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
Why; because he looks superb handsome to you?
Looking like Bond and actually embodying the character aren't mutually exclusive. If Cavill before had no chance of being Bond since becoming Superman with the way things are shaping up, he REALLY has no chance whatsoever in getting the role.
Which is why I said 'general absence'. His name is out there, but he's doing very little next to the other candidates, so his name is not perpetuated in quite the same way.
Indeed, and if he is being considered, it's also very smart on his part.
Partly but also because i think he is the best to bring back the more classic portrayal of Bond, charming, cool, fun and he has the charisma to portray the character.
The film wasnt as succesful asthey wanted but Cavil did show he is Bond material in The man from UNCLE.
His Bond would be very much in the style of Pierce Brosan
i did enjoy Man from UNCLE as well and i think some people take that movie a bit to serious when it was clearly meant to be over the top and a bit ridiculous, so Cavills performance was like that as well.
I would consider Cavill as Bond, alone for the scene where he was sitting in the Truck and watching his friend getting shot at while eating a sandwich and drinking wine. That might have been my single most favorite movie scene of that year. so Bond.
Cahill's looks are perfect for Bond. Tall, dark and handsome, but I've seen him interviewed and he comes off downright dense. He's not a kid anymore, he's in his 30s and he interviews like a pretty boy model. Playing a super hero is not playing Bond. Much more will be expected of him in interviews, and he'd never cut it. In thousands of interviews, Craig made one dumb comment (slit my wrist etc) that will follow him to his grave. I don't think you can underestimate how tough it is to promote a Bond film, and the next Bond better have the right temperament (not Elba) and smarts (not Cahill) to do it right.
I don't understand this at all. To me he comes across as erudite, polite and respectful. Now some might find that boring. He's not the sort of actor to say anything too controversial and maybe he's too nice for his own good, but "dense" he certainly is not.
Cavill comes from a family of high achievers, has had an expensive education and it shows. You on the other hand cannot even spell his name properly. Sorry, Cavill's done a lot of press recently and I find him knowledgeable and very likeable. Analysing your writing style, I find Cavill's interview technique vastly superior.
Ok, I'm sold on Turner. Looks-wise, anyway; I need to see him in more things.
I still want Craig to do at least one more. He's my first choice to play Bond for the foreseeable future. But it ain't up to me. Just one more, I hope. Turner still looks a little too young, but by the time of Bond 26 or so he'd be right on for the part.
Obviously Cavill will never actually be Bond, but why anyone would even want him to is beyond me. Might be a nice guy and all, I have no idea, but just... No.
No.
Cavill has no post prep school education and It shows. He comes from a wealthy family and it would have been very easy for him to go on to a University, but he was too intellectually lazy to do so. The business is filled with guys with no money who had to work hard to get thru a university education. It would have been easy for him, but he didn't bother. Cavill says he likes to read about himself on the net. You're a new poster. Hmmmmm.
Cavill was fortunate enough to get his first acting job while at school and has worked consistently since. Any break to study would have impacted on the opportunities that he was already receiving. It's a position that many actors who started young find themselves in. Laziness has nothing at all to do with what is a practical decision.
I am not a new poster but one who doesn't feel the need to post that often. I've come to the boards this time because I've noticed your unreasonable attacks on Cavill before and this time I'm challenging them. I fully respect why others think Cavill isn't the right choice for Bond and he isn't my choice either. However, I have no respect for your persistent claims that Cavill is thick and lazy, neither of which you can back up. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about him for some reason and it's reflecting on you badly.
Yeah, I don't like Cahill at all but I'd take him over Hiddie or Hardy any day. Those two shouldn't even be considered eligible.
Sorry if I'm hurting your feelings, but, yep, I do think he is thick and lazy. Just my .02. I don't post much, so just ignore me and hopefully you'll feel better. I've been much tougher on Hiddles, a far better and smarter actor, but that apparently doesn't register with you.
You're not hurting my feelings. I just think you're being unfair and over the top in your posts about Cavill and it puzzles me where it's coming from. I haven't read your Hiddleston post and maybe I better not. Hiddleston isn't my choice for Bond either. Mendes4Lyfe will be pleased to know I'm in the Turner camp.
Edit to say that if you're talking about the Hiddleston post at the top of this page, then yes you're much ruder about him than I would be but at least there's the gist of a solid argument - he does appear eager in interviews, and whether an actor's looks are right or wrong for Bond is a valid point of view. In contrast your attempted character assassination of Cavill has no substance and lacks evidence to support your claims.
It does matter. Most actors who go to university or major acting academies like Yale's drama school (Streep and many others) and Guidhall (Craig, Fiennes and tons of others) learn their craft early and their skill and technique in their early roles clearly show it.
But don't you think the training can come with practice in terms of acting?
You can get great bases on acting schools but the most important thing is the practice.
That's why in so many jobs they ask for a resume which they get impressed by your previous jobs not where you studied.
Im not saying formal training is worthless it has helped many actors. Most of the best have been formally trained but I don't think it's a most.
Another profession where the practice is much more important than formal training is Make up artists.
Sure they can learn techniques going to make up lessons but the practice is what will make them great.
So maybe it's a 50/50 situación.
And I'm not saying this just to defend Cavil. But I think many actors who are very good don't believe in formal training.
Most of the ones who do are more character actorset than leading man are usually The ones who are called method actors.
It's very rare that a movie star actor had formaleft training and it's just a coincidence that most of the Bond actors did get it except I guess Sean Connery but I have to investigate . Don't want to look like an idiot lol.
Liam Neeson who has had great career never went to drama school, Jennifer Lawrence who is an Oscar winner said it's stupid going acting schools and acting is just about being a good liar.
So it's not so horrible not being formally trained
Every job or craft requires training.
In BVS, he has one facial expression throughout 99 percent of his scenes.