HorrorMovieFans.com

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:
Favored by who? Hard to believe the studio would be interested in a guy who just got fired from Superman because they believed he was not a draw.

i've heard that he's favored by broccoli or the studio. (and apparently was the second to craig back then) i don't know why he was booted from the superman role.

I would be shocked. Mainly because he was just Superman in three movies, and without a rep as a box office draw, that is a lot of baggage.

was the failing of superman his fault, or the direction or writing of those films? (i thought batman v. superman was great. btw. so this is not based on my opinion)

It has been reported the studio felt he was not a draw and part of the problem.

Foo wrote: It has been reported the studio felt he was not a draw and part of the problem.

that doesn't mean that other studios will share that feeling, necessarily.

warner's dceu is in turmoil and so they're looking for people to blame. cavill and affleck both got the boot. they've had a billion directors come and go, on some projects. i don't know that they are making sound judgment at this point.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: It has been reported the studio felt he was not a draw and part of the problem.

that doesn't mean that other studios will share that feeling, necessarily.

warner's dceu is in turmoil and so they're looking for people to blame. cavill and affleck both got the boot. they've had a billion directors come and go, on some projects. i don't know that they are making sound judgment at this point.

They do use objective ratings systems to help make these decisions.

Of course they can feel different, but Cavill does come with much more baggage than he once did.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: It has been reported the studio felt he was not a draw and part of the problem.

that doesn't mean that other studios will share that feeling, necessarily.

warner's dceu is in turmoil and so they're looking for people to blame. cavill and affleck both got the boot. they've had a billion directors come and go, on some projects. i don't know that they are making sound judgment at this point.

They do use objective ratings systems to help make these decisions.

Of course they can feel different, but Cavill does come with much more baggage than he once did.

they have some kind of objective reason, i'm sure. i just don't know if that reason is cavill's fault or because of the films that he was involved in under their watch.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: It has been reported the studio felt he was not a draw and part of the problem.

that doesn't mean that other studios will share that feeling, necessarily.

warner's dceu is in turmoil and so they're looking for people to blame. cavill and affleck both got the boot. they've had a billion directors come and go, on some projects. i don't know that they are making sound judgment at this point.

They do use objective ratings systems to help make these decisions.

Of course they can feel different, but Cavill does come with much more baggage than he once did.

they have some kind of objective reason, i'm sure. i just don't know if that reason is cavill's fault or because of the films that he was involved in under their watch.

When someone's audience testing scores fall, they have trouble unless they draw. I like him as Superman, but apparently audiences did not.

Have not seen him in anything else, so I am unsure of his charisma to play a suave character.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: It has been reported the studio felt he was not a draw and part of the problem.

that doesn't mean that other studios will share that feeling, necessarily.

warner's dceu is in turmoil and so they're looking for people to blame. cavill and affleck both got the boot. they've had a billion directors come and go, on some projects. i don't know that they are making sound judgment at this point.

They do use objective ratings systems to help make these decisions.

Of course they can feel different, but Cavill does come with much more baggage than he once did.

they have some kind of objective reason, i'm sure. i just don't know if that reason is cavill's fault or because of the films that he was involved in under their watch.

When someone's audience testing scores fall, they have trouble unless they draw. I like him as Superman, but apparently audiences did not.

Have not seen him in anything else, so I am unsure of his charisma to play a suave character.

audiences seem to like him outside of superman. but i haven't seen it myself. *shrug* either he gets hired or he doesn't. i just heard he's a front runner.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Foo wrote:I think I saw Tom Hardy even mentioned. Also thought that was funny because as society has gotten taller, Bond keeps getting shorter.

Peter Dinklage 4 Bond!!!

Yeah, I noticed that too. The last 6'2" Bond was Brosnan (though seemed shorter because he was next to a 6' Famke who also wore heels lol)

Dalton claims 6'1" while online likes to claim he was 6'2"

cavill is the favored front runner. he's 6'1. so maybe we'll have something like dalton or moore height again, from craig. not such a big deal to me though.

Favored by who? Hard to believe the studio would be interested in a guy who just got fired from Superman because they believed he was not a draw.

The studio liked him when he auditioned in the first place, but considered him too young at the time, so they went with Craig. So yeah, he is a studio favorite for the role.

showa58taro wrote:But Cavill would do really well.

Easily.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: It has been reported the studio felt he was not a draw and part of the problem.

that doesn't mean that other studios will share that feeling, necessarily.

warner's dceu is in turmoil and so they're looking for people to blame. cavill and affleck both got the boot. they've had a billion directors come and go, on some projects. i don't know that they are making sound judgment at this point.

Yeah, WB is doing a shit job with their blame game, when they really have their CEO's to blame for rushing movies into production without completed scripts so he can get a bonus. Now they wanna blame the lead actors for not "connecting" with the audience when the audience was onto the sloppy storytelling and rushed CGI they were providing.

I did not remember Sheryl Crow doing the theme for Tomorrow Never Dies. Had a nice lounge quality to it.

Pierce looks like he gained weight between movies.

Pierce was a great Bond, and the biggest victim of bad Bond movies.

I liked Pierce. Never looked as convincing of a brawler as the others to me, but was still damn good.

Yeah, this scheme is pretty damn stupid.

One of my other top Bond themes: The World Is Not Enough

Wait, was this the first time we see the exterior of the MI6 building? I wasn't paying too much attention to looking for it before, but now that I think about it, I don't remember seeing it on any of the previous 18 movies.

Made me watch Dr. No again its awesome just to see how movie making has progressed style wise

Tiggnutz wrote:Made me watch Dr. No again its awesome just to see how movie making has progressed style wise

Or regressed in some cases

Die Another Day! One I remember getting good reviews when it came out (Rotten Tomatoes didn't exist then, so I only had newspapers and Entertainment Weekly to go off on. EW gave it an A, btw) and the theatre enjoyed, including me and my then roommate, but seemed like months later is was considered one of the worst Bond movies.

Even though I liked it then, I still hated Halle Barry's character, even more than Christmas Jones.

Him becoming a POW was always a cool bit, imo.