1. Henry Cavill
Year Considered: 2005
Reason He Didn't Get The Role: Much
Too Young "Look, it's that guy who played Superman in the latest movie! Now everybody knows who he is and I'm interested in him as a result of that." Oh, reader, how wonderfully direct you are. Yes, cinema's most recent Clark Kent was actually considered as a James Bond replacement back in 2005, when were we all still awaiting the likes of
Casino Royale. Now, feel free to disagree with me if you will, but for my liking, Cavill - though certainly a handsome and charismatic guy - is nowhere near hardened enough to have me believing he's Bond. The reason he didn't get the role, though, was because he was considered to be far too young, which makes sense given that Cavill was only 22 back in 2005, and that's just ridiculous, isn't it? Can you imagine a 22-year-old James Bond, still affected by the occasional acne flare-up and more interested in holidaying in Ibiza with friends? Look, I'm not saying I don't want to see
that movie, nor am I saying that Sam Mendes shouldn't make that the story for the next installment. I'm saying that he should make that. That would be the best thing to do.
Like this article? Let us know in the comments section below.