Can't speak for anyone else...but I was probably this site's first unequivocal supporter of Cavill, back in '05, and check my signature to see my opinion of Craig
Every actor brings his own thing to the role...I just happen to be of the opinion that what Craig brings is what the franchise needs right now. When he's done, Cavill is the man---and he'll be a smash.
Boy, I hope not, Loeff -- this is probably the only point with which I disagree with you, but Cavill is just too uninteresting to me. His looks are appropriate in the way of underwear models and soap opera actors, and I'd fear his Bonds would once more become tedious exercises in expensive, predictable cliche, even if they tried to convince me that he's a man with deep emotional complexity and an extraordinary life as opposed to some privileged suburbanite who hangs around the gym and the club with girls who work at makeup counters and sit-down restaurants chasing after him. He might be fine in some other kind of action movie, like the kind where CGI and Jason Statham are the primary ingredients, but I want Bond more unique than this guy.
Fair enough, Gassy. But I think performance is the key with Bond rather than looks (hence my long-term support of the current guy back during the heat and violence of The Craig WarsTM). That said, to me Cavill does look the part in a very specific sense...but he's got an excellent acting pedigree, and that's what excites me even more.
It will be fascinating to see what they do after #23 or #24, or whenever Craigger hangs up the tux.
I took a look at some of the work he did in The Tudors . . . I'm still not impressed, but I haven't been following him as long. Maybe my opinion will change. Still, I don't want to say it's looks so much that bother me about him, even if my post seems that way. It's the baggage his looks will bring to the role.
Put another way: When Craig was cast, I assumed they would have to work a lot harder with the production because he wasn't a mannequin and with the pale skin and blond hair didn't immediately look the stereotypical 007, and I believe that's been the case. Casino Royale was probably the best Bond I'd seen on the actual first-run screen, and I think Quantum of Solace, while still entertaining, would have been a far better film if Forster hadn't been so insistent on trimming it down to an almost skeletal plot line.
Lookswise, I do find him tedious because he seems so cookie-cutter -- he's kind of a cross between Chris O'Donnell and Eric Bana. In that respect, he seems better suited for more generic action movies, soap operas, commercials, magazine ads, etc. He just blends into the "Hollywood" collage too easily for me whereas Bond should be a one in a billion, not a one in 10,000. That doesn't mean Bond should be ridiculously handsome, but he should be handsome in a way that makes him unique but also capable of walking down a street without people stopping to say, "That guy should be modeling something common."
With Cavill, I envision flashy but trite productions that will make Bond seem more like he's in a commercial for Bond (or the various product placement) than a legitimate Bond movie itself . . . that may be unfair, but I feel it about as strong as with the casting of Daniel Craig and how he would reinvent/reinvigorate the franchise.
Lookswise, I do find him tedious because he seems so cookie-cutter -- he's kind of a cross between Chris O'Donnell and Eric Bana. In that respect, he seems better suited for more generic action movies, soap operas, commercials, magazine ads, etc. He just blends into the "Hollywood" collage too easily for me whereas Bond should be a one in a billion, not a one in 10,000. That doesn't mean Bond should be ridiculously handsome, but he should be handsome in a way that makes him unique but also capable of walking down a street without people stopping to say, "That guy should be modeling something common."
This shows how perceptions are different. Which is good, don't misunderstand me. I'd have to fight ALL the women in the world for Cavill if we actually all saw it the same way ) There's PLENTY who want him as is, a few can be left out ) (I am joking, before some Ricardo comes out of the bushes and calls me obsessed, pathetic, sad and all that).
I think many things can be said about Cavill, but common certainly isn't one of them for me. Because he is anything but that. People who model are way above average in terms of looks. Unless they're on those cheap mail catalogues. People who model at high levels (like Cavill would do if he was a model, which he isn't), as in real models, are anything BUT common looking. They have to look way above average to do that. Cavill would never be cast to advertise something common as a model. He's way too classy and way distinct for something common. In fact, he's done Dunhill ads, not Axe ) And he doesn't have the soap-opera look at all either (you can check the faces on primetime). Other than the fact soap operas have had people like Kevin Bacon (who by all means is a good actor), Meg Ryan, Alec Baldwin and many others... He isn't baby faced like Chris O' freaking Donnell at all IMO he doesn't look like Chris O' Donnell (whom for the record I cannot stand) at all. O' Donnell looks like a wimp. ) Cavill doesn't. (this is all my woman perception, let it be clear). He's much more manly and has a way more distinct face and "allure", as the French say.
Where do you see an even remote resemblance between the two? I'm curious. It's as if you see Cavill through a lens that alters his appearance or something? ) I'm joking, I'm just astonished at how you perceive him, and at the enormous gap there is between how you see him and how I see him, that's all. Again, those are merely personal perceptions. I guess I shouldn't be all that surprised given I don't find Craig attractive at all and you do. Just different taste. And, Cavill doesn't look like Eric Bana either. Maybe the chin and jaw, but there must be a zillion regular people who have similar chin and jaw in the world ) The rest of the face is totally different. Nose, eyes, cheeks, forehead... and mouth and smile especially. My chin and jaw probably resemble those of a half million people in the world, yet they're specific to me and I don't have one of those "common" faces (thank God ) ). This is valid until three or four lookalikes show up of course )
To see his work in the Tudors, one needs to watch the whole series, which frankly takes way too long! ) I hope his movies out in 2011 will serve the purpose, since one is a flat-out action movie and the other one is a based on mythology but he plays a Greek warrior and has many fight scenes. That said, your dislike of him may stay even after those of course I'm just saying it will be probably easier to judge once those are released.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Watching a few of those Tudor clips... he's not that good of an actor, from what I saw. Okay, but nothing special. And looks-wise he just doesn't read "Bond" to me. Maybe he can manage an American accent and do Bourne in that reboot?
I don't think the next Bond is on anybody's radar as yet, partly cuz Craig is still hot in the role AND still demolishing a lot of expectations about who and what Bond is. I'd be very surprised if EON goes the Cavill way with the next Bond, I think there'll be someone better by then (even if he doesn't melt Alessandra's heart as much).
Lookswise, I do find him tedious because he seems so cookie-cutter -- he's kind of a cross between Chris O'Donnell and Eric Bana. In that respect, he seems better suited for more generic action movies, soap operas, commercials, magazine ads, etc. He just blends into the "Hollywood" collage too easily for me whereas Bond should be a one in a billion, not a one in 10,000. That doesn't mean Bond should be ridiculously handsome, but he should be handsome in a way that makes him unique but also capable of walking down a street without people stopping to say, "That guy should be modeling something common."
This shows how perceptions are different . . . .
Well, what I said was kind of a cross between the two, but regardless, I'm not saying he's common compared to the average person walking down the street, I'm saying his look is pretty generic for advertising/modeling/"Hollywood" in general, and that makes him perfectly appropriate for modeling common goods and services. The fact that I wouldn't be surprised to see his tedious mug looking at me from an advertisement for cologne, alcohol, healthclubs, or designer Y fronts is exactly the reason I wouldn't want him for Bond.
I'm not attracted to men, so I don't know that I would call Craig attractive per se, but I know that a lot of people do. Assuming you're attracted to men, that might be the biggest reason we see these people differently. I don't want to sleep with James Bond nor spend time in the theater thinking about it every time his face appears. For me, the primary interest must come from something other than his sex appeal even if I must be reasonably convinced he is sexy enough to do the things that Bond does.
Craig works in this regard, and because he doesn't look so predictable in the role, I'm much more interested in seeing what he's going to do as the character -- certainly moreso than with Brosnan, who I still liked because he at least tried to bring a little more to the character, but not remotely as much as Craig. Craig's much more a guy that as a guy I'm willing to pay attention to because the role is more than just about his looks.
That's not to say I can't appreciate a handsome actor -- Gregory Peck, Cary Grant, Sidney Poitier, Toshiro Mifune, Yul Bryner, and others were all very handsome men, but they brought to their characters much more. To me, today's actors are far less interesting to watch just in terms of talent, and if they look dime-a-dozen for their profession are even less and less interesting. Craig and a few others buck that trend. In fact, he's made Bond truly interesting to watch again as a character and not simply as an ingredient in a movie franchise.
I guess the best way to put it is how my heterosexual female friends say they view female strippers -- because they're not attracted to women, they're more interested in the show than the woman, but if the woman is primarily getting by on looks, the whole spectacle is unappealing.
"I just caught my sister grinding against the computer screen screaming **** ME!!! **** ME!!!! **** ME!!!!!! and ironicallly...this vid was playing...... im so embarrased...."
i think henry cold be alittle too much of a pretty boy,i only hope ,if and when the time comes that his acting will make up for this.i just dont think daniel craig looks the part,he's hardly dark and tall?
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,818MI6 Agent
To see his work in the Tudors, one needs to watch the whole series, which frankly takes way too long! ) I hope his movies out in 2011 will serve the purpose, since one is a flat-out action movie and the other one is a based on mythology but he plays a Greek warrior and has many fight scenes. That said, your dislike of him may stay even after those of course I'm just saying it will be probably easier to judge once those are released.
Lady Alessandra, shame on you!!
You know I only saw the last few eps if The fourth season of The Tudors, and I think Cavill has incredible range! Also his longer hair and tidy tudor style facial hair destroy the illusion of "pretty boy" looks, an accusation that a certain Mr Brosnan had to contend with at first too
In the end its up to Eon and their casting director, and timing - if Mr Cavill gets too popular that could put Eon off. - Assuming he is even available for the role. A contender? Most definitely. Personally I say lets let Mr Craig do his thing for now, and see what happens when he decides to hang up his dinner jacket.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
Craig is a good actor, but he has to thread carefully to not come across as some bully or thug(which James Bond isn't[IMO]). He seems to have maybe too much to prove in his walk, and he seems slightly forward-leaning which makes him seem a little too agressive for me.
Cavill on the other hand has more laid-back of an attitude, and seems more 'connery-ish' and, as someone else pointed out, he reminds us of Cary Grant. Also, I think anyone would agree he has much better looks, and a more calm and charming demeanor, which oozes confidence IMO!
Craig is a good actor, but he has to thread carefully to not come across as some bully or thug (which James Bond isn't [IMO]). He seems to have maybe too much to prove in his walk, and he seems slightly forward-leaning which makes him seem a little too aggressive for me.
Cavill on the other hand has more laid-back of an attitude, and seems more 'connery-ish' and, as someone else pointed out, he reminds us of Cary Grant. Also, I think anyone would agree he has much better looks, and a more calm and charming demeanor, which oozes confidence IMO!
Love to hear what others think!
I agree with every word.
Yes, Craig is a good actor, but he was never the right actor. I respect his work, but he was never the right actor.
Cavill is an infinitely better choice for James Bond. They should have chose him instead of Craig in the first place. Now that Cavil is going to be the new Clark Kent / Superman, it's unlikely he'll ever get a crack at James Bond again. But he is absolutely right for the part.
The top 7 Bond films: 1) Dr No. 2) From Russia With Love. 3) Thunderball. 4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 5) For Your Eyes Only. 6) The Living Daylights. 7) Licence to Kill.
Yes, Craig is a good actor, but he was never the right actor. I respect his work, but he was never the right actor.
Cavill is an infinitely better choice for James Bond. They should have chose him instead of Craig in the first place. Now that Cavil is going to be the new Clark Kent / Superman, it's unlikely he'll ever get a crack at James Bond again. But he is absolutely right for the part.
In your opinion, of course - Richard W.
I think Craig is the perfect choice to play Bond..... and I hope he is Bond for another 2 films at least....
He's brought a different side to Bond that has yet been seen - and the fact his hair is a tad too light, well, if you will take Fleming literally - rather than looking at the character - I think Craig gives a great version - he certainly has the blue grey eyes, and the cruel mouth. Okay, so he's not 'dark haired' and he is shy of an inch - but I would like to think that Fleming wouldn't be as disappointed with Craig as a choice.....as die hard purists seem to be. Although I had thought this argument had been discussed to death back when Craig was cast back in 2006 - ah well.....
As for Cavill - well, I think his chance has passed - and I for one am pleased. I don't like his 'boyish' looks - and I don't think he would bring the menace that I am currently enjoying with the current films.
However, whoever is cast next - I do hope that it's not another re-boot - let's catch our breath with this new direction first, and let's see where it takes the franchise.... you never know, you might be pleasantly surprised. -{
....but of course - this is just my opinion
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
For me, Bond is all about being the fantasy that men want to be.. He should be perfect, and perfect-looking goes into that.
I think of the way Roger Moore described 'his' Bond. We got Rambo and all those action heroes, but Bond is something else, above those somehowi]IMO[/i
Craig just doesn't do this for me, he's more of a Rambo with a twist of Bond.. Add that he did the whole Peter Parker thing from Spiderman 3, in QoS.
For the moment at least we have Craig,and personally I feel that Cavill would have been wrong in 2006 and wrong now. Too pretty,lacking toughness (and yes I have seen the Tudors ) and too much of a catalogue model. Craig is not perfect, but has proved to be surprisingly effective in the role, and more or less well thought of even by those ( myself included) who think him somewhat miscast. Personally I am looking forward to his third (and I suspect final outing) and think it may well be his finest moment. With Cavill set to don the Cape it's beyond unlikely that he will ever be Bond. For what it's worth I doubt his suitability for Superman, but luckily I don't care about that.
I think there will always be two schools of thought on this one. Aesthetics vs performance. I, personally am with the latter as I prefer the gritty more realistic model.
Perhaps that detracts from what the fans want, perhaps they enjoy watching Bond walk out of a tight spot unscathed and then seamlessly schmooze his way in to another. I happen to think that it's a bit camp and dated for a modern audience, but that's my opinion.
I'm not in the 'Cavill for Bond' camp right now. He is only a year older than me and that would just be wrong. I agree, however, that in say 5-10 years he'll be ideal looking.
Superman ( Superman Returns (2006) ), yes, that came very close. And Bond ( Casino Royale (2006) ) came very close as well.
From: IMDB.com , Henry Cavill; Personal Quotes
He might as well get both these roles now, after nr.23[JB]. He seems to have gone from being dubbed 'un-luckiest man in Hollywood' to becoming Luckiest. Very likely the way things are going for him now.
For the moment at least we have Craig,and personally I feel that Cavill would have been wrong in 2006 and wrong now. Too pretty,lacking toughness (and yes I have seen the Tudors ) and too much of a catalogue model. Craig is not perfect, but has proved to be surprisingly effective in the role, and more or less well thought of even by those ( myself included) who think him somewhat miscast. Personally I am looking forward to his third (and I suspect final outing) and think it may well be his finest moment. With Cavill set to don the Cape it's beyond unlikely that he will ever be Bond. For what it's worth I doubt his suitability for Superman, but luckily I don't care about that.
Henry Cavill was genetically engineered in a test tube specifically to play James Bond. He's handsome, debonair, physically fit, athletic, and a master thespian for the ages....in six years he has my ringing endorsement to play James Bond. In the meantime, let's allow that little blond haired troll Daniel whatshisname get on with Bond 23....24...................25? Henry can kill time leaping over tall buildings in a single bound.
I think there will always be two schools of thought on this one. Aesthetics vs performance. I, personally am with the latter as I prefer the gritty more realistic model.
Perhaps that detracts from what the fans want, perhaps they enjoy watching Bond walk out of a tight spot unscathed and then seamlessly schmooze his way in to another. I happen to think that it's a bit camp and dated for a modern audience, but that's my opinion.
Absolutely, I hated it in the past when Bond used his Brain to talk himself out of a tricky situation, Like in the lazer scene in Goldfinger. It's much better now Bond just lumbers in with his Fists. )
And I for one Loved "The new Realistic" parachute opening only ten feet from the ground and Bond skipping away unhurt ! )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Absolutely, I hated it in the past when Bond used his Brain to talk himself out of a tricky situation, Like in the lazer scene in Goldfinger. It's much better now Bond just lumbers in with his Fists. )
And I for one Loved "The new Realistic" parachute opening only ten feet from the ground and Bond skipping away unhurt ! )
Absolutely, I hated it in the past when Bond used his Brain to talk himself out of a tricky situation, Like in the lazer scene in Goldfinger. It's much better now Bond just lumbers in with his Fists. )
And I for one Loved "The new Realistic" parachute opening only ten feet from the ground and Bond skipping away unhurt ! )
I never said that I dislike Bond using his head. I said that I prefer realism, not effortless 'ownage' and cliche.
Besides, these are poor examples, old man. You can never compare Connery with any of the other Bonds, ESPECIALLY in Goldfinger!
I also believe that they should not have bothered with the jump scene in Quantum, agree it's far fetched.
I agree wilde, with a lot of what you say. and believe it or not I like a more realistic Bond. I just sometimes am amazed at how some of the comlpaints directed at older Bond movies, seem to be forgiven with the new movies. Like the CGI in DAD ( which was bad ) yet the CGI in the plane chase in QOS looked just as Bad,In my Opinion, (but seems to never get a mention )
The sillyness of some of the R Moore Bonds gets slated time and time againg, yet the sillyness in Craigs tenure is overlooked, Like the silly parachute jump.
I think it's a little unfair to critise the older bonds by comparing them to the modern take on the character. TSWLM was made tor its time ( the easy going ,light hearted 70's) I don't think it would work today. in the same way QOS if it had of been released in the 70's IMHO wouldn't of worked.
I agree the parachute jump was missplaced in the so called more realistic,gritty version of Bond, It harked back to a different time, and once again IMHO does not suit Craigs Bond, It would of looked out of place in CR as well, I'm not just bashing QOS.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
The parachute jump in QOS really stood out like a sore thumb because it was so out of charactor for the re-boot. Moore's films were generally full of silly moments, which depending on your personal tastes could be good or bad...for me bad. Moore's Bond films were reflective of the times, for better or worse. The classic Connery Bonds, especially DN through Thunderball were trendsetters/trailblazers that influenced pop and cinematic culture while the films after OHMSS tried too hard to be "contemporary" and trend followers rather than trendsetters. It will be interesting to see what DC's complete body of work as Bond looks like. Because the series was re-booted, at least two more films (including 23) IMO would be needed to complete the charactors arc. It will be interesting whether EON allows this to happen.
I think that one more 'Quantum of Solace'(story-and-scriptwise), and that will be the last of Craig as Bond. I'm not hoping desperately for this to happen, however I have to say I would be pleased to see Henry Cavill star as James Bond.
He would be the right choice for Bond after DC, at least for me(and many others I believe), since he has all the good parts of DC and can add much more[IMO].
Hi i'm new here, i personally don't like typical pretty bond's look like Cavill. Each time the producer cast some actor with "soft spoken-light-mannered and flamboyant qualities" ( Moore & Pretty Brosnan) the movies tends to be ridiculous at best, i prefer actors like Connery, Lazenby, Dalton or Craig. I hope Craig could continue till Bond 25.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,929Chief of Staff
The sillyness of some of the R Moore Bonds gets slated time and time againg, yet the sillyness in Craigs tenure is overlooked, Like the silly parachute jump.
I think it's a little unfair to critise the older bonds by comparing them to the modern take on the character. TSWLM was made tor its time ( the easy going ,light hearted 70's) I don't think it would work today. in the same way QOS if it had of been released in the 70's IMHO wouldn't of worked.
I agree the parachute jump was missplaced in the so called more realistic,gritty version of Bond, It harked back to a different time, and once again IMHO does not suit Craigs Bond, It would of looked out of place in CR as well, I'm not just bashing QOS.
Ok - you're not a big fan of the parachute jump, I think that's clear now. What else do you class as 'silly' in Craig's Bond films so far ?
And you don't think Craig's Bond films are 'more realistic' then ? Just because of ONE parachute jump ? Perhaps you'd prefer Bond to service 'dead letter drops' all day ? Surely that would be 'more realistic' for you ? I think you need to pay more heed to the word "more" in "more realistic"
I agree with you that you can't compare the older films to the more recent ones...although the Connery Bond portrayal does compare with Craig's - IMO. And Roger's were great at the time - many I still really enjoy today - sillyness and all.
And Bond strapped to a metal sheet whilst a lazer cuts it's way throuigh it towards him...of course that wasn't silly at all....poor Albert Luxford squatting underneath it with an oxy-acetylene torch trying not to burn Connery's balls off ! )
I see you've not used my full quote where I said I am a fan of a more realistic Bond. I find Craig's Bonds Full of silly moments, I'll not list them all but here's a few. )
Why don't the air bags work on the Aston Martin ?
Given the choice of a small maneuverable light aircraft or a big lumbering antique, what does Bond choose ?
Telling your leading lady the guy who lent you said aircraft would make more money when he sold them out. hardly the making of a suprise attack ! why didn't Bond knock him out at least ?
Why when M keeps telling Bond about all the people he's been killing Like an undercover Policeman. Does Bond not set her straight.
and of course the Crappy CGI , the plane on fire looks like an oil painting.
I'll leave it at that. as I really don't want to go on knocking QOS, I did say that I did like a more realistic Bond, And stated that this scene was out of place in the movie Harking back to the Moore era and not in keeping with the feel of the rest of the movie. I'm sure Others are very happy with it, and think it fits nicley with the rest of the action sequences.
As for the lazer, I always thought the spinning Buzzsaw from the novel more scary. ) But I've never been able to eat a scotch egg ever again. )
I'm merley point out that SOME people seem to turn a blind eye to some minor faults in Craigs Bonds, yet seem to rush to point out the faults in Others.And this scene goes against everthing the movie and its predecessor has layed out for us for Craigs Bond, He's more Human, vunerable , Not a superman. Ahh now that gets me on to Henry Cavill ................................... ) ) )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
Put another way: When Craig was cast, I assumed they would have to work a lot harder with the production because he wasn't a mannequin and with the pale skin and blond hair didn't immediately look the stereotypical 007, and I believe that's been the case. Casino Royale was probably the best Bond I'd seen on the actual first-run screen, and I think Quantum of Solace, while still entertaining, would have been a far better film if Forster hadn't been so insistent on trimming it down to an almost skeletal plot line.
Lookswise, I do find him tedious because he seems so cookie-cutter -- he's kind of a cross between Chris O'Donnell and Eric Bana. In that respect, he seems better suited for more generic action movies, soap operas, commercials, magazine ads, etc. He just blends into the "Hollywood" collage too easily for me whereas Bond should be a one in a billion, not a one in 10,000. That doesn't mean Bond should be ridiculously handsome, but he should be handsome in a way that makes him unique but also capable of walking down a street without people stopping to say, "That guy should be modeling something common."
With Cavill, I envision flashy but trite productions that will make Bond seem more like he's in a commercial for Bond (or the various product placement) than a legitimate Bond movie itself . . . that may be unfair, but I feel it about as strong as with the casting of Daniel Craig and how he would reinvent/reinvigorate the franchise.
This shows how perceptions are different. Which is good, don't misunderstand me. I'd have to fight ALL the women in the world for Cavill if we actually all saw it the same way
I think many things can be said about Cavill, but common certainly isn't one of them for me. Because he is anything but that. People who model are way above average in terms of looks. Unless they're on those cheap mail catalogues. People who model at high levels (like Cavill would do if he was a model, which he isn't), as in real models, are anything BUT common looking. They have to look way above average to do that. Cavill would never be cast to advertise something common as a model. He's way too classy and way distinct for something common. In fact, he's done Dunhill ads, not Axe
Where do you see an even remote resemblance between the two?
To see his work in the Tudors, one needs to watch the whole series, which frankly takes way too long!
I don't think the next Bond is on anybody's radar as yet, partly cuz Craig is still hot in the role AND still demolishing a lot of expectations about who and what Bond is. I'd be very surprised if EON goes the Cavill way with the next Bond, I think there'll be someone better by then (even if he doesn't melt Alessandra's heart as much).
I'm not attracted to men, so I don't know that I would call Craig attractive per se, but I know that a lot of people do. Assuming you're attracted to men, that might be the biggest reason we see these people differently. I don't want to sleep with James Bond nor spend time in the theater thinking about it every time his face appears. For me, the primary interest must come from something other than his sex appeal even if I must be reasonably convinced he is sexy enough to do the things that Bond does.
Craig works in this regard, and because he doesn't look so predictable in the role, I'm much more interested in seeing what he's going to do as the character -- certainly moreso than with Brosnan, who I still liked because he at least tried to bring a little more to the character, but not remotely as much as Craig. Craig's much more a guy that as a guy I'm willing to pay attention to because the role is more than just about his looks.
That's not to say I can't appreciate a handsome actor -- Gregory Peck, Cary Grant, Sidney Poitier, Toshiro Mifune, Yul Bryner, and others were all very handsome men, but they brought to their characters much more. To me, today's actors are far less interesting to watch just in terms of talent, and if they look dime-a-dozen for their profession are even less and less interesting. Craig and a few others buck that trend. In fact, he's made Bond truly interesting to watch again as a character and not simply as an ingredient in a movie franchise.
I guess the best way to put it is how my heterosexual female friends say they view female strippers -- because they're not attracted to women, they're more interested in the show than the woman, but if the woman is primarily getting by on looks, the whole spectacle is unappealing.
"I just caught my sister grinding against the computer screen screaming **** ME!!! **** ME!!!! **** ME!!!!!! and ironicallly...this vid was playing...... im so embarrased...."
Lady Alessandra, shame on you!!
You know I only saw the last few eps if The fourth season of The Tudors, and I think Cavill has incredible range! Also his longer hair and tidy tudor style facial hair destroy the illusion of "pretty boy" looks, an accusation that a certain Mr Brosnan had to contend with at first too
In the end its up to Eon and their casting director, and timing - if Mr Cavill gets too popular that could put Eon off. - Assuming he is even available for the role. A contender? Most definitely. Personally I say lets let Mr Craig do his thing for now, and see what happens when he decides to hang up his dinner jacket.
Craig is a good actor, but he has to thread carefully to not come across as some bully or thug(which James Bond isn't[IMO]). He seems to have maybe too much to prove in his walk, and he seems slightly forward-leaning which makes him seem a little too agressive for me.
Cavill on the other hand has more laid-back of an attitude, and seems more 'connery-ish' and, as someone else pointed out, he reminds us of Cary Grant. Also, I think anyone would agree he has much better looks, and a more calm and charming demeanor, which oozes confidence IMO!
Love to hear what others think!
I agree with every word.
Yes, Craig is a good actor, but he was never the right actor. I respect his work, but he was never the right actor.
Cavill is an infinitely better choice for James Bond. They should have chose him instead of Craig in the first place. Now that Cavil is going to be the new Clark Kent / Superman, it's unlikely he'll ever get a crack at James Bond again. But he is absolutely right for the part.
In your opinion, of course - Richard W.
I think Craig is the perfect choice to play Bond..... and I hope he is Bond for another 2 films at least....
He's brought a different side to Bond that has yet been seen - and the fact his hair is a tad too light, well, if you will take Fleming literally - rather than looking at the character - I think Craig gives a great version - he certainly has the blue grey eyes, and the cruel mouth. Okay, so he's not 'dark haired' and he is shy of an inch - but I would like to think that Fleming wouldn't be as disappointed with Craig as a choice.....as die hard purists seem to be. Although I had thought this argument had been discussed to death back when Craig was cast back in 2006 - ah well.....
As for Cavill - well, I think his chance has passed - and I for one am pleased. I don't like his 'boyish' looks - and I don't think he would bring the menace that I am currently enjoying with the current films.
However, whoever is cast next - I do hope that it's not another re-boot - let's catch our breath with this new direction first, and let's see where it takes the franchise.... you never know, you might be pleasantly surprised. -{
....but of course - this is just my opinion
I think of the way Roger Moore described 'his' Bond. We got Rambo and all those action heroes, but Bond is something else, above those somehowi]IMO[/i
Craig just doesn't do this for me, he's more of a Rambo with a twist of Bond.. Add that he did the whole Peter Parker thing from Spiderman 3, in QoS.
Perhaps that detracts from what the fans want, perhaps they enjoy watching Bond walk out of a tight spot unscathed and then seamlessly schmooze his way in to another. I happen to think that it's a bit camp and dated for a modern audience, but that's my opinion.
I'm not in the 'Cavill for Bond' camp right now. He is only a year older than me and that would just be wrong. I agree, however, that in say 5-10 years he'll be ideal looking.
Regards,
Wilde -{
He might as well get both these roles now, after nr.23[JB]. He seems to have gone from being dubbed 'un-luckiest man in Hollywood' to becoming Luckiest. Very likely the way things are going for him now.
And it's my opinion too
A great post !
And I for one Loved "The new Realistic" parachute opening only ten feet from the ground and Bond skipping away unhurt !
Lol...they had me fooled there for a sec.
I never said that I dislike Bond using his head. I said that I prefer realism, not effortless 'ownage' and cliche.
Besides, these are poor examples, old man. You can never compare Connery with any of the other Bonds, ESPECIALLY in Goldfinger!
I also believe that they should not have bothered with the jump scene in Quantum, agree it's far fetched.
Regards,
Wilde -{
The sillyness of some of the R Moore Bonds gets slated time and time againg, yet the sillyness in Craigs tenure is overlooked, Like the silly parachute jump.
I think it's a little unfair to critise the older bonds by comparing them to the modern take on the character. TSWLM was made tor its time ( the easy going ,light hearted 70's) I don't think it would work today. in the same way QOS if it had of been released in the 70's IMHO wouldn't of worked.
I agree the parachute jump was missplaced in the so called more realistic,gritty version of Bond, It harked back to a different time, and once again IMHO does not suit Craigs Bond, It would of looked out of place in CR as well, I'm not just bashing QOS.
He would be the right choice for Bond after DC, at least for me(and many others I believe), since he has all the good parts of DC and can add much more[IMO].
Ok - you're not a big fan of the parachute jump, I think that's clear now. What else do you class as 'silly' in Craig's Bond films so far ?
And you don't think Craig's Bond films are 'more realistic' then ? Just because of ONE parachute jump ? Perhaps you'd prefer Bond to service 'dead letter drops' all day ? Surely that would be 'more realistic' for you ? I think you need to pay more heed to the word "more" in "more realistic"
I agree with you that you can't compare the older films to the more recent ones...although the Connery Bond portrayal does compare with Craig's - IMO. And Roger's were great at the time - many I still really enjoy today - sillyness and all.
And Bond strapped to a metal sheet whilst a lazer cuts it's way throuigh it towards him...of course that wasn't silly at all....poor Albert Luxford squatting underneath it with an oxy-acetylene torch trying not to burn Connery's balls off !
Why don't the air bags work on the Aston Martin ?
Given the choice of a small maneuverable light aircraft or a big lumbering antique, what does Bond choose ?
Telling your leading lady the guy who lent you said aircraft would make more money when he sold them out. hardly the making of a suprise attack ! why didn't Bond knock him out at least ?
Why when M keeps telling Bond about all the people he's been killing Like an undercover Policeman. Does Bond not set her straight.
and of course the Crappy CGI , the plane on fire looks like an oil painting.
I'll leave it at that. as I really don't want to go on knocking QOS, I did say that I did like a more realistic Bond, And stated that this scene was out of place in the movie Harking back to the Moore era and not in keeping with the feel of the rest of the movie. I'm sure Others are very happy with it, and think it fits nicley with the rest of the action sequences.
As for the lazer, I always thought the spinning Buzzsaw from the novel more scary.
I'm merley point out that SOME people seem to turn a blind eye to some minor faults in Craigs Bonds, yet seem to rush to point out the faults in Others.And this scene goes against everthing the movie and its predecessor has layed out for us for Craigs Bond, He's more Human, vunerable , Not a superman. Ahh now that gets me on to Henry Cavill ...................................