dragonflyy:

charlie cox is is a much better actor than cavill , but I'm happy he ended up being the perfect matt murdock instead.

HbJ2:
Lol... i can’t picture Matt Murdock as superman. I just don’t see it.

dragonflyy:

charlie cox is is a much better actor than cavill , but I'm happy he ended up being the perfect matt murdock instead.

MJBOLT:

cavill is perfect as superman,it's the idiots at DC that are too stupid to use him well

BankyGee:

They are idiots? I disagree
They failed to use him well? I agree

dragonflyy:

charlie cox is is a much better actor than cavill , but I'm happy he ended up being the perfect matt murdock instead.

pu7pl3:


Cox is not a better actor than Cavill

Darkprime:

They made the right choice with Cavill, in my opinion. They just had the wrong director, scripts, and vision, again, in my opinion.

On the Tudors, Cavill had tons of charisma and charm. When he was cast, I thought they were going to bring those elements to Superman, but instead they made him a charisma vaccum.

You see hints of his natural charm in MOS, in particular the seen in the interrogation room between Cavill and Adams. You see it in interviews as well.

WB and the filmmakers fumbled on those fiilms, not Cavill or even Affleck for that matter. They could only work with the script they're given, and what they're directed to do.

I can't speak for Cox as an actor since I haven't seen much of his other work outside Daredevil. He may have made a good Superman too.

Then again, he may have been bogged down in the same type of studio interference and/or weaker scripts that Routh and Cavill had to deal with.

So its hard to speculate "what if" or that "Cox's would have been better!".

It depends on alot of things including the conditions, the vision, the director, script, story, and the right timing.

Cottonmouth:

I hope you can name at least two things you can use to back your "defense" of Cavill as an actor.

pu7pl3:


I don't need to name anything, it's obvious...only the fact that Cavil has been in more blockbusters despite them being the same age should tell you

Cottonmouth:

Yeah. And I think Hayden Christensen has started in more movies than Bryan cranston

pu7pl3:


I don't need to name anything, it's obvious...only the fact that Cavil has been in more blockbusters despite them being the same age should tell you

pu7pl3:


I don't need to name anything, it's obvious...only the fact that Cavil has been in more blockbusters despite them being the same age should tell you

nyarlathotep:

Yeah just...no. So Mr Bigg's makes the best food in Nigeria?

This argument is trash, man. Straight fire trash.

BankyGee:

You 'not making any point man... Why do you think Charlie's better than Cavill? You're talking about Mr. Biggs. How's that different from trash also?

dragonflyy:
[s][/s]
so in ur mind blockbuster appearances are a measure of acting talent abi?

wehdone

nyarlathotep:

Yeah just...no. So Mr Bigg's makes the best food in Nigeria?

This argument is trash, man. Straight fire trash.

nyarlathotep:

He said Cavill is a better actor cause he gets more work in popular blockbusters.

So, by this popularity = best logic he presents, Mr Biggs is one of, if not the, best restaurant in Nigeria. Cause they get more business than most other restaurants.

So if I am not making any point, that shows a flaw in his argument.

Will he also want to try telling me The Rock is a better actor than Daniel Day-Lewis?

Lol.. Good luck with that argument

pu7pl3:


[s] Obviously, numbers don't lie...Cox doesn't have the range Cavill has

Rorschach1:
I don't think Cavill being in more successful things proves that people like him more, since there are more factors at work than just the actor.



At the same time, though, I don't think anyone is required to think Cox is better than Cavill, or any actor is better than any other actor.

Besides Daredevil, I did see Cox in Boardwalk Empire and thought he was decent there but nothing to get worked up about.

So based on that alone I do like Cavill more.

dragonflyy:
[/s]
looooooool... I did not know that talent boiled down to a mathematical equation

please try again

dragonflyy:
[/s]
looooooool... I did not know that talent boiled down to a mathematical equation

please try again

Cottonmouth:


That guy must be the new Joker

Cottonmouth:

To be honest with you Cavill is a decent actor but Cox is clearly the stronger actor of the two.

I would like to see what a stronger actor could do with Superman. I'd like to see Supes find his "Robert Pattinson"

Cavill is sort of in the realm of Affleck. He's a "good enough" type deal

What the hell is this? Affleck is like Cavill just "good enough" but Cox is superior? Can you even hear yourself

Tmach137:
I ave seen a gud amount of both Cox and Cavill and lyk both as actors.
Cox is clearly more talented tho.

Rorschach1:
I don't think Cavill being in more successful things proves that people like him more, since there are more factors at work than just the actor.



At the same time, though, I don't think anyone is required to think Cox is better than Cavill, or any actor is better than any other actor.

Besides Daredevil, I did see Cox in Boardwalk Empire and thought he was decent there but nothing to get worked up about.

So based on that alone I do like Cavill more.

Vic2Ree:

Exactly. To me neither is better. There's no way you can objectively decide one is better than the other. Personally, I find Charlie Cox more entertaining. But that's my preference.

pu7pl3:




This is the type of clownery that will turn this place into a desert again real quick

Cox was decent in just one series and all of a sudden he is a better actor than Cavill, even when the numbers clearly state otherwise..?

Okay, you are refuting numbers but what other parameters have you brought as measuring tools to back up your claim? Nothing..instead you resort to cancelling my comments, throwing Jabs and making side comments like little kids deprived of thrills

Y'all are too old for this advice but there is time for everything