Henry Cavill will make Bond even more popular than he is now
Halcon
Zen TemplePosts: 487MI6 Agent
I've seen several Man of Steel trailers now, and there is no doubt that when Henry takes on the mantle after Craig, Bond is going to be even more popular than he is now.
Despite Craig's popularity as Bond, Cavill's appeal is far more reaching and less polarizing. Therefore, EON have a guaranteed success with Cavill. (By this, I mean, success in terms of financially succesfull).
They just have to make a decent story with some classic Bond elements thrown in (actually ask for a martini shaken, not stirred) and its going to blow today's Bond popularity out of the water.
Despite Craig's popularity as Bond, Cavill's appeal is far more reaching and less polarizing. Therefore, EON have a guaranteed success with Cavill. (By this, I mean, success in terms of financially succesfull).
They just have to make a decent story with some classic Bond elements thrown in (actually ask for a martini shaken, not stirred) and its going to blow today's Bond popularity out of the water.
Comments
+1
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
+2
I agree.... Type-casting and all that. Although having said that, it worked for Roger (The Saint)
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I think the big difference there was moving from television to film. Plus Moore retired from playing the Saint four years before starting as Bond.
If Cavill is successful as Superman, he'll be playing the role for the next 8 - 10 years (and if he isn't successful, he'll go the way of Brandon Routh)
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
True. Also, the time/era may be a point too. I think the next bond will be someone fairly unknown... guess we'll see in time
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Henry might be too expensive to get as Bond.
I'd prefer the "Unknown" talent as the next Bond.
( If only Alessandra still posted, she'd be Defending Him to the hilt. )
Indeed. There is such a thing as The Curse of the Obvious Bond. Just ask Brosnan.
So perhaps it's for the better no former Superman will ever become 007 then.
Wilde
Henry Cavill can be both Superman and James Bond.
There's no reason why an actor can't play the lead in two franchises. Just that it's pretty much certain that he won't.
Harrison Ford isn't a great example as (a) both film series were produced by LucasFilm and (b) Han Solo is a supporting character in Star Wars (Luke is the protagonist.)
A much better example for your argument would be Robert Downey Jnr, who's headlining both the Sherlock Holmes and Iron Man franchises.
But Eon will simply not go for the current Superman as James Bond. They will not accept an actor who has established himself as another iconic movie character.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
I hope you are wrong but suspect you are right. Henry Cavill is my preferred candidate at present. He has the look, will be about the ideal age when Daniel Craig departs, and has already tested for the role.
The Look 8-) Jesus who cares if he has black hair and is tall. Craig has proved the look doesn't matter. It's all in the acting
But he lacks the acting talents of Craig. I doubt he make Bond more popular.
Fassbender is the man, He's the modern day De Niro and I think from Craig onward you need a proper actor to be Bond. Anyone after Craig is going to Suffer
Especially if they have to keep wearing those "Very Tight " Ford suits.
I agree Fassbender would have been my choice But I regard him
as being in the same age bracked as Craig, Who isn't going anywhere
so it would be a long time before Fassbender got his shot. Hence why
I think they will go for a younger Bond next time.
Craig in those suits surely shot sales ups
But seriously Not just that his performances as Bond have elevated the series. He's made Bond human(you actually feel for the guy)not all this winking to the audience Moore,Brosnan and later Connery did. Bond is serious again (Dalton put it brilliantly in that EON documentary about Bond been for adults). I don't mind whoever it is as long as he can act up a storm black and tall or 5ft 6 with red hair doesn't matter. People taught Lazenby and Moore had it hard following I wouldn't want to be the next guy who has to follow Craig.
Infact in the chapel scene at the end I thought they could of left out
the last "Deep water " quip.
IMHO every actor who has played Bond has been Good. ( But Dalton
was the Best
on through the Moore years, Altough with FYEO they did seem to try and Bring
Bond Back to more of his serious side and kept this up until Dalton took over.
Sadly with the poor takings of LTK, I think the producers went back to the old
formula for an almost Guaranteed success with P Brosnan.
For whatever reason with CR they decided to stick to the more realistic version
with D Craig Only this time the public was ready for it. So as Long as the Public want
some realistic action/adventure Bond as always will lead the field, and unlike some
other action series they can if needed inject some more humor or sci-fi as needed.
It may not be every fans cup of tea, but the series has the versatility to change as
needed. -{
I agree that Craig is going to be a tough act to follow, but what might make it slightly easier is if the next Bond is closer to the established Blue-print, and less divisive.I don't think it at all follows that Because Craig has broken the mould that all bets are now off and that a bald dwarf Humunculus with superb acting skills could pull it off and be acceptable. This is no diss of Craig BTW as it is precisely because he is so good (if a little one note for my personal tastes ) that it is likely that EON will go more 'traditional' next time. who knows it might even be possible to find someone who ticks all of the boxes. I don't know if it's Cavill, and agree Superman notwithstanding he may be too much of a pretty boy.
people like me to do. I didn't ask to be so Pretty.
I do. That's the way the character was described in the Fleming novels, and that's the way the cinematic Bond should look. Craig's refusal to dye his hair black for this role is somewhat disappointing.
Can't believe you are being serious about that - if so, then you put looks ABOVE acting ability....and that's plain stupid 8-)
he's playing to the screen, The inner Man. His deternination, sence
of duty, Coldness at times.
So far IMHO Craig has mananged to do this, His hair colour I don't
find distracting after all it was pointed out to me that R Moore's hair
was almost "Orange " in AVTAK.
And I've seen a couple of photos of Craig with Black hair and he
Doesn't suit it at all. Who knows mabey they tried a few test with the
darker hair and came to the same conclusion.
Deadly.
Yes, looks is more important than acting ability. Bond is a character that has been described in the Fleming novels as being tall, dark haired and handsome. As far as I'm concerned, the actor who portrays Bond should as closely as possible mirror the literary Bond in appearance, behaviour and mannerism.
For the record, I have never said that Craig is a poor substitute for Bond. I think he plays the role reasonably well, and given that he is hindered by his appearance being nothing like what Fleming described, he's done a pretty good job of convincing me that he is James Bond.
But I stand by what I said. Looks are just as, if not more important, than acting ability. I would never accept, for instance, a 4ft bald midget playing James Bond, regardless of how good an actor he is or how many Oscars he may have won.
At the risk of clashing with you on two separate threads...
I'm surprised that you genuinely consider looks more important than acting ability which seems like a rather bizarre position to take. But you are quite emphatic about it so there we are.
How do you then feel about the actors who have so far played Bond? None, to my mind, really match Fleming's description of the character. Dalton probably comes the closest? Connery has brown hair and brown eyes, Lazenby has brown eyes, Moore's hair ranges from mid-brown to blond, and Brosnan is surely much too pretty (more in line, I imagine, with Fleming's Count Lippe). Only Dalton, in LTK, had the receding hairline which Fleming imagined for Bond (although he wore his hair very differently)
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
I agree none of the actors have really fits Fleming's description down to a T, but I believe there has to be a line in the sand drawn somewhere. I do consider Connery and Dalton's appearances to be "close enough" but not Moore nor Craig. I also agree that Dalton is the one to best match the description that Fleming gave for the character, which is partly why I rank Dalton's portrayal of Bond as the best, along with Connery's performance in his first two films.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that acting ability is not important at all. It is. Timothy Dalton and Sean Connery are two of the finest actors to have played Bond, as well as Daniel Craig. This is because I consider that their portrayal of the character of James Bond is somewht similar to how Fleming had described him. But I would rank Craig below Dalton or Connery because Craig doesn't look anything like the Bond that Fleming described, even though he is a good actor.
Looks is also why I would never accept anyone who isn't a white caucasian playing James Bond, preferably someone with black hair and looks similar to Fleming's description of him as well. Regardless of acting ability, I'm going to have a hard time accepting anyone who doesn't look like James Bond as James Bond.
Thanks DEFIANT, that makes sense and I understand what you mean. I feel more-or-less the same way. I suppose the only difference is where we draw the line (I find Craig fine but would struggle with Toby Jones, for example)
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
Even with black hair, Craig would look like a Russian mobster
The look is important, the acting less. I have said it before: Playing Bond is not exactly Shakespeare. Even Moore and Lazenby easily pulled it off, neither of them are great actors. Besides, is Cavill such a bad actor?
Cavill, with the right material: THE key element for success in my books, could pull it off easily. Also Christian Bale would have made a fine Bond, but he has the same' problem' as Cavill, by being Batman.
Fassbender doesn't do it to me to be honest. Than again, I once thought Jason Statham would make an interesting Bond, before Craig won the role.
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
It's interesting; does Defiant himself look a bit like Bond, or more like him than Craig, cos I can see that might be a deal breaker if so. How would folk feel about a black guy playing Superman? Because it's a big reach to make believe one is Superman under any circs, so to me a black Superman would kind of be okay with me.
There is a difference slightly between those who really like to think they're Bond a bit, and those who enjoy his portrayal from the outside as it were. Does race difference affect that? But I guess we're moving into potentially tricky waters.
See, Blackleiter, when growing up as a kid did you imagine you were James Bond? Not suggesting that's a useful thing to aspire to mind. Then again, you do get white folk make believing they're black dudes, but they do tend to come across as a bit Ali G. Hmm, it's a conundrum.
Of course, no adult should consciously want to emulate a movie character imo.
Or is this just like saying, well, Sherlock Holmes really ought to look like the literary character or he may as well be a different person altogether? But Sherlock is enormously successful, and Cumberbatch aint a close fit.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Good one!
To your question, as I kid I did in fact pretend to be Bond from time to time. And I pretended to be Superman and Daredevil (my favorite comic book character back then) as well. But I also pretended I was Luke Cage and occasionally Shaft (although by the time Shaft came out in 1971, I was a bit old to be pretending I was anybody!) The fact is, I related to Luke Cage and Shaft more because they were Black like me, but as a young boy just letting my imagination run wild, the race of the characters didn't matter so much as their adventures, and their super powers, and just their general coolness. Unfortunately things get more complicated as we grow up. I can understand why for some Bond just wouldn't be Bond if he was portrayed by a Black actor. I have more difficulty understanding those who have such a hard time accepting a British actor who perhaps doesn't have dark hair or who isn't over six feet as Bond. Using Craig as an example, I think he makes a fine Bond and once I got over the initial adjustment of seeing a Bond who looked somewhat different from the general look I had gotten used to, all I saw was the continuing adventures of 007.
You just saying statham makes you look a fool sorry 8-)
Fassbender isn't right for the role 8-) seriously man I feel like you are taking the mickey.
The look means F all to people just to serious Bond nerds who get their knickers in a twist about small things like hair colour. If anyone really Cared Craig's Bond's would have flopped cause he had Blonde bloody hair. Acting means a lot cause Craig's Bonds wouldn't have gotten serious actors like Fiennes,Bardem etc to star in them. Cavill hasn't proved himself as a actor as of yet come back after a few flms. what I've seen of him he's average at best. Dalton and Connery are good actors and Brosnan has proved himself to be a fine actor.