It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
He had a super moustache
He'll be a super agent ;-)
Stallone played Rocky and Rambo.
Cruise is doing Ethan Hunt and Maverick
Of course an actor can successfully portray yup Ivonic characters. That is a non-issue
Cruise is doing Jack Reacher as well,even !
By the way, I’ve just seen Cavill in Fallout and I think he gave a truly solid performance. Nothing wooden or two-dimensional about it. Did I think of Superman whilst watching him @Pierce2Daniel? Nah, I’m an adult and understand that he’s an actor playing a different role. Just like when I watched Harrison Ford play Jack Ryan, I didn’t immediately think of Indiana Jones or Han Solo. If you can’t separate the actor from the character he’s playing then you’re either a kindergarten toddler or you’re an adult in need of some psychiatric help. Plus, you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel when you have to cite Jezebel.com for reasons why he’s unsuitable for Bond or Superman.
Sadly, you are wrong.
Ford played Indiana Jones and Han Solo and Jack Ryan.
Both Indy and Solo were original characters that Ford played originated. There was no expectation that the roles would become iconic. It's not as though someone else played those roles first and Ford is another actor playing the role.
Stallone played Rocky and Rambo.
Once again, both are ogrinial characters that became iconic due to Stallone's performances
Cruise is doing Ethan Hunt and Maverick
Hunt was an original character in the Mission Impossible films and Maverick was an original character that became iconic as a result of Cruise.
The question here is entirely different. Both Bond and Superman are well-established characters.
By your logic, we could have had Harrison Ford play Bond.
You’re putting out smoke
But I digress. I agree with @Pierce2Daniel : you can't compare a role that has been made iconic with one that is already established as iconic. I'd also add re Tom Cruise that many of his roles are basically vehicles for the iconic actor that he is.
Christian Bale is another example, as he's been mentioned here more than a few times. By your logic, he can't play Bond because he's played Batman. I don't think anyone would have raised an eyebrow had he been cast.
Cavill playing Superman has no effect on his being accepted as Bond .
He was considered after Moore, as was Christopher Reeve.
I do agree with you.
Also, of course I understand that actors play multiple roles and those parts can be regarded as "iconic" characters. However, there is a big difference between orginating an iconic character on screen and taking the mantle of an iconic character.
Indiana Jones and Harrison Ford are synonymous with on another. Making an Indy film without him would be a struggle. Meanwhile, the Bond role can recycle through actors because it is the character that is iconic.
However, speaking from a commercial perspective there is an evident issue of brand identity when hiring an actor associated with another character. I mean Superman isn't an ordinary role, it's a big deal and once you take a part like that it may be difficult for a studio to want to attach another series to that actor. Especially if that actor hasn't proven successful in that other franchise (Man of Steel was projected to do better, BvS was supposed to hit a $1b but made less money than Spectre and Justice League was a legitimate flop).
Finally, Eon will not want to share Cavill with Warner Bros. If Eon wanted Cavill then they'd want him to ditch Warner. There would be plenty of studio types and scheduling issues that would stop him playing both roles.
If Cavill was to resign from the Superman gig, then I'd be the first to admit that he was a legitimate contender for the 007 role. Currently, he is not.
Believe me, first and foremost I’m judging him as an actor and for me he doesn’t cut the mustard. The key thing is charisma and for such a handsome bloke he’s found wanting. It’s Blonde Bimbo syndrome. There’s just nothing else there beyond the facade. Everything is ‘acted’ and it’s all so one note.
If, for example, he were a sub-par actor (which he is, relatively speaking) in possession of some genuine charm and wit and presence (think Jason Statham) then I could buy into him.
EDIT: He wouldn’t play Bond while playing Superman. EON wouldn’t have it. End of discussion.
EoN will not want to share him with WB, no matter what.
But at the moment i don't even know if Man of Steel 2 is a go.
Henry seems to have plenty of time to do other films like Mission Impossible.
But anything can happen in the next 3-4 years, and DC is not in a healthy place right now.
Edit: This quote is from last November:
“There’s a wonderful opportunity to tell the Superman story,” Cavill continued, revealing that his current contract with DC and Warner Bros. runs for one more movie.
You are missing the point. How many franchsies is Daniel caurrenlty in. How many was Brosnan in? Dalton? Moore?....
The answer is none. Apart from a few films here or there it’s not like they were committed to another triple A movie series
That's just it for me. Looks the part but nothing else. If we compare him to Brosnan (who's similar in the sense that they both had the perfect pop culture image of Bond sort of look) the difference is night and day imo. No charm, presence or charisma there. He had the chance to convince me in UNCLE and he just didn't. Put Pierce in there and he would have at least made it enjoyable like he did his weaker Bond films. I thought Cavill was just bland, almost robotic.
Not sure why everyone is suddenly advocating him but luckily I genuinely don't think Barbara would ever cast him, Superman or not. Just doesn't seem her kind of actor at all, thank god.
But he's not wrong is he?
Countering with these examples, and endless others, does nothing to prove that an actor can’t play multiple, even iconic, roles,
That seems to be the point you’re missing.
Without a doubt he is.
This has gotten to be the equivalent of a political discussion where minds are never going to be changed. I’m moving on from this one . ;)
But those were original characters that played to their star status (or made them stars).
Either he was greedy or they didn't have many actors to choose from back then!