've looked at the film clips posted here, and while Henry Cavill appear superficially to be good (he has the looks, he's tall enough, he has the attitude, and he has a very masculine, deep voice), I can't comment objectively on his acting abilities. But I would support his appointment as James Bond in five or six years, but certainly not now.
My view is that an actor who starts playing James Bond should be about 32 to 38 years of age. I don't think that James Bond's age was given in any Fleming novel, but it would be reasonable to assume that he was a character in his mid 30s. Henry Cavill may be too young to play Bond now, but I think in five or six years, he can definitely make the grade.
Lazenby was 28 and Cubby wanted Dalton to play Bond when he was 23 so I think Cavill could easily play him at 27/28 after all he plays an older man in the Tudors.
Also i know its not really that important but Henry comes from a military family and has said if he hadnt gone into acting he would have joined the forces so he has probaly got an insight into weapons and suchlike which might be a bonus for realism fans.
I think it depends to a large degree on the script, and if this is meant to be a new (ish) 007, a mid period piece or Bond towards the end of his 00 career. In the novels 00's were retired at 46. For me the whole re-boot newbie 00 piece would have always sat better with a younger actor as was I believe the initial intention. The change to DC fairly late in the day, a not particularly young looking 38 at the time meant for me at least that the rookie element should have been dropped and CR pitched as a 'mid-period' Bond adventure.
I have always longed for a Bond at the end of his career, a little burnt out, more than a tad jaded and having to struggle to 'pull it out of the bag' Dalton would have been perfect. It would have been a great Swansong for Brosnan, and could be for DC if he makes more than one more.
After the re-boot it makes sense for me for the timeline to avoid going back again to a younger Bond at least for a while. Therefore Cavill still looks a bit young to me. It all depends upon how many more films DC makes and where the timeline fetches up for 23 and beyond.
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.
Oh I am sorry he's only done to movies that have a combined total of a billon dollars gross revenue. 8-) Also just because there wasn't a financial crisis at MGM dosen't mean Bond was flying at that point. After 40 years, you all of a sudden don't wake up and realize that your film franchise is looking mighty tired.
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.
Since when has the rugged Wolverine been the symbol of youth ? Just because he started at 33 dosen't mean he's now too old. Your are the first one that I know of who's complaining about Jackman's age now. Comic book fans and the general public still love Jackman as Wolverine and I wouldn't be surprised that'll he would stay in the role for some time. And end up being involved for the casting for Bond ? Good luck with 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.
Or maybe it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense having the same Spiderman/Peter Parker in a reboot. Also Peter Parker was only in high school student when he became Spiderman so yes, I kind of expect him to played by a man under 30 in his origin film. Another thing you seem to have left out is Robert Downey Jr. and Edward Norton as Iron Man and The Hulk respectively. They were definetly over 30 when they accepted those roles. Downey Jr. and Norton's replacement, who's two years his senior, is also going to appear in upcoming The Avengers movie along with Jeremy Renner as Hawk eye and Don Cheadle as War Machine. Also Samuel L. Jackson, who is over fifty, is going to appear as Nick Fury in several Marvel pictures; He'll most likely star in the upcoming Nick Fury film.
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.
I don't deny youth being favored on film but really, it's clearly your own opinion when it's too old to start or when these people retire from roles.
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.
But they still took good to huge big box office numbers even after years of said franchises being dormant; Die Hard and Indiana Jones for example. So again I say, no one is going to cry if a 40 year old man is cast at the beginning of 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...).
Just wondering... legally can they ditch Craig now? I can see him walking away somehow by mutual agreement, esp if his other films pan out.
The prob with having an older actor is that you struggle to find young actresses who look right alongside an older guy, the older the actress the less likely she is to find FHM covers or for her to be unknown-ish; they like unknowns to draw people in, the curiosity factor.
Cavill? The commercials may work against him; after all Owen did them too and that didn't pan out. Likewise the fact he's up and running as an action hero already in a new film with Bruce Willis, by the time his time comes around he'll be too big, or damaged goods.
Just wondering... legally can they ditch Craig now? I can see him walking away somehow by mutual agreement, esp if his other films pan out.
The prob with having an older actor is that you struggle to find young actresses who look right alongside an older guy, the older the actress the less likely she is to find FHM covers or for her to be unknown-ish; they like unknowns to draw people in, the curiosity factor.
Cavill? The commercials may work against him; after all Owen did them too and that didn't pan out. Likewise the fact he's up and running as an action hero already in a new film with Bruce Willis, by the time his time comes around he'll be too big, or damaged goods.
Owen has stated that he never ever wanted to play Bond and I believe it was just the tabloids speculating that he was the next 007 because his adverts were rather Bondian whereas Cavill went for the role and damm near got it[a curse on that stubby Bourne/Bauer
wannabe who calls himself Bond]and the Dior adverts came after and in all honesty I dont think they will do Cavills chance any harm.
Iwould not be a bit surprised if he is on some sort of retainer to take over from Craig at a later date.
I really have no dog in this fight (er discussion). I like Craig as Bond and really have no strong opinion regarding Cavill but from what little I have seen of him would have an open mind relative to his taking over as Bond after DC's tenure ends. However let's be honest here, alot of this who should play next Bond stuff is really let's get rid of DC because we don't like him. I can relate because I never cared for Roger Moore as Bond and I was always sizing up actors who I thought would be better in the part (a bit myopic on my part at the time as I wasn't seeing the big picture relative to EON's role beyond just casting Moore....scripts, directors, the direction of the franchise, etc). Not looking to pick a fight here or flame anyone, just my personal observation.
Just wondering... legally can they ditch Craig now? I can see him walking away somehow by mutual agreement, esp if his other films pan out.
The prob with having an older actor is that you struggle to find young actresses who look right alongside an older guy, the older the actress the less likely she is to find FHM covers or for her to be unknown-ish; they like unknowns to draw people in, the curiosity factor.
Cavill? The commercials may work against him; after all Owen did them too and that didn't pan out. Likewise the fact he's up and running as an action hero already in a new film with Bruce Willis, by the time his time comes around he'll be too big, or damaged goods.
I gave synopsis and what not for the Cavill/Willis movie at the beginning of the thread, and I don't think he will be too big when the time comes (despite him being the lead of the movie, not Willis). The movie sounds like a well-made action flick but not a mega-production or anything that would garner him more attention than he normally gets. (which is anyway a good amount ) ). I also don't see how the Dunhill ads can do him any wrong. Owen didn't do Bond because they didn't pay him enough and in the end he wasn't all that interested in it, not because of the ads.
If they find a mutual agreement (or simply if they pay enough money) they can ditch Craig. Obviously if he wants to walk away, same applies... they can find an agreement. I don't think, given the troubled state of the company, that they'd change right now, I think they'd have Craig do one more movie and then change.
It is much, much easier to make a younger man look older than the opposite. Hence why especially now and especially for action franchises they pick younger rather than older actors. I think whoever plays Bond after Cavill will necessarily have to play a young Bond again (not that Craig looked any young), not mid-career. Not to mention since agents retired at around 46, there isn't that big of an age-span to work on. Younger audiences are those who spend the most at the box office, so production companies are very attentive to casting younger people as a general rule. And while the key demographic for viewers has always been 18-45 (years old), both TV networks and movie execs are now increasingly focusing on the younger demographic, which is 18-34, and financing projects that fare well with this demographic in particular.
As as for my last off-topic in here: Ricardo, I won't bother replying to you anymore after this. As usual you have paid zero attention to what I said and keep going on with your sterile polemics. Without forgetting to conveniently ignore figures and facts that you even quoted. Facts, not opinion, by the way. You quoted but didn't read the age span I talked about (which, as I stated in previous posts, was 27-33: that clearly DOES include over 30 people). I also specified time and time again that IF an actor looks way younger than his age, then they'd cast him even if older. But they'd need someone who at 40 looks at many years younger, which is very difficult to find and also gives no guarantees for years to follow. You completely missed the point about EON too. What they could risk, pay and do back then with an older actor like Craig doesn't apply anymore now. Not only they're bankrupt, but after the financial crisis things in this sense have drastically changed in Hollywood. I've been experiencing it for work in the past 3 years and this isn't opinion at all unfortunately, it's the reality that anyone working in Hollywood, especially those dealing with casting, will tell you about.
The Marvel movies prove exactly my point. Iron Man is the only one of the two (the other being Hulk) movies with older leading men by the way that got very good results, with a worldwide gross of $585 mln (and production costs of $140 mln). Hulk did mediocre at the US box office, they didn't even cover production costs, the movie cost $150 mln and they grossed a modest $130 mln in the US.. they were saved by the international gains, but the result remains far from brilliant, a total $263 mln. In any case both Downey Jr and Norton remain clear exceptions out of the many more examples I quoted. There's three times as many actors who are cast in the age span I indicated in these examples alone (Kitsch, Maguire, Evans, Jackman, Bale, Routh). Just to cite another and a Marvel one at that, Gruffudd (leading man) was 32 when they released Fantastic 4 (which means he was cast at around 30), Evans was only 24, Jessica Alba was 24. Michael Chiklis was supposed to look way older than the others because of the character, and he was in fact 42. The casting for Superman is ongoing again and they're looking at people around or under 30 for the part.
You also didn't understand at all that I LOVE Hugh Jackman (and I said so in the very first post where I made his name) and anyone who knows me here knows that, as when Craig was picked I said they should have picked Jackman instead (it was then or never again, given his age) since he would have been perfect as Bond and that was the only chance. I am not "complaining" about Jackman's age at all.. he's mighty fine and much better looking than a lot of 20-year-olds. And he sure looks WAY younger than Craig despite being the same age. That doesn't change the fact that time passes for him too and while I much prefer his charm to that of a pointless 20-year-old he IS starting to look too old for what he does. In fact, he himself said so in an interview on I think CBS (or one of the main US networks anyway) a while ago. And he was cast as Wolverine at 30/31, not 33. He was 32 when the first X-Men movie was released.
Now back to topic.
This is a series of Cavill interviews from S1-2-3-4 of the Tudors (that means the oldest one is from 3 years ago). My opinion is that even in that red t-shirt in s1, or in the costumes of the other interviews, he looks more Bondian than Craig ever did. And he's not even acting ) Attitude, looks, voice... it's all there as far as I'm concerned. He's 3 years older than he was in the first interview now, and they easily made him look around 40 on the show in the final season with just a few look changes. To me, even right now he has the perfect looks and attitude to be Bond. He will anyway for sure be more than ready if Craig does another movie (or even more so, two).
.As as for my last off-topic in here: Ricardo, I won't bother replying to you anymore after this. As usual you have paid zero attention to what I said and keep going on with your sterile polemics. Without forgetting to conveniently ignore figures and facts that you even quoted. Facts, not opinion, by the way. You quoted but didn't read the age span I talked about (which, as I stated in previous posts, was 27-33: that clearly DOES include over 30 people). I also specified time and time again that IF an actor looks way younger than his age, then they'd cast him even if older. But they'd need someone who at 40 looks at many years younger, which is very difficult to find and also gives no guarantees for years to follow.
Oh I am sorry, 33 years old. That's a lot of leeway after 30. 8-)
You completely missed the point about EON too. What they could risk, pay and do back then with an older actor like Craig doesn't apply anymore now. Not only they're bankrupt, but after the financial crisis things in this sense have drastically changed in Hollywood. I've been experiencing it for work in the past 3 years and this isn't opinion at all unfortunately, it's the reality that anyone working in Hollywood, especially those dealing with casting, will tell you about.
So tell me, why haven't they ditched Craig ? Also you talk as though casting Craig in the first place wasn't that serious and it certaintly was.
The Marvel movies prove exactly my point. Iron Man is the only one of the two (the other being Hulk) movies with older leading men by the way that got very good results, with a worldwide gross of $585 mln (and production costs of $140 mln). Hulk did mediocre at the US box office, they didn't even cover production costs, the movie cost $150 mln and they grossed a modest $130 mln in the US.. they were saved by the international gains, but the result remains far from brilliant, a total $263 mln. In any case both Downey Jr and Norton remain clear exceptions out of the many more examples I quoted. There's three times as many actors who are cast in the age span I indicated in these examples alone (Kitsch, Maguire, Evans, Jackman, Bale, Routh). Just to cite another and a Marvel one at that, Gruffudd (leading man) was 32 when they started Fantastic 4, Evans was only 24, Jessica Alba was 24. Michael Chiklis was supposed to look way older than the others because of the character, and he was in fact 42. The casting for Superman is ongoing again and they're looking at people around or under 30 for the part.
I already conceded the favortism of youth and it's not shocking since those are origin stories you mention in the past and upcoming. However you are also forgeting, once again, the rest of the cast in the Avengers movies and some of the most popular characters are portrayed by actors over 40. Also they could have very easily replaced Norton with a younger man but they didn't.
You also didn't understand at all that I LOVE Hugh Jackman and anyone who knows me here knows that, as when Craig was picked I said they should have picked Jackman instead (it was then or never again, given his age) since he would have been perfect as Bond and that was the only chance. I am not "complaining" about Jackman's age at all.. he's mighty fine and much better looking than a lot of 20-year-olds. That doesn't change the fact that time passes for him too and while I much prefer his charm to that of a pointless 20-year-old he IS starting to look too old for what he does. In fact, he himself said so in an interview on I think CBS a while ago. And he was cast as Wolverine at 30/31, not 33. He was 32 when the first X-Men movie was released.
Again, the character of Wolverine is a very rugged looking hard edged manly man. I still find it ridiculous that you are calling Jackman out as being too old at merely 42 years old. Obviously Hollywood dosen't care since he still going to continue playing the character in 2011. I also want to hear this alledged statement from Jackman.
He definitely looks like he could play the part, but I do think he needs just a couple more years of seasoning. Probably by the time Craig finishes his run, he'll be perfect! He seems like a good actor, and he fits the roll, but I'm in no hurry for Craig to leave either.
He definitely looks like he could play the part, but I do think he needs just a couple more years of seasoning. Probably by the time Craig finishes his run, he'll be perfect! He seems like a good actor, and he fits the roll, but I'm in no hurry for Craig to leave either.
I would have liked Craig to never get the part in the first place ), but that said I think it's his right to do another movie, thus having a "finished" trilogy, so to speak. Which means, by the time Craig is done with the next movie, Cavill will be perfect Cavill is a good actor and I'll be thrilled to see someone play Bond who actually looks and moves like James Bond, if he gets the part. Now someone better remind Broccoli of it. Or actually, given the situation, chances are they may pick Cavill because there will be others, and not just her, making the decision. He's well-known and appreciated in the US too, now, so he'd be a good pick for both the European and the US market. He's up and coming and he's got a good fan base, without being a huge star... as I said previously, like Brosnan when he was picked. So it would be perfect IMO. I just hope they are smart enough to keep contact with him (or whoever else they want to pick, hopefully him), since they clearly know at this point whether Craig is going to be around for more than one movie (apparently there could be scheduling conflicts with the movie he signed for meantime) or not. Whatever their situation is, they had to make it clear to Craig in order for him to be able to make adequate choices work-wise, so that means they must know at least whether he's gonna do one or two more movies. Which equals... keep Cavill close ) (or, as I said, whomever else they want to pick).
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
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.
Well, Gassy, it seems that the young up and coming actors seem to fit that style. Atleast, here in America they do (Zac Efron, the Twilight guy). Pretty boys with light builds. Attractive but sort of ordinary looks. Solid actors but nothing really new or exciting. Its unfortunate but actors seem to get less individualistic with each new generation.
All of the Bond actors have been pretty unique for their generation of actors. It might be interesting to have a man with more average qualities as a hero. Who knows?
But Bond shouldn't be "average." He shouldn't look like a mannequin or Abercrombie and Fitch model either. What makes a Bond film exciting, at least to me, is that the best ones don't rely on the predictable or the mundane, and that includes the people they cast. This guy has cookie cutter written all over him.
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.
I personnely think there is nothing unique about Craig and in all his films Bonds, Defiance,Munich he appears drab and completely unintresting.
That might be fine for some of the roles [a jewish partisan in Defiance is not supposed to be sauve ] but not Bond.
Also whats wrong with looking like a model both Connery and Moore worked as models and when I was in the forces manymoons ago a few of my mates in there used to moonlight as models so there is nothing fey or cissy about having model good looks.All the talk about what a great actor DC is Ipersonnely have yet to see this,as I have said before all he seems to do is pout,tries to look posh[fails imho] or look miserable.
Again this is just me and Im not antiCraig he probaly is a really nice chap he is just not Bond to me whereas I think Cavill could be amazing.
Who else today in acting looks like Craig? The closest person I can think of is Steve McQueen, and he's been gone 30 years. Cavill looks like the sort that turns up in the hundreds at casting calls. He's the sort you see but never remember flipping through channels.
Henry Cavill looks like a pretty boy to me. He's too young for Bond. Connery was 36, Moore was in his forties, as was Brosnan and Craig.
Yes, I agree with you. I think Cavill is too good pretty looking, just like I thought Brosnan was too - but Brosnan did have that suave air about him, however, he is my least fav Bond - so it wasn't enough to make me like him.
I :x Craig, and the new movement that these films seem to have taken (including the shakey camera action, although I still don't think it was as bad as people make out...but that's just my opinion )
However, Craig is soon to step down - I would love him to do another 2 movies, but alas, with the latest delay, it's probably only going to be 1 - and they do have to find a replacement....
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
Who else today in acting looks like Craig? The closest person I can think of is Steve McQueen, and he's been gone 30 years. Cavill looks like the sort that turns up in the hundreds at casting calls. He's the sort you see but never remember flipping through channels.
Well that's your opinion not a fact. I can guarantee you that I could very easily find hundreds of women who will vehemently disagree with you on that one. Cavill is a MAJOR hit with a lot of women exactly because he doesn't look "average" or like "everyone else" at all. He's waaaay more good looking than most men, and most of all he has that gentleman quality, smile, sparkle in his eyes and he is very masculine at the same time. That definitely makes him stand out (other than the incredibly good looks). If hundreds turned up at casting calls like him, we'd be ecstatic to be casting people and we'd find leads in minutes ) That's definitely not the case, unfortunately ) And there's also the not irrelevant detail that he is a good actor. Most people showing up at casting don't have NEARLY as good looks as he does.. let alone acting skills like his.
As far as Craig, McQueen was far better looking (and a far better actor) than he is in my opinion. And, unique? He looks like the average man on the street in England. You walk by the streets of London and see dozens of types like him. I think someone back in the day said he looked like a geography teacher. I think that's pretty much how I feel about him. I find extremely ordinary, which is one of the many reasons why I don't think he's right for Bond. The teacher who came to class to make us converse in English in High School (and came from England) looked a lot like him. Maybe that's why I dislike him as Bond too, that guy was sooo unfriendly ) That said, this is not a Craig vs Cavill thread or a thread to champion Craig's cause, there are way too many of those already. But, to state Cavill is someone people don't remember is simply denying facts... have a read at the comments under his youtube videos just to get an idea. He's extremely popular between women and girls (that's the good thing about him, he looks and acts much more mature than his age, yet he's still young so he appeals both girls and women), who even define him "a genetic phenomena" ) Cavill is anything but someone who doesn't stand out.
ETA: Hi Lexi! It's ok, you keep Craig, I keep Cavill. Monique and I had already arranged a plan to split Brosnan, but if I can keep Cavill, I'll have to give her full rights on Brosnan. Steph has Dalton. I think we're all set )
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Henry Cavill looks like a pretty boy to me. He's too young for Bond. Connery was 36, Moore was in his forties, as was Brosnan and Craig.
Yes, I agree with you. I think Cavill is too good pretty looking, just like I thought Brosnan was too - but Brosnan did have that suave air about him, however, he is my least fav Bond - so it wasn't enough to make me like him.
I :x Craig, and the new movement that these films seem to have taken (including the shakey camera action, although I still don't think it was as bad as people make out...but that's just my opinion )
However, Craig is soon to step down - I would love him to do another 2 movies, but alas, with the latest delay, it's probably only going to be 1 - and they do have to find a replacement....
Personally I love the new direction, enjoy Craig as Bond and don't have a problem with the shaky-cam - a good tv and blueray make it no big deal at all. At least plenty is going on. Some older Bond films become tiresome in comparison.
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
Henry Cavill looks like a pretty boy to me. He's too young for Bond. Connery was 36, Moore was in his forties, as was Brosnan and Craig.
The Bond films have always played like a mid-life crisis fantasy, so to me, a youthful but nonetheless older and more worldly Bond is more appropriate. Lazenby was pretty young when he did Bond, but he looked older. This Cavill fellow may be a far better actor than I'm giving him credit for, but just looking at the photos of him, seems pretty indistinct.
Who else today in acting looks like Craig? The closest person I can think of is Steve McQueen, and he's been gone 30 years. Cavill looks like the sort that turns up in the hundreds at casting calls. He's the sort you see but never remember flipping through channels.
Well that's your opinion not a fact. I can guarantee you that I could very easily find hundreds of women who will vehemently disagree with you on that one. Cavill is a MAJOR hit with a lot of women exactly because he doesn't look "average" or like "everyone else" at all. He's waaaay more good looking than most men, and most of all he has that gentleman quality, smile, sparkle in his eyes and he is very masculine at the same time. That definitely makes him stand out (other than the incredibly good looks). If hundreds turned up at casting calls like him, we'd be ecstatic to be casting people and we'd find leads in minutes ) That's definitely not the case, unfortunately ) And there's also the not irrelevant detail that he is a good actor. Most people showing up at casting don't have NEARLY as good looks as he does.. let alone acting skills like his.
As far as Craig, McQueen was far better looking (and a far better actor) than he is in my opinion. And, unique? He looks like the average man on the street in England. You walk by the streets of London and see dozens of types like him. I think someone back in the day said he looked like a geography teacher. I think that's pretty much how I feel about him. I find extremely ordinary, which is one of the many reasons why I don't think he's right for Bond. The teacher who came to class to make us converse in English in High School (and came from England) looked a lot like him. Maybe that's why I dislike him as Bond too, that guy was sooo unfriendly ) That said, this is not a Craig vs Cavill thread or a thread to champion Craig's cause, there are way too many of those already. But, to state Cavill is someone people don't remember is simply denying facts... have a read at the comments under his youtube videos just to get an idea. He's extremely popular between women and girls (that's the good thing about him, he looks and acts much more mature than his age, yet he's still young so he appeals both girls and women), who even define him "a genetic phenomena" ) Cavill is anything but someone who doesn't stand out.
ETA: Hi Lexi! It's ok, you keep Craig, I keep Cavill. Monique and I had already arranged a plan to split Brosnan, but if I can keep Cavill, I'll have to give her full rights on Brosnan. Steph has Dalton. I think we're all set )
Well, these are just your opinions and not fact. (Really, what is the point of pointing out the obvious?)
I've no doubt that Cavill appeals to some people. Just not me. But I don't want to sleep with the guy. I just want someone interesting to watch. And this fellow looks about as interesting as all those no-names one sees in Dolce and Gabbana catalogs. So I guess my not purchasing a ticket would cancel out yours.
Henry Cavill looks like a pretty boy to me. He's too young for Bond. Connery was 36, Moore was in his forties, as was Brosnan and Craig.
The Bond films have always played like a mid-life crisis fantasy, so to me, a youthful but nonetheless older and more worldly Bond is more appropriate. Lazenby was pretty young when he did Bond, but he looked older. This Cavill fellow may be a far better actor than I'm giving him credit for, but just looking at the photos of him, seems pretty indistinct.
I get the same metrosexual vibe from Cavill as I do Jude Law. Despite my problems with Craig films, at the very least, he looks like a manly man. You really don't find that type like Craig's in movies these days but there are some notable exceptions like Gerard Butler or Hugh Jackman.
Henry Cavill looks like a pretty boy to me. He's too young for Bond. Connery was 36, Moore was in his forties, as was Brosnan and Craig.
The Bond films have always played like a mid-life crisis fantasy, so to me, a youthful but nonetheless older and more worldly Bond is more appropriate. Lazenby was pretty young when he did Bond, but he looked older. This Cavill fellow may be a far better actor than I'm giving him credit for, but just looking at the photos of him, seems pretty indistinct.
I get the same metrosexual vibe from Cavill as I do Jude Law.
I know what you mean. Cavill is more classically good looking in some ways, perhaps because of the darker features and the squarer lines of his face, but I don't see anything interesting about him. I picture him as one of those guys who shows up at a club with the black shirt untucked and painstakingly positioned so it looks like he just threw it on rather than spent hours primping in front of a mirror. The same goes for the day's worth of stubble, capped teeth, and the fake tan.
Well, these are just your opinions and not fact. (Really, what is the point of pointing out the obvious?)
I've no doubt that Cavill appeals to some people. Just not me. But I don't want to sleep with the guy. I just want someone interesting to watch. And this fellow looks about as interesting as all those no-names one sees in Dolce and Gabbana catalogs. So I guess my not purchasing a ticket would cancel out yours.
Yes and I made it clear those were just my opinions, nothing else... wasn't meant to be anything else.
I don't think your ticket would cancel out mine, since as I said there's a whole army of girls and women who would definitely be on board, no matter what Cavill did, because they love him ) Give me Henry, and I'll watch paint dry is their basic motto )
If there's one thing I am quite sure of, it's that if he was to be Bond, he'd be extremely popular. I'm also fairly certain he'd further expand on the younger demographic, raking in more young viewers. He already has a decent amount of popularity, thanks to the Tudors, to Tristan & Isolde and to the Woody Allen movie last year, so he really just needs a bigger "vehicle" to become a mass phenomena. His action flick doesn't sound like a mega-production (though I don't know what the budget for it is, I haven't been able to find out so far) so I guess it will increase his popularity but not so drastically. (which is good, he can have a moderate amount of popularity but not super popularity to be picked as Bond).
I finally found a better excerpt of the plot for "The Cold Light of Day" (his action movie due out next year with Bruce Willis and Sigourney Weaver)
The film centers around “a cocky young Wall Street trader (Cavill) who reluctantly vacations with his family in Spain. When his family is kidnapped, he is thrust into a government conspiracy and must unravel his father’s darkest secret in order to save his loved ones.” Sounds good enough to show him in an action flick. And he's got the lead role, so he'll hopefully have a chance to show his value (provided the script is good, which I have no idea about).
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Well, these are just your opinions and not fact. (Really, what is the point of pointing out the obvious?)
I've no doubt that Cavill appeals to some people. Just not me. But I don't want to sleep with the guy. I just want someone interesting to watch. And this fellow looks about as interesting as all those no-names one sees in Dolce and Gabbana catalogs. So I guess my not purchasing a ticket would cancel out yours.
Yes and I made it clear those were just my opinions, nothing else... wasn't meant to be anything else.
I don't think your ticket would cancel out mine, since as I said there's a whole army of girls and women who would definitely be on board, no matter what Cavill did, because they love him ) Give me Henry, and I'll watch paint dry is their basic motto )
If there's one thing I am quite sure of, it's that if he was to be Bond, he'd be extremely popular. I'm also fairly certain he'd further expand on the younger demographic, raking in more young viewers. He already has a decent amount of popularity, thanks to the Tudors, to Tristan & Isolde and to the Woody Allen movie last year, so he really just needs a bigger "vehicle" to become a mass phenomena. His action flick doesn't sound like a mega-production (though I don't know what the budget for it is, I haven't been able to find out so far) so I guess it will increase his popularity but not so drastically. (which is good, he can have a moderate amount of popularity but not super popularity to be picked as Bond).
I finally found a better excerpt of the plot for "The Cold Light of Day" (his action movie due out next year with Bruce Willis and Sigourney Weaver)
The film centers around “a cocky young Wall Street trader (Cavill) who reluctantly vacations with his family in Spain. When his family is kidnapped, he is thrust into a government conspiracy and must unravel his father’s darkest secret in order to save his loved ones.” Sounds good enough to show him in an action flick. And he's got the lead role, so he'll hopefully have a chance to show his value (provided the script is good, which I have no idea about).
My prediction is "The Cold Light of Day" will see "The Cold Light of Box Office Mediocrity."
I think the Cavill vechicle sounds good but it stars no one who'd really rake in big box office numbers outside of franchises. I doubt the film will be very popular, a sleeper hit at best maybe. As for Cavill becoming a "Mass Phonomena"... ) .
A small point I would like to add if I may as it has been puzzling me for ages, in Dr No Connery/Bond is 32/33 and has been a 00 for 10 years because this is mentioned when Bond is being told off by M for using a berreta so that means Bond became a 00 at 22/23
Cavills age at the time of CR so why oh why do people keep saying he was to young he would have been ideal.
Start again I say with the cast I mentioned earlier.
Yes, a valid point. But in the novel of Dr. No Bond was much older. 32/33 would have been Bond's age in Casino Royale - the film makers kept Bond's age the same but did not start with the original story. But I'm pretty sure Connery was 36 at the time of filming.
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
Yes, a valid point. But in the novel of Dr. No Bond was much older. 32/33 would have been Bond's age in Casino Royale - the film makers kept Bond's age the same but did not start with the original story. But I'm pretty sure Connery was 36 at the time of filming.
Connery was born in 1930 and Dr No was made in 1962 even I can do the maths on that one.
Comments
Well, Gassy, it seems that the young up and coming actors seem to fit that style. Atleast, here in America they do (Zac Efron, the Twilight guy). Pretty boys with light builds. Attractive but sort of ordinary looks. Solid actors but nothing really new or exciting. Its unfortunate but actors seem to get less individualistic with each new generation.
All of the Bond actors have been pretty unique for their generation of actors. It might be interesting to have a man with more average qualities as a hero. Who knows?
That might be fine for some of the roles [a jewish partisan in Defiance is not supposed to be sauve ] but not Bond.
Also whats wrong with looking like a model both Connery and Moore worked as models and when I was in the forces manymoons ago a few of my mates in there used to moonlight as models so there is nothing fey or cissy about having model good looks.All the talk about what a great actor DC is Ipersonnely have yet to see this,as I have said before all he seems to do is pout,tries to look posh[fails imho] or look miserable.
Again this is just me and Im not antiCraig he probaly is a really nice chap he is just not Bond to me whereas I think Cavill could be amazing.
But Pattinson (horrid! :O) and Zac Efron have nothing to do with Cavill though IMO, not phisically (Cavill is 1 mt 85, or 6 ft 1 if you prefer, and he played rugby... certainly not a sport for people with light builds. He stopped playing because of injuries. He has big shoulders and arms, and muscular legs) and least of all acting-wise (solid Shakespeare background, serious actor, and already pretty damn good at his age). I think Cavill is anything but ordinary or generic. He's incredibly gorgeous (which in itself is no ordinary quality), he's got lots of personality, he's got an edge to him, and he has that gentleman way of talking and carrying himself that really make him different from not just men his age, but the average current man in general!
Being unique is not a good reason to be Bond IMO. And I personally don't see Craig as unique. One of the things I said many times is that to me he looks very "blue collar" and way too "ordinary people" to be Bond. Bond needs to have specific qualities that Craig IMO is sorely lacking. We don't all like the same things and see the same things in people. This is just and only my taste. Cavill is neither vapid nor ubiquitous. He's a good actor who started out with Shakespeare ever since he was in college. And he's actually never been in any production that was "vapid". Bond is required to be handsome, actually very handsome and successful with the ladies, so the fact Cavill has great looks is a point in his favor if anything, not against. The fact he does cologne ads (for Dunhill, not for some cheap grocery store brand) is just a way to make money that maaany actors nowadays use. Nothing wrong with it, and he also gets to be in a far more prestigious and high level campaign than mos others. George Clooney advertises coffee with John Malkovich here in Italy, the guy who played Sawyer in "Lost" is the face of the Cool Water cologne campaign for Davidoff, John Travolta does telephone company commercials, and so on (there are De Niro and Dustin Hoffman even in commercials here!
My view is that an actor who starts playing James Bond should be about 32 to 38 years of age. I don't think that James Bond's age was given in any Fleming novel, but it would be reasonable to assume that he was a character in his mid 30s. Henry Cavill may be too young to play Bond now, but I think in five or six years, he can definitely make the grade.
Also i know its not really that important but Henry comes from a military family and has said if he hadnt gone into acting he would have joined the forces so he has probaly got an insight into weapons and suchlike which might be a bonus for realism fans.
I think it depends to a large degree on the script, and if this is meant to be a new (ish) 007, a mid period piece or Bond towards the end of his 00 career. In the novels 00's were retired at 46. For me the whole re-boot newbie 00 piece would have always sat better with a younger actor as was I believe the initial intention. The change to DC fairly late in the day, a not particularly young looking 38 at the time meant for me at least that the rookie element should have been dropped and CR pitched as a 'mid-period' Bond adventure.
I have always longed for a Bond at the end of his career, a little burnt out, more than a tad jaded and having to struggle to 'pull it out of the bag' Dalton would have been perfect. It would have been a great Swansong for Brosnan, and could be for DC if he makes more than one more.
After the re-boot it makes sense for me for the timeline to avoid going back again to a younger Bond at least for a while. Therefore Cavill still looks a bit young to me. It all depends upon how many more films DC makes and where the timeline fetches up for 23 and beyond.
Oh I am sorry he's only done to movies that have a combined total of a billon dollars gross revenue. 8-) Also just because there wasn't a financial crisis at MGM dosen't mean Bond was flying at that point. After 40 years, you all of a sudden don't wake up and realize that your film franchise is looking mighty tired.
Since when has the rugged Wolverine been the symbol of youth ? Just because he started at 33 dosen't mean he's now too old. Your are the first one that I know of who's complaining about Jackman's age now. Comic book fans and the general public still love Jackman as Wolverine and I wouldn't be surprised that'll he would stay in the role for some time. And end up being involved for the casting for Bond ? Good luck with that.
Or maybe it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense having the same Spiderman/Peter Parker in a reboot. Also Peter Parker was only in high school student when he became Spiderman so yes, I kind of expect him to played by a man under 30 in his origin film. Another thing you seem to have left out is Robert Downey Jr. and Edward Norton as Iron Man and The Hulk respectively. They were definetly over 30 when they accepted those roles. Downey Jr. and Norton's replacement, who's two years his senior, is also going to appear in upcoming The Avengers movie along with Jeremy Renner as Hawk eye and Don Cheadle as War Machine. Also Samuel L. Jackson, who is over fifty, is going to appear as Nick Fury in several Marvel pictures; He'll most likely star in the upcoming Nick Fury film.
I don't deny youth being favored on film but really, it's clearly your own opinion when it's too old to start or when these people retire from roles.
But they still took good to huge big box office numbers even after years of said franchises being dormant; Die Hard and Indiana Jones for example. So again I say, no one is going to cry if a 40 year old man is cast at the beginning of a franchise.
Again, look at the casting for Marvel films.
The prob with having an older actor is that you struggle to find young actresses who look right alongside an older guy, the older the actress the less likely she is to find FHM covers or for her to be unknown-ish; they like unknowns to draw people in, the curiosity factor.
Cavill? The commercials may work against him; after all Owen did them too and that didn't pan out. Likewise the fact he's up and running as an action hero already in a new film with Bruce Willis, by the time his time comes around he'll be too big, or damaged goods.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
wannabe who calls himself Bond]and the Dior adverts came after and in all honesty I dont think they will do Cavills chance any harm.
Iwould not be a bit surprised if he is on some sort of retainer to take over from Craig at a later date.
I gave synopsis and what not for the Cavill/Willis movie at the beginning of the thread, and I don't think he will be too big when the time comes (despite him being the lead of the movie, not Willis). The movie sounds like a well-made action flick but not a mega-production or anything that would garner him more attention than he normally gets. (which is anyway a good amount
If they find a mutual agreement (or simply if they pay enough money) they can ditch Craig. Obviously if he wants to walk away, same applies... they can find an agreement. I don't think, given the troubled state of the company, that they'd change right now, I think they'd have Craig do one more movie and then change.
It is much, much easier to make a younger man look older than the opposite. Hence why especially now and especially for action franchises they pick younger rather than older actors. I think whoever plays Bond after Cavill will necessarily have to play a young Bond again (not that Craig looked any young), not mid-career. Not to mention since agents retired at around 46, there isn't that big of an age-span to work on. Younger audiences are those who spend the most at the box office, so production companies are very attentive to casting younger people as a general rule. And while the key demographic for viewers has always been 18-45 (years old), both TV networks and movie execs are now increasingly focusing on the younger demographic, which is 18-34, and financing projects that fare well with this demographic in particular.
As as for my last off-topic in here: Ricardo, I won't bother replying to you anymore after this. As usual you have paid zero attention to what I said and keep going on with your sterile polemics. Without forgetting to conveniently ignore figures and facts that you even quoted. Facts, not opinion, by the way. You quoted but didn't read the age span I talked about (which, as I stated in previous posts, was 27-33: that clearly DOES include over 30 people). I also specified time and time again that IF an actor looks way younger than his age, then they'd cast him even if older. But they'd need someone who at 40 looks at many years younger, which is very difficult to find and also gives no guarantees for years to follow. You completely missed the point about EON too. What they could risk, pay and do back then with an older actor like Craig doesn't apply anymore now. Not only they're bankrupt, but after the financial crisis things in this sense have drastically changed in Hollywood. I've been experiencing it for work in the past 3 years and this isn't opinion at all unfortunately, it's the reality that anyone working in Hollywood, especially those dealing with casting, will tell you about.
The Marvel movies prove exactly my point. Iron Man is the only one of the two (the other being Hulk) movies with older leading men by the way that got very good results, with a worldwide gross of $585 mln (and production costs of $140 mln). Hulk did mediocre at the US box office, they didn't even cover production costs, the movie cost $150 mln and they grossed a modest $130 mln in the US.. they were saved by the international gains, but the result remains far from brilliant, a total $263 mln. In any case both Downey Jr and Norton remain clear exceptions out of the many more examples I quoted. There's three times as many actors who are cast in the age span I indicated in these examples alone (Kitsch, Maguire, Evans, Jackman, Bale, Routh). Just to cite another and a Marvel one at that, Gruffudd (leading man) was 32 when they released Fantastic 4 (which means he was cast at around 30), Evans was only 24, Jessica Alba was 24. Michael Chiklis was supposed to look way older than the others because of the character, and he was in fact 42. The casting for Superman is ongoing again and they're looking at people around or under 30 for the part.
You also didn't understand at all that I LOVE Hugh Jackman (and I said so in the very first post where I made his name) and anyone who knows me here knows that, as when Craig was picked I said they should have picked Jackman instead (it was then or never again, given his age) since he would have been perfect as Bond and that was the only chance. I am not "complaining" about Jackman's age at all.. he's mighty fine and much better looking than a lot of 20-year-olds. And he sure looks WAY younger than Craig despite being the same age. That doesn't change the fact that time passes for him too and while I much prefer his charm to that of a pointless 20-year-old he IS starting to look too old for what he does. In fact, he himself said so in an interview on I think CBS (or one of the main US networks anyway) a while ago. And he was cast as Wolverine at 30/31, not 33. He was 32 when the first X-Men movie was released.
Now back to topic.
This is a series of Cavill interviews from S1-2-3-4 of the Tudors (that means the oldest one is from 3 years ago). My opinion is that even in that red t-shirt in s1, or in the costumes of the other interviews, he looks more Bondian than Craig ever did. And he's not even acting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip-OAY5sBPc&feature=related (season 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPXWrz-x-uE (season 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7rvwQi2d5Q&feature=related (season 3)
And the most recent one, from this year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfy0qE35cow&feature=related (season 4)
Oh I am sorry, 33 years old. That's a lot of leeway after 30. 8-)
So tell me, why haven't they ditched Craig ? Also you talk as though casting Craig in the first place wasn't that serious and it certaintly was.
I already conceded the favortism of youth and it's not shocking since those are origin stories you mention in the past and upcoming. However you are also forgeting, once again, the rest of the cast in the Avengers movies and some of the most popular characters are portrayed by actors over 40. Also they could have very easily replaced Norton with a younger man but they didn't.
Again, the character of Wolverine is a very rugged looking hard edged manly man. I still find it ridiculous that you are calling Jackman out as being too old at merely 42 years old. Obviously Hollywood dosen't care since he still going to continue playing the character in 2011. I also want to hear this alledged statement from Jackman.
I would have liked Craig to never get the part in the first place
http://apbateman.com
Yes, I agree with you. I think Cavill is too good pretty looking, just like I thought Brosnan was too - but Brosnan did have that suave air about him, however, he is my least fav Bond - so it wasn't enough to make me like him.
I :x Craig, and the new movement that these films seem to have taken (including the shakey camera action, although I still don't think it was as bad as people make out...but that's just my opinion
However, Craig is soon to step down - I would love him to do another 2 movies, but alas, with the latest delay, it's probably only going to be 1 - and they do have to find a replacement....
Well that's your opinion not a fact. I can guarantee you that I could very easily find hundreds of women who will vehemently disagree with you on that one. Cavill is a MAJOR hit with a lot of women exactly because he doesn't look "average" or like "everyone else" at all. He's waaaay more good looking than most men, and most of all he has that gentleman quality, smile, sparkle in his eyes and he is very masculine at the same time. That definitely makes him stand out (other than the incredibly good looks). If hundreds turned up at casting calls like him, we'd be ecstatic to be casting people and we'd find leads in minutes
As far as Craig, McQueen was far better looking (and a far better actor) than he is in my opinion. And, unique? He looks like the average man on the street in England. You walk by the streets of London and see dozens of types like him. I think someone back in the day said he looked like a geography teacher. I think that's pretty much how I feel about him. I find extremely ordinary, which is one of the many reasons why I don't think he's right for Bond. The teacher who came to class to make us converse in English in High School (and came from England) looked a lot like him. Maybe that's why I dislike him as Bond too, that guy was sooo unfriendly
ETA: Hi Lexi!
Personally I love the new direction, enjoy Craig as Bond and don't have a problem with the shaky-cam - a good tv and blueray make it no big deal at all. At least plenty is going on. Some older Bond films become tiresome in comparison.
http://apbateman.com
I've no doubt that Cavill appeals to some people. Just not me. But I don't want to sleep with the guy. I just want someone interesting to watch. And this fellow looks about as interesting as all those no-names one sees in Dolce and Gabbana catalogs. So I guess my not purchasing a ticket would cancel out yours.
I get the same metrosexual vibe from Cavill as I do Jude Law. Despite my problems with Craig films, at the very least, he looks like a manly man. You really don't find that type like Craig's in movies these days but there are some notable exceptions like Gerard Butler or Hugh Jackman.
Yes and I made it clear those were just my opinions, nothing else... wasn't meant to be anything else.
I don't think your ticket would cancel out mine, since as I said there's a whole army of girls and women who would definitely be on board, no matter what Cavill did, because they love him
If there's one thing I am quite sure of, it's that if he was to be Bond, he'd be extremely popular. I'm also fairly certain he'd further expand on the younger demographic, raking in more young viewers. He already has a decent amount of popularity, thanks to the Tudors, to Tristan & Isolde and to the Woody Allen movie last year, so he really just needs a bigger "vehicle" to become a mass phenomena. His action flick doesn't sound like a mega-production (though I don't know what the budget for it is, I haven't been able to find out so far) so I guess it will increase his popularity but not so drastically. (which is good, he can have a moderate amount of popularity but not super popularity to be picked as Bond).
I finally found a better excerpt of the plot for "The Cold Light of Day" (his action movie due out next year with Bruce Willis and Sigourney Weaver)
The film centers around “a cocky young Wall Street trader (Cavill) who reluctantly vacations with his family in Spain. When his family is kidnapped, he is thrust into a government conspiracy and must unravel his father’s darkest secret in order to save his loved ones.” Sounds good enough to show him in an action flick. And he's got the lead role, so he'll hopefully have a chance to show his value (provided the script is good, which I have no idea about).
Cavills age at the time of CR so why oh why do people keep saying he was to young he would have been ideal.
Start again I say with the cast I mentioned earlier.
http://apbateman.com