losprince:

Dude to be fair, your comment invites ridicule. You are judging two actors based on their box office returns, that's bullocks.

B.O money isn't a reasonable metric to judge an actors acting ability.

pu7pl3:


This goes a long way to show you didn't even understand the comment...there was no place where I mentioned box office money..

I was talking about being in more "blockbusters" aka being in more high caliber movies... obviously those movies would make commercial success but that's another discussion..I was talking about being in them in the first place

you won't say he (Cox) never auditioned for them or that he wasn't interested in any of them at all

losprince:

Alright my bad, I've always taken blockbusters to be movies that make huge money, thanks to google, I have now been re-educated. Still, having said that, I still think that's not a good metric to judge an actors acting ability.

pu7pl3:


Can you listen to yourself at all? Daniel Day Lewis is an older and more accomplished actor with numerous awards and movies under his belt, why would I compare him to the Rock?

You have no point me man, it's obvious you just came here to twist logic

pu7pl3:


How?

I think his best acting performances has been in few TV shows but that's about it, apart from his good mainstream movie roles in Downton abbey,theory of everything (to an extent) and a few low-key music videos..that's his range and where his capabilities end so I don't see how he is more talented than Cavill

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 canceling 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

pu7pl3:


Your shalaye no make sense...try again

pu7pl3:


You have no point me man, it's obvious you just came here to twist logic

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

please try again

pu7pl3:




..instead you resort to canceling my comments, throwing Jabs and making side comments like little kids deprived of thrills

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 canceling 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

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 canceling 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

dragonflyy:
[s][/s]
another useless post

so now if I see an actor on the screen I have to go look up how many films he's made before i can estimate the quality of his performance?

your points are exhausted
Next!

Lala39:
Acting ain't errythang.... Bale as Batman isn't nearly as iconic as Chris Reeve as Supes despite being a better actor ..

Sometimes sheer presence trumps character acting chops.

AfricaGalactic:

I think I prefer Superman actors to look a little more buff. Charlie Cox is a bit on the lean side for what I expect from seeing someone wearing the shield of Superman.

Here's a funny thing to note; Henry Cavill's character bullied him in Stardust. Wouldn't it be funny to see one Superman bullied by another if that casting choice ever happened?

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

HbJ2:

Robert Pattinson turning out to be a great actor is one of the all-time stunners for me, because I didn't think much of him at all in his younger days.
I would have had him pegged as being Hayden Christensen 2.0.

He sure proved me wrong.

nyarlathotep:

I am showing the flaw in your logic.

Popularity and number of blockbusters you're in means nothing in regards to talent or quality. It's a measure of popularity. That's not the same.

If your logic were true, The Rock would be a better actor than DDL.

AfricaGalactic:

your argument is nonsensical. You’re essentially saying that quantity is greater than quality when it comes to measuring or evaluating talent and that is a ridiculous argument. You can believe Cavill is a better actor than Cox until you’re blue in the face; that’s your right. But measuring talent the way you are (“They’re the same age and one guy was in a bunch of blockbusters that were met with a lukewarm reception at best and the other was the headliner of a Netflix series!”) is one of the most ludicrous things I’ve seen on this forum all year.

dragonflyy:
[s][/s]
another useless post

so now if I see an actor on the screen I have to go look up how many films he's made before i can estimate the quality of his performance?

your points are exhausted
Next!

Cottonmouth:



The numbers say otherwise? Hahahahahaha wetin this guy dey talk?


That if you are in a movie with a huge budget then you're a better actor than someone who is in a movie with a medium budget?

You are a clown . I suppose you think that Avengers: Endgame, Avatar and Titanic are the best movies in the world? 'Cause numbers don't lie. How about looking at critical acclaim for a change? Cavill has never been the lead in a project that got as much critical acclaim as Daredevil.

It's funny, one of Cavill's best reviewed movies is Stardust ...

which Cox is the lead in

Wow...imagine having this kind of reasoning or train of thought

3 of you will be alright....I hope..

nyarlathotep:

This I can answer for me.

Cavill has never in anything he was in shown the dynamic level of acting Cox did in Daredevil alone.

Cavill is a guy I have always seen as ''fine'' in the movies and shows he was in, but he has never stood out or wowed me. Cox has shown me that. Therefore, better actor.

Better quality work = better actor.

pu7pl3:


[i][color=#770077] Actually, your talent speaks for you..if you are talented enough and show it you would always be called on for these kind of projects..

If Cox is as talented as y'all claim he would have been a bigger deal than he is now..it's simple

All of you here backing Cox as a better actor are just talking about his role in Daredevil..

that's his highest point/level, that's where his range stops..Cavill on the other hand has alot of range Comedy, Action, thrillers andwe have seen him helpless, we have seen him as a spy, we have seen him handle swords etc and he looks to just be getting started

pu7pl3:


All of you here backing Cox as a better actor are just talking about his role in Daredevil..that's his highest point/level, that's where his range stops..Cavill on the other hand has alot of range Comedy, Action, thrillers and almost all prominent roles...we have seen him helpless, we have seen him as a spy, we have seen him handle swords etc and he looks to just be getting started

HbJ2:

If I remember correctly, Cavill and Cox were both up for the role of Tristan in Stardust and Cox beat him out which is how Cavill ended up with the bully role in the first place.

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

please try again

HbJ2:

If I remember correctly, Cavill and Cox were both up for the role of Tristan in Stardust and Cox beat him out which is how Cavill ended up with the bully role in the first place.

AfricaGalactic:


@1000waystolive, You definitely nailed it, it seems Cavill gets more leading roles because he looks like he was carved out of marble

pu7pl3:


Actually, your talent speaks for you..if you are talented enough and show it you would always be called on for these kind of projects..

Lala39:

Tell that to all the women who refused to sleep with Harvey Weinstein and got blacklisted from Hollywood.

Cottonmouth:
Guys abeg don't bother replying to Pu7pl3

He'll look back at this topic and feel very embarrassed. Don't give him more reason to.

pu7pl3:


Actually, your talent speaks for you..if you are talented enough and show it you would always be called on for these kind of projects..

If Cox is as talented as y'all claim he would have been a bigger deal than he is now..it's simple

All of you here backing Cox as a better actor are just talking about his role in Daredevil..that's his highest point/level, that's where his range stops..Cavill on the other hand has alot of range Comedy, Action, thrillers and almost all prominent roles...we have seen him helpless, we have seen him as a spy, we have seen him handle swords etc and he looks to just be getting started

Again this comparison isn't the same as comparing Daniel Day to the Rock in any way, they are totally different comparisons