Cavill’s schedule is indeed more free for the role of 007. He seems like the obvious choice, just as Brosnan was, first in 1986 and 1994. Let’s see what happens in the near future. I could see him doing another screen test.
2 Likes
I guess if BLACK ADAM had performed better it would have been impossible for WB to not grant The Rock every wish he forced on them.
Despite the avoidable PR snafu giving Cavill a “probably” and then having to face the fact that he was never part of the re-planning I think Gunn is right in starting new, leaving the Snyder-Universe with its pretentious crumbles in the rearview mirror.
2 Likes
I beg to differ. I think Cavill would be a very poor Bond. From what I’ve seen in his previous roles, he’s very monolithic and has no real acting range. He has a tendency to over-play, and doesn’t get the tone right. See his performance in The Man From UNCLE for instance. Sure he’s good looking and nice, but that’s not enough; we need a real actor who can actually play a role, not a cool statue.
5 Likes
I enjoyed Brosnan while he was in the role but at the time and certainly looking back he was style over substance. Cavill gives me that same impression.
While I don’t agree with your opinion on his U.N.C.L.E. turn - I thought he was quite funny in that role -, I do understand the criticism of him being “monolithic” or “statuesque”.
But I would point to the roles and the directors. As Superman Cavill was asked to be brooding and withdrawn, and as Witcher he was asked to be, well, “monolithic”.
That’s not the range he has, that’s the range that was demanded.
I do believe that he has the acting ability and the on-camera charm to deliver a great Bond. McQuarrie cast him very well as the bad guy in “M:I Fallout” because he understood that.
5 Likes
Yes he was an awesome villain in MI and served ruthless danger.
3 Likes
Probably the best performance I’ve seen him give on screen, to be honest. If he did get the role that’s the type of approach I’d like to see - mixed in with the inherent goodness Bond has by default given he happens to be on our side.
3 Likes
Fingers crossed for Cavill. However I wouldn’t mind Aaron Taylor-Johnson as well.
4 Likes
He’s older now than Craig was when he began. I don’t think that bodes well for his candidacy.
1 Like
I totally agree 008.
And Henry Cavill is not yet too old for James Bond. He’s 39 now. Say Bond 26 comes out in 2025, he’ll be 42–the same age Pierce Brosnan was when he became 007 and only one year older than Timothy Dalton was for his debut. If EON maintains a three-year cycle, he could easily do four films at ages 42, 45, 48, and 51. And remember Daniel Craig was 51 when filming No Time To Die. So clearly, Cavill is NOT too old for the role. Now, whether the producers want HIM specifically or are willing to cast someone in their 40s rather than their 30s, THAT is the question.
But with Cavill suddenly no longer Superman and his schedule opening up, it does raise intriguing possibilities of a 007 future. 
4 Likes
My biggest problem with Cavill is that I’ve seen him so much over the years that I feel I would be bored of him as Bond from the start.
5 Likes
Very good chance that’s what will count him out. They’ll be looking at “oh yeah, that guy! he was in um…oh god what was it called again” at the most known.
3 Likes
I wonder whether in today’s industry they rather go for known.
It probably would depend on the kind of commitment Cavill wants to make. Right now, a multipicture deal would make his agent happy.
And let’s not forget: Campbell would have chosen him.
1 Like
By all accounts the Bond team want a 30 something leading man, which is an automatic strike against Cavill regardless of any other suitability he may have. On paper Johnson better fits the criteria, and I do like the idea of going with somebody noticeably younger.
It seems very possible that Cavill could become known as an actor of squandered potential and what if. He probably should be a bigger name than he already is, but I don’t think it has happened.
Well, he’ll be working down the hall from MGM now…
He’s a good actor, but he is not a ’ presence’ I think that’s what makes him ill suited to Bond.
Brosnan, Dalton, and Moore were all older than Craig’s 38 when they started. Cavill is 39, so he’s the right age especially if MGM decides to de-boot the series and pick up after Die Another Day (I kind of hope that’s the route they take). I generally find myself enjoying Cavill when he’s on screen. He’s excellent in MI:Fallout and he’s wooden in The Witcher, but he’s supposed to be. His Superman was sullen and moody, but that wasn’t Cavill’s fault, but rather Snyder’s absurd and extremely violent take on DC comics. I’ve said for years, and I still believe it to be so, Henry Cavill is the likeliest choice to be Bond 7, especially with his Superman gig over.
5 Likes
That is all true and he seems to have had/has a good relationship with EON which can’t hurt.
It would be kind of sad, not to mention sadly ironic, if the main reasons Henry Cavill didn’t get the James Bond role back in 2006 was because he was too young, and then he didn’t get it in 2025ish because he was thought to be too old for what EON had in mind.
However, also ironically, this long wait might actually be what helps Cavill become Bond if he does in fact wind up with the role. Had the Daniel Craig era not lasted so long (15 years!) with a number of extended breaks between films, that any earlier and Cavill would have been too busy being Superman and likely not been considered for 007 #7 at all.
4 Likes
1 Like
…so it’s not him then.
4 Likes