Alessandra, I completely agree with you. I believe Cavill would be a great long term choice to play Bond. I haven't seen all of his work, however, what I have seen is Bond material. Cavill is a nice refreshing new talent that has blessed our TV's and screens. I look forward to see what else is in store for Cavill, hopefully Hollywood hangs onto this one. I fully believe in the next 15 years, Cavill will be amongst the Hollywood elite (members such as Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Sean Connery, Jack Nicholson, Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, Nick Cage, Harrison Ford, Denzel Washington). These men can basically take on any role and make it their own. I would like to see Cavill do a comedy (attempt to close the circle of genre he has played).
Alessandra--I mean no disrespect, but you seem to know a great deal about Henry Cavill and his life work. Are you a huge fan, friend, agent or just a interested party?????
Napoleon--you are freaking hilarious!!!!:))
Kaira, I'm very sorry for not having read this before, and not having replied appropriately.
I am an interested party and a fan, not an agent or a friend (though I'd gladly be his GIRLFRIEND ) ) ) I never go into something "unprepared", so before talking I like to have my facts laid down (as in, I do my research first).
I completely agree that Cavill is likely to make it to the Hollywood élite in the next 15 years, he's got all the qualities to make it. He's smart, he's talented, he's good with the media AND he is gorgeous, which is never bad ) I agree he should also do a comedy to complete the genre of roles he's had, and I think he will. Technically the Woody Allen movie qualifies as such, but what I mean is a romantic comedy, since he definitely has the leading man quality to pull that off as well (much like George Clooney or Brad Pitt, or Denzel Washington and the others you cited).
I hope the Bond franchise is smart enough to get him before it's too late. After all, they did test him for CR and he was the last man standing together with Craig, so they have seen the qualities he has even back then. Hopefully the Brosnan history will be repeated, and while not getting the role the first time because too young, he will get it the second time around
I think a lot depends on how the two movies he has out in 2011 do. "The Cold Light of Day" will be the first one, and I think that will just do ok, since it's not a big production. But then there's "Immortals", which is a much bigger production where he plays Greek warrior (HOW appropriate ) ) Theseus (he's the lead in that one too). He is the lead battling the imprisoned Titans, and Freida Pinto plays his love interest in the movie. He's basically wearing little to nothing most of the time (given the theme ) ). He worked out 4 hours a day while they were filming since they're constantly shirtless... I can't say I am not curious to see the result of that, even if this type of movie really isn't my thing ) That is to be released on 11-11-11, so will probably have Thanksgiving competition lining up. Young girls are already all crazy about it because that guy Kellan Lutz is in it, too. The fact Mickey Rourke has a role in it scares me ) I've seen the guy in person recently and I swear he is frightening
BTW, Freida Pinto would be an excellent suggestion for a Bond girl alongside Cavill as Bond IMO.
Anyway I guess since he has other projects lining up already, that if these two movies do ok, he'll start to get bigger offers soon. Just as long as the first one lined up is Bond and they finally cast him! )
NP (as in Mr Napoleon Plural), so I'm flying to London tomorrow. You ARE aware that Henry is in England resting and reading scripts and auditioning right now? Just in case we bump into him and I have a moment of weakness (and elope to a Caribbean island with him ) ).
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
j.bladesCurrently? You must be joking?Posts: 530MI6 Agent
Reading Pearson's Bond novel and it almost fortifies Cavill as being Bond, it frequently refernces Bond's irresistibility to women: "Don't worry about the scar the women will still go crazy for him."
"I take a ridiculous pleasure in what I eat and drink."
Reading Pearson's Bond novel and it almost fortifies Cavill as being Bond, it frequently refernces Bond's irresistibility to women: "Don't worry about the scar the women will still go crazy for him."
I don't understand. How does this fortify Cavill as Bond ? If anyone, Bond would have be a close facsimile of the popular leading men of the times he was written in, the 1950's, when manly men dominated the screen. Kirk Douglas, Gregory Peck, Robert Mitchum, Cary Grant, Victure Mature, John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart etc. Not todays metrosexuals like Cavill, Jude Law, Leonardo DiCarpio and various "rock star" lookers as one my favorite cartoonists would put it. ) Even the "pretty" guys of that era (Tony Curtis, Paul Newman) were more manly and would be a lot closer to Fleming's Bond.
BTW I know I am bringing up this kind of a late but this ridiculous notion of a man being defined by who he could beat up is also silly. A lot of sissy guys work out and probably could knock me and a lot of other people out but that dosen't make them any more manly. I am sure Ashton Kutcher could have licked Jack Lemmon when he was young but Lemmon was more of a man in my eyes.
j.bladesCurrently? You must be joking?Posts: 530MI6 Agent
It Fortifies Cavill, as the main problem here is that he's a pretty boy, it almost binds the two people as if you read the book, he was described as a womens poodle, he knocked that man out for the remark. Therefore almost ironically, you're previous post seems to even fortify mine, thankyou.
"I take a ridiculous pleasure in what I eat and drink."
I believe casting Henry Cavill may bring a whole new audience to the James Bond films. It's been awhile since they have cast a sexy and irresitable Bond, sorry Craig. You will find women flocking to the Bond films with their men just to catch a glimpse of Henry in action. HOT!!!
Reading Pearson's Bond novel and it almost fortifies Cavill as being Bond, it frequently refernces Bond's irresistibility to women: "Don't worry about the scar the women will still go crazy for him."
I don't understand. How does this fortify Cavill as Bond ? If anyone, Bond would have be a close facsimile of the popular leading men of the times he was written in, the 1950's, when manly men dominated the screen. Kirk Douglas, Gregory Peck, Robert Mitchum, Cary Grant, Victure Mature, John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart etc. Not todays metrosexuals like Cavill, Jude Law, Leonardo DiCarpio and various "rock star" lookers as one my favorite cartoonists would put it. ) Even the "pretty" guys of that era (Tony Curtis, Paul Newman) were more manly and would be a lot closer to Fleming's Bond.
BTW I know I am bringing up this kind of a late but this ridiculous notion of a man being defined by who he could beat up is also silly. A lot of sissy guys work out and probably could knock me and a lot of other people out but that dosen't make them any more manly. I am sure Ashton Kutcher could have licked Jack Lemmon when he was young but Lemmon was more of a man in my eyes.
Correct me if Iam wrong but Fleming wrote that Bond looked like Hoagy Carmichael ,like he was a manly man of the 1950s.
Also I doubt Brosnan could tear a tissue without the aid of a stuntman but imo he and Cavill,Law and all the what is it you called them metrosexuals are more manly than that pouting,arty farty poser who currently has the role.
Correct me if Iam wrong but Fleming wrote that Bond looked like Hoagy Carmichael ,like he was a manly man of the 1950s.
Not entirely like Carmichael but he did use him for inspiration. I do see some of Hoagy in Bond in Fleming's comissioned drawing and going by that image I would say almost any of those men I mentioned playing Bond would have appropriate, especially Gregory Peck.
j.bladesCurrently? You must be joking?Posts: 530MI6 Agent
Reading Pearson's Bond novel and it almost fortifies Cavill as being Bond, it frequently refernces Bond's irresistibility to women: "Don't worry about the scar the women will still go crazy for him."
I don't understand. How does this fortify Cavill as Bond ? If anyone, Bond would have be a close facsimile of the popular leading men of the times he was written in, the 1950's, when manly men dominated the screen. Kirk Douglas, Gregory Peck, Robert Mitchum, Cary Grant, Victure Mature, John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart etc. Not todays metrosexuals like Cavill, Jude Law, Leonardo DiCarpio and various "rock star" lookers as one my favorite cartoonists would put it. ) Even the "pretty" guys of that era (Tony Curtis, Paul Newman) were more manly and would be a lot closer to Fleming's Bond.
BTW I know I am bringing up this kind of a late but this ridiculous notion of a man being defined by who he could beat up is also silly. A lot of sissy guys work out and probably could knock me and a lot of other people out but that dosen't make them any more manly. I am sure Ashton Kutcher could have licked Jack Lemmon when he was young but Lemmon was more of a man in my eyes.
Correct me if Iam wrong but Fleming wrote that Bond looked like Hoagy Carmichael ,like he was a manly man of the 1950s.
Also I doubt Brosnan could tear a tissue without the aid of a stuntman but imo he and Cavill,Law and all the what is it you called them metrosexuals are more manly than that pouting,arty farty poser who currently has the role.
Your right but, I was rather citing a book loved by big Bond fanns, penned by Ian Flemings close freind John Pearson, called James Bond the authorized biography. Pearsom in my oppinion understood Bond, like Fleming, the book plays out like a novel rather then a biography thats what makes it so good. But, I enjoyed your post never the less.
"I take a ridiculous pleasure in what I eat and drink."
It Fortifies Cavill, as the main problem here is that he's a pretty boy, it almost binds the two people as if you read the book, he was described as a womens poodle, he knocked that man out for the remark. Therefore almost ironically, you're previous post seems to even fortify mine, thankyou.
I think someone would have made the same assement of Tony Curtis as well. He would fit that discription perfectly and he's no metrosexual, unlike Cavill. I would count Peck as well, who seemingly looked soft, but once he accidentally managed to knock Robert Mitchum on his ass on the set of Cape Fear. ) I'd also count Paul Newman and Marlon Brando. Pretty looking sort of guys who had a strong masculinity to them. Nope, Cavill dosen't count among them because your thinking of the 21st century "pretty" and not the 1950's when even the soft looking film stars still looked like men.
j.bladesCurrently? You must be joking?Posts: 530MI6 Agent
Well we have to modernize descriptions for the current movies, as they're a truely different animal in comparison to the books.
"I take a ridiculous pleasure in what I eat and drink."
It Fortifies Cavill, as the main problem here is that he's a pretty boy, it almost binds the two people as if you read the book, he was described as a womens poodle, he knocked that man out for the remark. Therefore almost ironically, you're previous post seems to even fortify mine, thankyou.
I think someone would have made the same assement of Tony Curtis as well. He would fit that discription perfectly and he's no metrosexual, unlike Cavill. I would count Peck as well, who seemingly looked soft, but once he accidentally managed to knock Robert Mitchum on his ass on the set of Cape Fear. ) I'd also count Paul Newman and Marlon Brando. Pretty looking sort of guys who had a strong masculinity to them. Nope, Cavill dosen't count among them because your thinking of the 21st century "pretty" and not the 1950's when even the soft looking film stars still looked like men.
Cavills tall, muscular,plays rugby would have joined the army [like his brothers] if he had not gone into acting,has almost every women from 16 to 65 lusting after him.
Please oh please Ricardo how much manlier can the guy be.
Well we have to modernize descriptions for the current movies, as they're a truely different animal in comparison to the books.
I am just trying to look in the perspective of Pearsons and the 1950's when Bond was created, that's all. For a modern counterpart, I would turn to another actor besides Cavill. Someone who would like Newman or Brando or at least has a manly quality quality to them.
It Fortifies Cavill, as the main problem here is that he's a pretty boy, it almost binds the two people as if you read the book, he was described as a womens poodle, he knocked that man out for the remark. Therefore almost ironically, you're previous post seems to even fortify mine, thankyou.
I think someone would have made the same assement of Tony Curtis as well. He would fit that discription perfectly and he's no metrosexual, unlike Cavill. I would count Peck as well, who seemingly looked soft, but once he accidentally managed to knock Robert Mitchum on his ass on the set of Cape Fear. ) I'd also count Paul Newman and Marlon Brando. Pretty looking sort of guys who had a strong masculinity to them. Nope, Cavill dosen't count among them because your thinking of the 21st century "pretty" and not the 1950's when even the soft looking film stars still looked like men.
Cavills tall, muscular,plays rugby would have joined the army [like his brothers] if he had not gone into acting,has almost every women from 16 to 65 lusting after him.
Please oh please Ricardo how much manlier can the guy be.
I am sorry but I just don't see this guy as someone who would look noticably dangerous when he enters a room as described by Fleming in Moonraker.
Well we have to modernize descriptions for the current movies, as they're a truely different animal in comparison to the books.
I know. And I would turn to another actor besides Cavill. Someone who would like Newman or Brando or at least has a manly quality quality to them.
Please tell me why you think Cavill is not manly.
I bet you there is A LOT of women who would disagree.
I know a lot of woman would disagree. Woman today love sissy guys. )
Cavill just looks soft. Too much of a male model to possibly look like a hard-as-nails secret agent. I compare him to the golden age of manly guys in movies and he looks like a wimp in comparison.
I know. And I would turn to another actor besides Cavill. Someone who would like Newman or Brando or at least has a manly quality quality to them.
Please tell me why you think Cavill is not manly.
I bet you there is A LOT of women who would disagree.
I know a lot of woman would disagree. Woman today love sissy guys. )
Cavill just looks soft. Too much of a male model to possibly look like a hard-as-nails secret agent. I compare him to the golden age of manly guys in movies and he looks like a wimp in comparison.
Imo Cavill looks a lot tougher than the current guy and as I have said before have friends in the forces who look and indeed have been modelsand they are as you like to say hard as nails.
AS to the golden age of manly guys you talk of,well lets see now Brando used to beat his wife and children, John Wayne was a war dodger and Cary Grant and Randolf Scott were gay lovers.
Some real manly men.
Please tell me why you think Cavill is not manly.
I bet you there is A LOT of women who would disagree.
I know a lot of woman would disagree. Woman today love sissy guys. )
Cavill just looks soft. Too much of a male model to possibly look like a hard-as-nails secret agent. I compare him to the golden age of manly guys in movies and he looks like a wimp in comparison.
Imo Cavill looks a lot tougher than the current guy and as I have said before have friends in the forces who look and indeed have been modelsand they are as you like to say hard as nails.
AS to the golden age of manly guys you talk of,well lets see now Brando used to beat his wife and children, John Wayne was a war dodger and Cary Grant and Randolf Scott were gay lovers.
Some real manly men.
John Wayne was not a war dodger. He was classifed 4-F. And Cary Grant and Randolf Scott ? What's your source ? TMZ ? )
I don't approve of wife beating but I am not talking about the characters of any of these men. I mean nothing personal against Cavill if that is what you think.
And another thing, since when does your sexuality determine your man hood ? Rock Hudson was no punk.
I know a lot of woman would disagree. Woman today love sissy guys. )
Cavill just looks soft. Too much of a male model to possibly look like a hard-as-nails secret agent. I compare him to the golden age of manly guys in movies and he looks like a wimp in comparison.
Imo Cavill looks a lot tougher than the current guy and as I have said before have friends in the forces who look and indeed have been modelsand they are as you like to say hard as nails.
AS to the golden age of manly guys you talk of,well lets see now Brando used to beat his wife and children, John Wayne was a war dodger and Cary Grant and Randolf Scott were gay lovers.
Some real manly men.
John Wayne was not a war dodger. He was classifed 4-F. And Cary Grant and Randolf Scott ? What's your source ? TMZ ? )
I don't approve of wife beating but I am not talking about the characters of any of these men. I mean nothing personal against Cavill if that is what you think.
And another thing, since when does your sexuality determine your man hood ? Rock Hudson was no punk.
You were talking of the golden age ie the 1930s to the 1960s when homosexuality was looked upon as being UNMANLY hence why Rock Hudson was forced to marry some actress by his studio because they believed if it got out he was gay it would ruin his image as a leading man.
Regards Grant and Scott Iread about their affair or relationship in a very good biography of Scotts. They shared a house together apparantly it was the place to be on the gay scene..
As for Wayne he had the chance to join up but unlike his great costarr of many a film James Stewart he chose not to and stayed down in Mexico claiming to have a bad back and yet managing to go out partying everynight.
One final thing your sexuality does not determin your manhood Ricardo nor does ones LOOKS.
You were talking of the golden age ie the 1930s to the 1960s when homosexuality was looked upon as being UNMANLY hence why Rock Hudson was forced to marry some actress by his studio because they believed if it got out he was gay it would ruin his image as a leading man.
Regards Grant and Scott Iread about their affair or relationship in a very good biography of Scotts. They shared a house together apparantly it was the place to be on the gay scene..
As for Wayne he had the chance to join up but unlike his great costarr of many a film James Stewart he chose not to and stayed down in Mexico claiming to have a bad back and yet managing to go out partying everynight.
One final thing your sexuality does not determin your manhood Ricardo nor does ones LOOKS.
I am really going to take most of your alledged stories with a grain of salt. There is a lot of money in gossip. We could probably talk about conflicting stories for a long time. Citing a biography as evidence ? Give me a break. They tend to be a cesspool of deception. I really don't want to debate such rubbish of "he said, she said".
As for last comment, when it comes to playing a deadly secret agent, I want the man to look dangerous. I don't want the guy who should be on the front cover of .Ambercrombie and Fitch. Craig, who you hate so much, gives off that vibe more than Cavill.
Ido not hate Craig I personnely do not hate anyone but Ijust think Cavill would make a far better cinamatic Bond than the current guy who to me does not portray a sauve sophisticated agent.
Imo you may as well have had Bruce Willis play the lead role in CR and QOS that is how unbondlike I thought they were.
As for him looking dangerous ol DC pouts more than my teenage daughters.
Honestly Ricardo watch Henry in the Tudors,believe me he is more of a dangerous badass in that than Craig is in both his 007 outings.
Ido not hate Craig I personnely do not hate anyone but Ijust think Cavill would make a far better cinamatic Bond than the current guy who to me does not portray a sauve sophisticated agent.
Imo you may as well have had Bruce Willis play the lead role in CR and QOS that is how unbondlike I thought they were.
As for him looking dangerous ol DC pouts more than my teenage daughters.
Honestly Ricardo watch Henry in the Tudors,believe me he is more of a dangerous badass in that than Craig is in both his 007 outings.
Heh Heh. We just see things two different ways, daddy. :v Personally, I have blamed the writers for making Craig more of a stunt man than Bond as I have stated in other threads. I think Craig has a wit, charm, and class that has yet to be really exploited by the Bond producers that I have seen in at least a couple of his films; Archangel in particular.
I believe casting Henry Cavill may bring a whole new audience to the James Bond films. It's been awhile since they have cast a sexy and irresitable Bond, sorry Craig. You will find women flocking to the Bond films with their men just to catch a glimpse of Henry in action. HOT!!!
Agreed, Kaira -{ They have a big chance at retaining a lot of younger female audience as well with Cavill as Bond. Which as we all know is the biggest-spending demographic and the one both TV and movie makers are most interested in. Btw Kaira, you've got a PM.
Kaira and I are the only two women posting here recently... I believe we clearly stated where we stand, so Ricardo, I'm afraid your argument about Cavill looking "metrosexual" (And not the way I mean it which is absolutely positive, but the way you mean it which clearly has a negative connotation as in "sissy") and "soft" stands on very thin ice. We both completely disagree with it. I'll get to that other offensive statement about women and sissies in a minute.
I'm pretty sure you haven't seen Cavill in anything, so I don't see how you can give such judgment (which by the way is completely wrong regarding how Cavill is, and his onscreen presence in many of his works gives ample evidence of it). Cary Grant is my all-time favorite actor, I adore him, and seriously? He was the EXACT equivalent of what is called a "metrosexual" now, like George Clooney, the biggest representative of the category. He was very elegant and well-mannered and extremely charming and stylish. Not to mention gorgeous. This while still retaining his masculine side. Which is exactly how Cavill is, and then some. Since Cavill does have a lot more "manly" traits to him than Cary Grant had or George Clooney has. He plays rugby, he would have joined the forces hadn't he been an actor (his brothers are in the forces), he's been horse riding ever since he was a kid. None of these activities are part of Cary Grant's CV or George Clooney's. And no, they don't have other equivalent ones (and trust me given I truly adore Cary Grant and think he's the last perfect man who walked the planet, I'm very well documented on him. You may be interested in knowing he did pantomime and acrobatics when he was very young? Yeah, as in going around the world doing that. Discovered in Broadway, no less.)
I'm also pretty sure you know Cary Grant was many times "accused" of being homosexual because of his attitude and manners and the fact he wasn't a womanizer and shared a house with a man? (despite his many wives). He's publicly answered those "accusations" a few times, with elegance and good manners. That's pretty much what you're doing with Cavill, accusing him of being "soft" and "metrosexual" (with a clear negative connotation in your case) because he's got great looks and style. And without having even seen him in anything? I'm also pretty sure you know that Fleming's original choice for Bond was Cary Grant? And Cary Grant turned down Dr No because he (rightly) thought he was too old for the part? And I'm equally sure anyone can see how Daniel Craig has got absolutely NOTHING of what Cary Grant had. Not the looks, not the attitude, not the style, not the charm, not the elegance. Unlike Cavill, who has all of those characteristics Cary Grant had, but he is more masculine and more physically imposing than Cary Grant was.
Also, Bond is not supposed to look like a thug. Dangerous is not Bond's main trait at all. He's the good guy, not the bad guy. He CAN be dangerous when he is in action, but that is far from being his main trait. He is supposed to have a commanding and imposing presence, which is very different from "dangerous" being his main trait. Dangerous as main is for the villains, not for Bond. And as far as commanding and imposing presence, Cavill has got that in spades.
BTW, the Rock Hudson stories aren't "alleged" they are exactly what happened back then, it's history and very well documented. The studios DID make him marry a woman to hide his homosexuality because back then it wasn't accepted at all. He publicly spoke about that. And he divorced her after only a few years. And the rest of the stuff spydaddy quoted is also very well-known in Hollywood. You way too easily dismissed it as "gossip". It's much more than just "gossip". Cary Grant DID live with Randolph Scott on and off. They had a house together. Needless to say there were many rumors about the nature of their relationship. The fact Scott joked and said he was Cary's wife didn't help. Suffice it to say, studios threatened not to employ them unless they lived separately (and you can easily check this on any decent film site. This is not gossip, it's what happened. Whatever the nature of their relationship was, it is a fact that studios threatened not to employ them unless they lived separately and it is a fact the two shared a house).
I know a lot of woman would disagree. Woman today love sissy guys. )
Really? This shouldn't really be dignified with an answer, (and no it isn't funny even with the ) face, and if it is a joke well it's definitely out of place) but here goes.
Being a man does NOT equal any of the following: being rude, badly dressed, being UGLY or unattractive, being "rugged", not shaving, not working out, drinking beer, having chest hair. Just to cite a few. NONE of those characteristics make ANY man manly in general, and least of all do they make a man more "manly" than someone who is polite, well-dressed, attractive, polished and clean-shaven. Including shaving chest hair (I HATE chest hair, and I can only stand it on Cavill because the rest of him is so damn gorgeous that I overlook that! But chest hair disgusts me. And no, chest hair doesn't make anyone more masculine.).
Your champion of masculinity Daniel Craig shaves his chest, has had laser and botox to skin on his face (no this is not gossip this is fact, and very well known in Hollywood, not to mention clearly visible in his photos, and if you speak to any cosmetic surgeon and any dermatologist they will very easily confirm it), is championed on UK magazines as a style icon. That's metrosexual to the extreme. So? He's more manly because he's rude in press conferences, attacks a gay man who comments on his swimsuit scene at the BAFTAs and because he's unattractive? That is plain ridiculous. And by the way no he doesn't look imposing or commanding at all. He looks like a thug. Which, again, is no token for masculinity whatsoever.
A Man (capital M) is smart, polite, educated, witty, stylish, a good athlete, strong, sexy and bloody gorgeous. You seem to very much confuse having great looks with being a metrosexual or having little masculinity. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do NOT like sissies, I never have and I never will, thank you very much. That's exactly why I like Cavill so much. And Cary Grant, too. I also don't know how you think you have some kind of benchmark to establish who is a sissy and who isn't.
By the way Cavill looks NOTHING like Jude Law or Di Caprio. Jude Law and Di Caprio are baby faced, have no muscles, they have a very different style from Cavill's in terms of clothing and they don't do any of the sports activities Cavill does (again.. RUGBY. He stopped playing because of an injury. And don't even get me started, I've hung out with professional rugby players for years. NO SPORT gets more masculine than that while maintaining discipline and style). In short, saying Cavill is not masculine doesn't stand for even a minute, given not only his looks, but also his attitude and his activities. And if you compare to Cary Grant (my adored) whom you seem to like so much (we WILL agree on this one) well then that's exactly why I like Cavill. Because he's the same exact type nowadays. Even physically... same type as George Clooney and Cary Grant. (but better, physically speaking, because taller than Clooney and more built than Cary Grant and Clooney). Gorgeous men, who certainly aren't less masculine AT ALL just because they have great looks. Again, if anything Cavill is the most masculine of the three given his physique (much more imposing) and his activities and preferences. And, you don't know who is cast for an Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue at all if you think Cavill fits that bill. He doesn't. In fact, he did ads for Dunhill, which is men's stuff and not stuff for teenagers and tweens. Taylor Kitsch (Friday Night Lights / Wolverine actor) was an Abercrombie & Fitch model. He looks nothing like Cavill. Which is not to say he isn't masculine. He damn well is. And sexy, too. Just a different type of beauty. Like all Abercrombie & Fitch models, who don't look like Cavill at all.
And if you think being a model in general equals being fey or being less masculine, think again. One of my dearest friends was the model of the first Aqua di Gio' for men Armani campaign. And he is by far one of the most masculine, manly men I've met. And yes, he's bloody gorgeous. I've met plenty of models and they are like the rest of men: some are masculine, some aren't. Has got nothing to do with them being models, least of all with them being gorgeous.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
j.bladesCurrently? You must be joking?Posts: 530MI6 Agent
^Beautifully put Alessandra, logically you have displayed the facts and after that I don't think anything needbesaid at all.
"I take a ridiculous pleasure in what I eat and drink."
There's almost nothing "factual" about anything she posted but simply her opinion, which she is entitled to as well as the guy she is debating. My best friend is a woman, as is another close friend, and both think Daniel Craig is 10 times more attractive than Brosnan ever was, and while they might find Henry Cavill more interesting than Brosnan, they're not interested in watching a generic-looking male model play James Bond. I would be inclined to agree with that opinion.
There's a lot of factual stuff about what I posted, especially about what Cavill does and doesn't, what Cary Grant did, what Craig did, Fleming picking Cary Grant and all that... and about what for sure doesn't make a man more manly than another. Those aren't opinions, those are facts. Proven even by your champion Craig.
Your two best friends think so? Good for them. My best friends (the four of them) are firmly in the Brosnan and Cavill field. I believe that makes it 6-2 counting Kaira and I. Except I have tons of other friends (and from different countries) who think the exact same, so it's a lot more than that, if we have to make it about numbers. Actually, I don't have a single girlfriend who likes Craig. Not one. I'm pretty sure Cavill would very easily win this one in a contest with women. Especially since he fares much better than Craig in the demographic that matters most in terms of spending: young women. LOL Cavill is anything BUT generic-looking. He's gorgeous and very much above average. Doesn't look generic in the slightest. He stands out, and very much so.
^Beautifully put Alessandra, logically you have displayed the facts and after that I don't think anything needbesaid at all.
it's Cavill and Cary Grant/George Clooney who did it! Stylish, manly, gorgeous men rule! )
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Compared to the amount of opinion you posted, the "facts" are a teeny proportion, and your conclusion that Cavill fares better than Craig with "young women" as a demographic because you and "tons of friends" think so is hyperbole based on a convenience sample. That's almost as bad as saying all women prefer Daniel Craig to Pierce Brosnan because Barbara Broccoli chose Craig to replace Brosnan or similar questionable reasoning. You can certainly have an opinion and even write about it at great length if you want, but you do a disservice by passing off opinions like "about what for sure doesn't make a man more manly than another" as anything but your opinion.
Perhaps it's different in Italy, but the demographic that rightly or wrongly remains the most important to moviemakers in the United States is men. That's not to discount women nor to ignore that women are more important in some genres or franchises. But we've not yet made it to the point where women wield that much economic influence. It may come to pass, just as women became most important to literary publishing, but it hasn't happened yet.
Well I don't have any problem with Cavill being a serious contender to be the next Bond.....he certainly appears to have alot of the fundamentals and if he's a good actor he should be able to handle the intangables. I need to see more of him on the screen to see if he has screen presence and charisma (which of course can be somewhat subjective). I do like to joust with Alessandra mainly because I like Craig and would really like to see him finish out his Bond odyssy with at least two or preferably three more films. At least two to three more because CR started as a reboot and I'd like to see Craig's Bond as the fully realized charactor we know and love. It would also be grossly unfair for me to put down Cavill just because I like Craig. And all this who's the tougher guy in reality is silly......hell I have an 18 yr old son with almost a lifetime of martial arts training with a build similar to DC in CR ...maybe he could kick both their butts lol but he sure couldn't play James Bond. The way I see it, Craig is my guy until he ages out but it's nice to know there may be someone waiting in the wings like Cavill.
Unlike Cavill, who has all of those characteristics Cary Grant had, but he is more masculine and more physically imposing than Cary Grant was.
) I'll give you the physically imposing thing but that's it. Like I said, I am not here to debate hollywood gossip. I'll believe the Rock Hudson stuff though since it was not unreasonable for studios into interfere with personal lives back then.
And as usual, you write an article length post which is just your opinion. I am only going to address a few things that you said.
Also, Bond is not supposed to look like a thug. Dangerous is not Bond's main trait at all. He's the good guy, not the bad guy. He CAN be dangerous when he is in action, but that is far from being his main trait. He is supposed to have a commanding and imposing presence, which is very different from "dangerous" being his main trait. Dangerous as main is for the villains, not for Bond. And as far as commanding and imposing presence, Cavill has got that in spades.
"Dangerous is not Bond's his main trait" ? ) Go and read the books. He's suppose to look dangerous. People noticed how dangerous he looked in MR when he entered Blades. The brains of SMERSH, the lethal, spy-killing machine, described him as a "nasty customer". Your dillusional if you think Cavill projects this sort of image in the least. Do I have anything against him for not being as much ? No. He just isn't right for the part, that's all.
Also I aware of some of the choices Fleming do not exactly describe this type of man either because I believe he thought there was a fundemental difference between film and literature. He even dismissed Connery at first but then loved him later because he couldn't see something that close to his Bond on screen at first. I am pretty sure he did not mind Ursula Andress not having a broken nose when she played Honey Rider in Dr. No. Still, Flemings choices such as Grant or David Niven project far more masculinity than Cavill IMO.
I think in terms of looks alone, Timothy Dalton was the best Bond ever. He's not as masculine as Connery but he projected a swarthiness that made think "That really looks Fleming's Bond". This is a guy SMERSH would have been concerned about.
Being a man does NOT equal any of the following: being rude, badly dressed, being UGLY or unattractive, being "rugged", not shaving, not working out, drinking beer, having chest hair. Just to cite a few. NONE of those characteristics make ANY man manly in general, and least of all do they make a man more "manly" than someone who is polite, well-dressed, attractive, polished and clean-shaven. Including shaving chest hair (I HATE chest hair, and I can only stand it on Cavill because the rest of him is so damn gorgeous that I overlook that! But chest hair disgusts me. And no, chest hair doesn't make anyone more masculine.).
ROFL ! You must think a lot of men are unattractive. I am all for Good grooming, especially if you are in the public eye, but being crass, even somewhat, is a manly man trait 100% along with the other stuff you can't stand. No man, or woman, is perfect and it's those imperfections that make us human. Also slightly off-topic, this is another reason why I never fall in love with screen and media images of people, they are meant to be fake. Everything about them is suppose to be "perfect" and I just don't like that.
Your champion of masculinity Daniel Craig shaves his chest, has had laser and botox to skin on his face (no this is not gossip this is fact, and very well known in Hollywood, not to mention clearly visible in his photos, and if you speak to any cosmetic surgeon and any dermatologist they will very easily confirm it), is championed on UK magazines as a style icon. That's metrosexual to the extreme. So? He's more manly because he's rude in press conferences, attacks a gay man who comments on his swimsuit scene at the BAFTAs and because he's unattractive? That is plain ridiculous. And by the way no he doesn't look imposing or commanding at all. He looks like a thug. Which, again, is no token for masculinity whatsoever.
Like I said before, I am not really hear to judge what these people do off screen. Alot of the guys I mentioned would probably not be up for Saint Hood but so what ? 8-)
A Man (capital M) is smart, polite, educated, witty, stylish, a good athlete, strong, sexy and bloody gorgeous. You seem to very much confuse having great looks with being a metrosexual or having little masculinity. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do NOT like sissies, I never have and I never will, thank you very much. That's exactly why I like Cavill so much. And Cary Grant, too. I also don't know how you think you have some kind of benchmark to establish who is a sissy and who isn't.
Alessandra, you salavate over this one guy so much that it's hard to take your opinion seriously on this man. Cavill looks like a "dime-a-dozen" models I have seen in GQ magazines. That's how I feel. If you don't like it, too bad. As Harry Callahan once said "Opinions are like a** holes, everyone has one". I think a ton of 1950's and 1960's stars have more masculine, and unqiue, appeal than your precious Henry.
Also I am sorry, it may sound harsh, but I notice woman seem to go for the fey guys. They are splashed on magazine covers, films, and television all over the world and they swoon over them. You object because you are a woman and that's natural. I think a lot guys would agree with me and a lot of woman would disagree. That's all good because that's what makes the fellas and the ladies differ.
Comments
"There's a fair amount of deviation and repetition..."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
A new Bond actor usually happens in the mid-decade.
Kaira, I'm very sorry for not having read this before, and not having replied appropriately.
I am an interested party and a fan, not an agent or a friend (though I'd gladly be his GIRLFRIEND
I completely agree that Cavill is likely to make it to the Hollywood élite in the next 15 years, he's got all the qualities to make it. He's smart, he's talented, he's good with the media AND he is gorgeous, which is never bad
I hope the Bond franchise is smart enough to get him before it's too late. After all, they did test him for CR and he was the last man standing together with Craig, so they have seen the qualities he has even back then. Hopefully the Brosnan history will be repeated, and while not getting the role the first time because too young, he will get it the second time around
I think a lot depends on how the two movies he has out in 2011 do. "The Cold Light of Day" will be the first one, and I think that will just do ok, since it's not a big production. But then there's "Immortals", which is a much bigger production where he plays Greek warrior (HOW appropriate
BTW, Freida Pinto would be an excellent suggestion for a Bond girl alongside Cavill as Bond IMO.
Anyway I guess since he has other projects lining up already, that if these two movies do ok, he'll start to get bigger offers soon. Just as long as the first one lined up is Bond and they finally cast him!
NP (as in Mr Napoleon Plural), so I'm flying to London tomorrow. You ARE aware that Henry is in England resting and reading scripts and auditioning right now? Just in case we bump into him and I have a moment of weakness (and elope to a Caribbean island with him
~ Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
I don't understand. How does this fortify Cavill as Bond ? If anyone, Bond would have be a close facsimile of the popular leading men of the times he was written in, the 1950's, when manly men dominated the screen. Kirk Douglas, Gregory Peck, Robert Mitchum, Cary Grant, Victure Mature, John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart etc. Not todays metrosexuals like Cavill, Jude Law, Leonardo DiCarpio and various "rock star" lookers as one my favorite cartoonists would put it.
BTW I know I am bringing up this kind of a late but this ridiculous notion of a man being defined by who he could beat up is also silly. A lot of sissy guys work out and probably could knock me and a lot of other people out but that dosen't make them any more manly. I am sure Ashton Kutcher could have licked Jack Lemmon when he was young but Lemmon was more of a man in my eyes.
~ Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Also I doubt Brosnan could tear a tissue without the aid of a stuntman but imo he and Cavill,Law and all the what is it you called them metrosexuals are more manly than that pouting,arty farty poser who currently has the role.
Not entirely like Carmichael but he did use him for inspiration. I do see some of Hoagy in Bond in Fleming's comissioned drawing and going by that image I would say almost any of those men I mentioned playing Bond would have appropriate, especially Gregory Peck.
~ Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
I think someone would have made the same assement of Tony Curtis as well. He would fit that discription perfectly and he's no metrosexual, unlike Cavill. I would count Peck as well, who seemingly looked soft, but once he accidentally managed to knock Robert Mitchum on his ass on the set of Cape Fear.
~ Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Please oh please Ricardo how much manlier can the guy be.
I am just trying to look in the perspective of Pearsons and the 1950's when Bond was created, that's all. For a modern counterpart, I would turn to another actor besides Cavill. Someone who would like Newman or Brando or at least has a manly quality quality to them.
I am sorry but I just don't see this guy as someone who would look noticably dangerous when he enters a room as described by Fleming in Moonraker.
I bet you there is A LOT of women who would disagree.
I know a lot of woman would disagree. Woman today love sissy guys.
Cavill just looks soft. Too much of a male model to possibly look like a hard-as-nails secret agent. I compare him to the golden age of manly guys in movies and he looks like a wimp in comparison.
AS to the golden age of manly guys you talk of,well lets see now Brando used to beat his wife and children, John Wayne was a war dodger and Cary Grant and Randolf Scott were gay lovers.
Some real manly men.
John Wayne was not a war dodger. He was classifed 4-F. And Cary Grant and Randolf Scott ? What's your source ? TMZ ?
I don't approve of wife beating but I am not talking about the characters of any of these men. I mean nothing personal against Cavill if that is what you think.
And another thing, since when does your sexuality determine your man hood ? Rock Hudson was no punk.
Regards Grant and Scott Iread about their affair or relationship in a very good biography of Scotts. They shared a house together apparantly it was the place to be on the gay scene..
As for Wayne he had the chance to join up but unlike his great costarr of many a film James Stewart he chose not to and stayed down in Mexico claiming to have a bad back and yet managing to go out partying everynight.
One final thing your sexuality does not determin your manhood Ricardo nor does ones LOOKS.
I am really going to take most of your alledged stories with a grain of salt. There is a lot of money in gossip. We could probably talk about conflicting stories for a long time. Citing a biography as evidence ? Give me a break. They tend to be a cesspool of deception. I really don't want to debate such rubbish of "he said, she said".
As for last comment, when it comes to playing a deadly secret agent, I want the man to look dangerous. I don't want the guy who should be on the front cover of .Ambercrombie and Fitch. Craig, who you hate so much, gives off that vibe more than Cavill.
Imo you may as well have had Bruce Willis play the lead role in CR and QOS that is how unbondlike I thought they were.
As for him looking dangerous ol DC pouts more than my teenage daughters.
Honestly Ricardo watch Henry in the Tudors,believe me he is more of a dangerous badass in that than Craig is in both his 007 outings.
Heh Heh. We just see things two different ways, daddy. :v Personally, I have blamed the writers for making Craig more of a stunt man than Bond as I have stated in other threads. I think Craig has a wit, charm, and class that has yet to be really exploited by the Bond producers that I have seen in at least a couple of his films; Archangel in particular.
Agreed, Kaira -{ They have a big chance at retaining a lot of younger female audience as well with Cavill as Bond. Which as we all know is the biggest-spending demographic and the one both TV and movie makers are most interested in. Btw Kaira, you've got a PM.
Kaira and I are the only two women posting here recently... I believe we clearly stated where we stand, so Ricardo, I'm afraid your argument about Cavill looking "metrosexual" (And not the way I mean it which is absolutely positive, but the way you mean it which clearly has a negative connotation as in "sissy") and "soft" stands on very thin ice. We both completely disagree with it. I'll get to that other offensive statement about women and sissies in a minute.
I'm pretty sure you haven't seen Cavill in anything, so I don't see how you can give such judgment (which by the way is completely wrong regarding how Cavill is, and his onscreen presence in many of his works gives ample evidence of it). Cary Grant is my all-time favorite actor, I adore him, and seriously? He was the EXACT equivalent of what is called a "metrosexual" now, like George Clooney, the biggest representative of the category. He was very elegant and well-mannered and extremely charming and stylish. Not to mention gorgeous. This while still retaining his masculine side. Which is exactly how Cavill is, and then some. Since Cavill does have a lot more "manly" traits to him than Cary Grant had or George Clooney has. He plays rugby, he would have joined the forces hadn't he been an actor (his brothers are in the forces), he's been horse riding ever since he was a kid. None of these activities are part of Cary Grant's CV or George Clooney's. And no, they don't have other equivalent ones (and trust me given I truly adore Cary Grant and think he's the last perfect man who walked the planet, I'm very well documented on him. You may be interested in knowing he did pantomime and acrobatics when he was very young? Yeah, as in going around the world doing that. Discovered in Broadway, no less.)
I'm also pretty sure you know Cary Grant was many times "accused" of being homosexual because of his attitude and manners and the fact he wasn't a womanizer and shared a house with a man? (despite his many wives). He's publicly answered those "accusations" a few times, with elegance and good manners. That's pretty much what you're doing with Cavill, accusing him of being "soft" and "metrosexual" (with a clear negative connotation in your case) because he's got great looks and style. And without having even seen him in anything? I'm also pretty sure you know that Fleming's original choice for Bond was Cary Grant? And Cary Grant turned down Dr No because he (rightly) thought he was too old for the part? And I'm equally sure anyone can see how Daniel Craig has got absolutely NOTHING of what Cary Grant had. Not the looks, not the attitude, not the style, not the charm, not the elegance. Unlike Cavill, who has all of those characteristics Cary Grant had, but he is more masculine and more physically imposing than Cary Grant was.
Also, Bond is not supposed to look like a thug. Dangerous is not Bond's main trait at all. He's the good guy, not the bad guy. He CAN be dangerous when he is in action, but that is far from being his main trait. He is supposed to have a commanding and imposing presence, which is very different from "dangerous" being his main trait. Dangerous as main is for the villains, not for Bond. And as far as commanding and imposing presence, Cavill has got that in spades.
BTW, the Rock Hudson stories aren't "alleged" they are exactly what happened back then, it's history and very well documented. The studios DID make him marry a woman to hide his homosexuality because back then it wasn't accepted at all. He publicly spoke about that. And he divorced her after only a few years. And the rest of the stuff spydaddy quoted is also very well-known in Hollywood. You way too easily dismissed it as "gossip". It's much more than just "gossip". Cary Grant DID live with Randolph Scott on and off. They had a house together. Needless to say there were many rumors about the nature of their relationship. The fact Scott joked and said he was Cary's wife didn't help. Suffice it to say, studios threatened not to employ them unless they lived separately (and you can easily check this on any decent film site. This is not gossip, it's what happened. Whatever the nature of their relationship was, it is a fact that studios threatened not to employ them unless they lived separately and it is a fact the two shared a house).
Really? This shouldn't really be dignified with an answer, (and no it isn't funny even with the
Being a man does NOT equal any of the following: being rude, badly dressed, being UGLY or unattractive, being "rugged", not shaving, not working out, drinking beer, having chest hair. Just to cite a few. NONE of those characteristics make ANY man manly in general, and least of all do they make a man more "manly" than someone who is polite, well-dressed, attractive, polished and clean-shaven. Including shaving chest hair (I HATE chest hair, and I can only stand it on Cavill because the rest of him is so damn gorgeous that I overlook that! But chest hair disgusts me. And no, chest hair doesn't make anyone more masculine.).
Your champion of masculinity Daniel Craig shaves his chest, has had laser and botox to skin on his face (no this is not gossip this is fact, and very well known in Hollywood, not to mention clearly visible in his photos, and if you speak to any cosmetic surgeon and any dermatologist they will very easily confirm it), is championed on UK magazines as a style icon. That's metrosexual to the extreme. So? He's more manly because he's rude in press conferences, attacks a gay man who comments on his swimsuit scene at the BAFTAs and because he's unattractive? That is plain ridiculous. And by the way no he doesn't look imposing or commanding at all. He looks like a thug. Which, again, is no token for masculinity whatsoever.
A Man (capital M) is smart, polite, educated, witty, stylish, a good athlete, strong, sexy and bloody gorgeous. You seem to very much confuse having great looks with being a metrosexual or having little masculinity. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do NOT like sissies, I never have and I never will, thank you very much. That's exactly why I like Cavill so much. And Cary Grant, too. I also don't know how you think you have some kind of benchmark to establish who is a sissy and who isn't.
By the way Cavill looks NOTHING like Jude Law or Di Caprio. Jude Law and Di Caprio are baby faced, have no muscles, they have a very different style from Cavill's in terms of clothing and they don't do any of the sports activities Cavill does (again.. RUGBY. He stopped playing because of an injury. And don't even get me started, I've hung out with professional rugby players for years. NO SPORT gets more masculine than that while maintaining discipline and style). In short, saying Cavill is not masculine doesn't stand for even a minute, given not only his looks, but also his attitude and his activities. And if you compare to Cary Grant (my adored) whom you seem to like so much (we WILL agree on this one) well then that's exactly why I like Cavill. Because he's the same exact type nowadays. Even physically... same type as George Clooney and Cary Grant. (but better, physically speaking, because taller than Clooney and more built than Cary Grant and Clooney). Gorgeous men, who certainly aren't less masculine AT ALL just because they have great looks. Again, if anything Cavill is the most masculine of the three given his physique (much more imposing) and his activities and preferences. And, you don't know who is cast for an Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue at all if you think Cavill fits that bill. He doesn't. In fact, he did ads for Dunhill, which is men's stuff and not stuff for teenagers and tweens. Taylor Kitsch (Friday Night Lights / Wolverine actor) was an Abercrombie & Fitch model. He looks nothing like Cavill. Which is not to say he isn't masculine. He damn well is. And sexy, too. Just a different type of beauty. Like all Abercrombie & Fitch models, who don't look like Cavill at all.
And if you think being a model in general equals being fey or being less masculine, think again. One of my dearest friends was the model of the first Aqua di Gio' for men Armani campaign. And he is by far one of the most masculine, manly men I've met. And yes, he's bloody gorgeous. I've met plenty of models and they are like the rest of men: some are masculine, some aren't. Has got nothing to do with them being models, least of all with them being gorgeous.
~ Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Your two best friends think so? Good for them. My best friends (the four of them) are firmly in the Brosnan and Cavill field. I believe that makes it 6-2 counting Kaira and I. Except I have tons of other friends (and from different countries) who think the exact same, so it's a lot more than that, if we have to make it about numbers. Actually, I don't have a single girlfriend who likes Craig. Not one. I'm pretty sure Cavill would very easily win this one in a contest with women. Especially since he fares much better than Craig in the demographic that matters most in terms of spending: young women. LOL Cavill is anything BUT generic-looking. He's gorgeous and very much above average. Doesn't look generic in the slightest. He stands out, and very much so.
Perhaps it's different in Italy, but the demographic that rightly or wrongly remains the most important to moviemakers in the United States is men. That's not to discount women nor to ignore that women are more important in some genres or franchises. But we've not yet made it to the point where women wield that much economic influence. It may come to pass, just as women became most important to literary publishing, but it hasn't happened yet.
And as usual, you write an article length post which is just your opinion. I am only going to address a few things that you said.
"Dangerous is not Bond's his main trait" ?
Also I aware of some of the choices Fleming do not exactly describe this type of man either because I believe he thought there was a fundemental difference between film and literature. He even dismissed Connery at first but then loved him later because he couldn't see something that close to his Bond on screen at first. I am pretty sure he did not mind Ursula Andress not having a broken nose when she played Honey Rider in Dr. No. Still, Flemings choices such as Grant or David Niven project far more masculinity than Cavill IMO.
I think in terms of looks alone, Timothy Dalton was the best Bond ever. He's not as masculine as Connery but he projected a swarthiness that made think "That really looks Fleming's Bond". This is a guy SMERSH would have been concerned about.
ROFL ! You must think a lot of men are unattractive. I am all for Good grooming, especially if you are in the public eye, but being crass, even somewhat, is a manly man trait 100% along with the other stuff you can't stand. No man, or woman, is perfect and it's those imperfections that make us human. Also slightly off-topic, this is another reason why I never fall in love with screen and media images of people, they are meant to be fake. Everything about them is suppose to be "perfect" and I just don't like that.
Like I said before, I am not really hear to judge what these people do off screen. Alot of the guys I mentioned would probably not be up for Saint Hood but so what ? 8-)
Alessandra, you salavate over this one guy so much that it's hard to take your opinion seriously on this man. Cavill looks like a "dime-a-dozen" models I have seen in GQ magazines. That's how I feel. If you don't like it, too bad. As Harry Callahan once said "Opinions are like a** holes, everyone has one". I think a ton of 1950's and 1960's stars have more masculine, and unqiue, appeal than your precious Henry.
Also I am sorry, it may sound harsh, but I notice woman seem to go for the fey guys. They are splashed on magazine covers, films, and television all over the world and they swoon over them. You object because you are a woman and that's natural. I think a lot guys would agree with me and a lot of woman would disagree. That's all good because that's what makes the fellas and the ladies differ.