He was having a bad run at the time. He also auditioned for Superman Returns but lost out to Brandon Routh.
I love you, Mark, but did you just spoil the shit out of Logan for me?
Logan and a little girl bond. End of story.
I’ve loved Cruise’s Mission: Impossible movies for twenty years. If Cavill doesn’t go the way of Renner, hopefully he’ll make a better showing than poor Josh Holloway, who seemed like he was killed off instantly in Ghost Protocol, and might as well have been. Or worse yet, Billy Crudup in the third one.
So, he´ll be the Man from U.C.L.E. And a member of MI:6?
That´s some sahdy guy.
No, seriously. Let´s see how it works, personally, i have enjoyed (in various degrees) the whole Run of MI movies, so I expect a minimum of quality in the nexst one.
Me neither, but back when they hired Renner, Cruise’s career was at its lowest, sofa jumping point.
Then he bounced back.
Also, Renner’s star was really on the rise there for a while. Hell, they tried to make him the new Bourne; with that, he was tied to three successful action franchises. It’s just that after getting this amount of exposure, people seemed to realise that they actually didn’t like him that much. But he’s still in all of those franchises (presumably).
He’s a good actor, but he’s not that charismatic.
Something like ‘Arrival’ shows he can be subtle, and ‘American Hustle’ let him show off a bit, but I don’t think he’s a star.
I expected Renner to break out after Hurt Locker, but yeah, he kind of stalled as an actor (although his career still seems to be going strong).
A lot of actors don’t quite make the transition to leading man.
Alec Baldwin had a shot at it after The Hunt for Red October, but didn’t break through (or didn’t particularly want to). He made a transition into doing character roles (and scary, rich people with improbable hair).
Edit: I forgot Alec Baldwin was in the last MI movie…He had that great line about Ethan Hunt being “the living manifestation of destiny”.
He played almost the exact same role as Ralph Fiennes in Skyfall, the bureaucrat who tries to take down the department but ends up taking it over after being shown how great they are.
Is Cavill any more likely, though? His other leading roles did no better than Renner in Bourne Legacy. Does he really have what it takes to lead Mission Impossible into the future? That series seems even more tied to Cruise than the Bond series have been to their leads.
Cavill could be playing a villain. One film and then he’s gone anyway.
That had occurred to me. These films need a decent villain.
I think that he could be great at that.
I think what happened with Renner is that when everyone realized Hawkeye was basically the +1 of the Avengers, they figured he was the weak link in the cast. Stepping in for someone in another franchise was always going to be tricky, which is explains why neither the Bourne nor M:I thing worked out as expected, and actually Hansel and Gretel was generally a success, but at that point it didn’t matter; the experiment was over. The good news is that casting directors don’t care, so he still gets great opportunities. He’s just not considered A-list. He actually shares that distinction with most of the Avengers cast. I think Scarlett Johansson was the last one to have a significant solo hit, outside of the franchise, which is ironic considering Black Widow is never going to have her own movie.
He’s handsome at least.
Cards on the table I think too much is made of the actor thing anyway. Whether Cruise was jumping on sofas or not I don’t think his career is significantly any better now than when he did that, I don’t think he has great likeability. He’s in a position to choose the best scripts, most of which do middling box office for the past decade or so.
I don’t think there’s a single actor or actress in Hollywood that can sell a film solely on their name and have doubts it was ever the case, if it was it was fleeting.
Some have more charisma though, always an element and Renner can be a good supporting actor. Not a blockbuster lead by my estimation.
I do think you need a very special actor to take on major leading roles, but superstardom is an illusion. There are thousands of actors who are excellent, most of them working on stages around the world. Those who rise to Hollywood stardom are special people, but they’re not unique.
I don’t think Cavill’s charismatic enough to be the villain in a movie. He looks great as Superman, but he’s quite flat as an actor.
Renner is not a leading man in a big budget film. He could lead a modestly budgeted picture, but the leading man is an incredibly rare species. I would say even Affleck isn’t a leading man. They belong to the age before corporate brands replaced blockbuster actors. But I think the comparison between Renner and Cavill is very apt because any attempt to replace Cruise with Cavill would be followed by the return of Cruise a picture or two later, aged 62!
I think that’s true but would it also be to gradually reducing box office returns (as most of Cruise’s stuff has now). Jim keeps convincing us there is a massive market for the return of Arnie as an aging charismatic action lead but any actual attempts don’t seem to support it.
We’ll never be completely past it, actors will always be important in the right roles, but are we generally just past the age of any star being that vital to box office? Now half the audience is actually listening to a dub of them anyway.