Well he’s 35, 36 February 2023. So age wise he’s doable. Depends when they start casting .. next year or in a few years.
He gets mentioned all the time in press articles about it. I don't think he would be the best choice as he is now getting towards the older end of the spectrum, he is rather too famous and also because I find him a slightly dull, wooden presence now. Curiously, I would have preferred him to Daniel Craig - a very young Cavill made the shortlist to replace Pierce Brosnan and he was actually "Casino Royale" director Martin Campbell's favourite for the role.
Definitely my pick. The idea that someone is "too old" to play an action hero when Tom Cruise has become one of the best of all time at age 60 is preposterous. Hollywood makeup can take 20 years off anyone's age. And James Bond has generally been played by people who looked rugged, mature and masculine, not youthful and boyish. The idea that anyone could be too famous is also absurd. James Bond is a pop icon, played by some of the most recognizable stars in movie history. We don't need someone to "disappear" into the role. The role should be a celebration of the very concept of old-fashioned movie stardom.
I never said he was "too old", however, but pointed out he is not my idea of the best choice (which I hoped would imply I still think he is an acceptable choice) partly because he is at the older end of the possible spectrum, hence, the investment of a 10-20 year run, if he were to work, could be more of a strain for producers and audiences. He also clearly looks the part now, yet aging is hard to predict, look at Brendan Fraser for an example. It is not 'absurd' to say someone might be too famous to be the best choice for Bond: famous actors, along with their agents, etc, are far more likely to attempt to throw their weight around re creative and production decisions and their ideas are more likely to benefit them rather than the film/s. Similarly, the Bond films made the actors famous. Although Moore and Brosnan were TV stars in some markets, even they were made recognisable wordlwide and historically by the films; and Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Craig were effectively unknowns to international audiences. Would I prefer Cavill to Craig? Yes. Would he be a decent Bond? Yes. Is he the best choice? No, not in my opinion for the reasons I have given.
I always thought Michael Fassbender would have done a good job. He's too old now, but a decade or so ago he would have been a good choice if Craig had walked away after Skyfall or Spectre.
Seems like Daniel Craig did that anyway. Once they're a hit in the role, they're going to have the leverage to make demands. You can't avoid that. I don't think Cavill is an "artiste" who is going to want Bond to be anything less than a crowd-pleasing blockbuster anyway. Why judge him negatively when he might have more of the character's best interests at heart than the owners and producers do?
The tabloids here last week were claiming it was going to be Sam Taylor-Johnson, but that seems to have died down a bit.
New James Bond: 1. Bring back Pierce Brosnan. 3 picture deal. Or, 2. Craig Ferguson. 3 picture deal at a minimum. Craig Ferguson
