BREAKING: Henry Cavill Lands Superman; Macho British Actor To Play American Icon; Past Contender For Batman & James Bond

EXCLUSIVE: Warner Bros and Legendary Pictures have found their new Man of Steel. Deadline had been hearing for the past weeks that British actor Henry Cavill was the frontrunner for the much coveted Clark Kent/Superman role in this much anticipated reboot. But as of last week, Warner Bros film chief Jeff Robinov hadn’t seen Cavill’s or the other screentests and made his decision in recent days. Repped by CAA, Cavill, known for his portrayal of Charles Brandon on Showtime’s The Tudors, just wrapped production on The Cold Light of Day and stars in the upcoming Immortals opening this fall. Directed by Tarsem Singh, Caville in Immortals plays the he-man Greek  warrior Theseus who battles mythological gods including Poseidon, Zeus, Minotaur, and Herecles. Given that set up, Warner Bros clearly has chosen a more macho leading man for Superman than the previous Brandon Routh or even Christopher Reeve. ”He’s got an amazing quality. He doesn’t look too much like Reeve and Routh but he’s big and strong and he has a very modern feel to him,” a Warner Bros exec just told us. “We’re really going to try and make Superman as contemporary as possible.” And just like it did with Christian Bale in the Batman reboot, the studio has gone with a British actor. In fact, Cavill also auditioned for the Batman role but lost out to Bale in 2005. He also was a contender for James Bond but was deemed too young and lost out to Daniel Craig. Clearly, Cavill is a franchise waiting to happen. He also has a past with Superman. Before Bryan Singer came on to direct Superman Returns and cast Brandon Routh, Cavill had been one of the frontrunner choices for directers Brett Ratner and McG when they were going to helm the picture. That Superman was younger, and this time, the intention was to cast an actor near 30. Cavill, who will be 28 this year, was born in the Channel Islands and his film credits include The Count Of Monte Cristo.

The new film from Warner Bros and Legendary Pictures is being produced by Christopher Nolan (It’s A Bird! It’s A Plane! It’s Chris Nolan! He’ll Mentor Superman 3.0) and directed by Zack Snyder, who made this statement: “In the pantheon of superheroes, Superman is the most recognized and revered character of all time, and I am honored to be a part of his return to the big screen. I also join Warner Bros., Legendary and the producers in saying how excited we are about the casting of Henry. He is the perfect choice to don the cape and S shield.” Warner Bros, Nolan, and Snyder cast a “wide net” to find the next Man of Steel. Last November, insiders told Deadline that the studio was open to creating a star as it rebooted the Superman franchise: specifically, that the actor would either be a discovery or on TV but likely someone who isn’t well known yet. And he’d be in the age range of 28-to-32. The studio considered hundreds of young actors before making a decision just like Sony Pictures did before choosing Andrew Garfield. There was buzz on actors like Armie Hammer, the strapping 6’5″ actor from The Social Network who was eyed to play Batman in a Justice League movie that Mad Max helmer George Miller was poised to direct, and True Blood’s Joe Manganiello, who claimed during a recent movie junket that he’d been considered, and Ian Somerhalder of The Vampire Diaries.

While the Batman films have been populated by established stars Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, George Clooney, and now Christian Bale, Superman has always lent itself to discoveries. Christopher Reeve was a find in the Salkind franchise, as was Brandon Routh in the Bryan Singer-directed Superman Returns. (Before Routh got the job, Matt Bomer was eyed seriously by almost-directors McG and Brett Ratner.) Even on the small screen, the original Superman TV series star George Reeves and Smallville’s Tom Welling and Lois & Clark‘s Dean Cain were discoveries. The lone exception we can recall was the time that Tim Burton tried to put together a Superman film with Nicolas Cage, an effort that failed because the budget became so high. And then Josh Hartnett was courted during the Ratner version (that got scrapped when Singer took over), but Hartnett didn’t take the role, even though he stood to potentially make $100 million for three pictures if all had been made. Trust us, the new guy is going to get hired on the cheap.

Other producers include Charles Roven, Emma Thomas, and Deborah Snyder. The screenplay is being written by David S. Goyer based on a story by Goyer and Nolan. Thomas Tull and Lloyd Phillips are serving as executive producers. The new Superman is targeted for release in December 2012.

Comments (517)

  • I didn’t know Batman, Superman and Spider-man were all British. The only superhero we have is Captain America (for obvious reasons), and the studio actually thought about casting a Romanian in the role (Sebastian Stan).

    Does America not have any more acting schools?

    Comment by bobmcbob — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 9:18am PST  
    • Superman was actually a Canadian creation (Joe Shucter was the artist). The Americans of course understood that a man with such incredible powers MUST be an American – so they kidnapped him.

      Comment by Anne Pratt — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 10:30am PST  
      • In point of fact, Joe Shuster was Canadian and Jerry Siegel, the writer and co-creator of Superman, was American born. Both were living in Cleveland, Ohio when they created the character, so he wasn’t ‘stolen’ from Canada. ;) Take comfort though, dear Canadian brethren! You’ll always have Alpha Flight!!! Oh and Wolverine….so I guess that’s pretty cool. :D

        Comment by Jose Lavarreda — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 11:57am PST  
        • So, is this where I gripe that none of the actors have been Jewish? After all, both Seigel & Shuster were Jews… :-)

          Comment by Susan — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 12:36pm PST  
          • Hahaha, well played sir. :)

            By the way, this is great casting.

            Comment by Joshua — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 3:15pm PST  
          • Oy, and away !

            Comment by Chuck — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 3:18pm PST  
          • LOL – well done, but shouldn’t that be: “Oy, and avay!” ?

            Comment by Benzin Bruder — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 5:19pm PST  
          • Andrew Garfield is Jewish

            Comment by john — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 7:22pm PST  
          • 20% off the top?

            Comment by warz — Monday July 22, 2013 @ 1:26pm PDT  
        • I’m very disappointed that it is not Tom Welling, but I am not going to let that negatively affect my view of the movie. Superman is my favorite character and I WILL go see any movie of his.

          Comment by Josh — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 4:33pm PST  
          • All the commenters at Yahoo News and the girls and the gossip sites are raging that it isn’t Welling, but they don’t understand that there would be huge continuity problems. They think in simple terms: they love Welling and that is that in their minds. They don’t get it. Crossing continuities causes utter confusion and chaos. Not to mention the possible legal problems. Too many hands are already in the profit pie, without adding even more. I liked Welling, but knew it couldn’t be. I’m sure the ladies will calm down by the time a trailer arrives.

            Comment by Lori C. — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 5:44pm PST  
          • I love Tom Welling but KNEW it could never happen. So I wasn’t crushed. The fans and young women are just reacting badly to the moment. They had their hearts set on something and it didn’t happen. Once they get over this moment and the heartbreak, I really think they will come to embrace this movie. Cavill is nice looking, even if he isn’t EXACTLY what they wanted. Snyder will deliver the action. Nolan will deliver the story. This film can not fail. It will be awesome.

            Comment by aharon — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 6:16pm PST  
          • Tom Welling is a shitty actor. I’m glad he was never considered.

            Comment by American — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 10:03pm PST  
          • You may hate his acting. I respect Welling’s acting. It all evens out. Am I bummed he won’t be in the movie? Maybe a little. But I love Snyder’s work. Zack can do something truly exceptional with the scope of Superman. People are going to be amazed.

            Comment by silver surfer — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 10:22pm PST  
          • Tom Welling is too Emo to play a serious Superman.

            Comment by SupesforHire — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 9:40am PST  
          • But Welling is the only actor millions take seriously as Superman. That’s why there has been strife with the announcement. However, this doesn’t reflect personally on Cavill. It would be the same with any other actor.

            Comment by calm down — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 10:23am PST  
          • Millions of people take Tom Welling’s acting seriously?

            Things are worse than I thought!

            Comment by Pat — Tuesday February 1, 2011 @ 5:26pm PST  
          • Welling has publically stated that he never wanted to wear the Superman suit, and is only going to wear it briefly in the very last episode of Smallville because it will be a brief shot and as a way to end the show on a high note. Once Smallville is done, Welling doesn’t want any more connection to the character.

            Comment by Ken — Saturday February 5, 2011 @ 10:53am PST  
          • Correct Ken. Warners would be overjoyed to give Welling the role. Those guys aren’t stupid. They know the public wants Welling. But, he plain won’t do it. Turned them down more than once. End of story. Fanboys can stop blaming Warners and find something else to rant about.

            Comment by compounded — Saturday February 19, 2011 @ 2:23pm PST  
        • Canada also had the original James Bond. And Ryan Reynolds as both Green Lantern and Deadpool! We’re the little country that could…

          Comment by Bob Bobberson — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 8:55am PST  
        • Um…why did the headline need to have “Macho” before “British Actor?” You don’t really see such adjectives in headlines; what’s next, “Girly Katherine Heigl,” “Womanly Meryl Streep” and “Hirsute Robin Williams?”

          It’s pretty funny that the word “Macho” had to be added before “British Actor.” Poor Henry, we know you are macho; the headline says so! Just kiddin’, I’m guessing some thought went into that headline. And everyone knows Henry Cavill just screams testosterone. No, really. Okay, I’ll shut up now.

          Comment by HappyDance — Tuesday February 1, 2011 @ 11:46am PST  
          • I think Henry Cavill looks better as superman then the previous Tom Welling. He’s totally hot, and a great actor in the Tudors. Can’t wai t to see it!

            Comment by tm — Thursday February 24, 2011 @ 12:17am PST  
          • I never really had much respect for Cavill until I read he bedded Gina Carino for years. DAMN, brother got game. Even if he is British.

            Comment by warz — Monday July 22, 2013 @ 1:31pm PDT  
      • Superman landed in a cornfield in kansas, therefore learned to speak the way people from kansas would.

        seems people here never read comics

        Comment by this site is weak — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 3:29pm PST  
        • Hey, I’m from Kansas (originally) and I resemble that remark!

          Pass the cornbread please.

          (We Kansans are also very polite.) ;)

          Comment by helenofpeel — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 10:09pm PST  
        • Technically, Superman is an illegal alien… Just because he landed in a cornfield in Kansas doesn’t mean he’s American… Last I knew, being adopted doesn’t automatically make someone a citizen… And I doubt he has a green card…

          Comment by Bookwyrm — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 12:09pm PST  
          • Bookwyrm that is HILARIOUS!!! Good call too :)

            Comment by Britt — Friday February 4, 2011 @ 6:32pm PST  
      • Of course some skeevy, white trash twatty Canadian with a hate-on for the U.S. would chime-in with the typical Canadian anti-U.S. vitriol.

        Piss off canuck. This is why we hate you.

        Comment by Anonymous — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 4:25pm PST  
        • You’er rather alone in hating canucks I’d say. Seems wherever I go in the states they love (if misunderstand) us. By the by… you get the vast majority of your oil from us, not the Middle East.

          Comment by William Hopper — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 6:00pm PST  
          • LOL! OMG someone that finally knows whats what!

            Comment by Charles — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 7:50pm PST  
          • Bill Hopper:

            “By the by… you get the vast majority of your oil from us, not the Middle East.”

            And you get all of your freedom from US.

            Comment by Stephen — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 10:19pm PST  
        • typical coward response…”anonymous”, I thought you had a lot of things to hate, mostly yourself…..(tell your compatriots to remove the Maple Leaf from their luggage when they travel)

          Comment by Ian Graylish — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 9:53pm PST  
      • Superman is a Canadian transplant…okay, I’m going out on a limb here.

        How about Jim Carey plays Superman?

        Hold you fire! I was just kiddingggggg!!!!! (running for the door)

        Comment by Joe — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 6:37pm PST  
      • Um, Superman was “created” by American Jerry Siegel & Canadian born American Joe Shuster in 1932, both living in Ohio @ the time…Chill on the Nationality thang, if Canada was so great, actors wouldn’t move to the USA and neither would creators. What I find amusing, is you attempted to claim Superman was created solely by a Canadian…Interesting. Is it that bad in Canada, that you have to lie? Really? REALLY? You can claim Shania and Kids in the hall…Both cool, be happy with it.

        Comment by Charles — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 7:47pm PST  
        • “Kids in the Hall”!!!!


          Comment by Jusko — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 7:28am PST  
        • Hey, that’s rough with KITH and Shania – they’ve got the mints and the geese too, don’t overlook it. Not to mention they basically own the entire distortion-guitar+flue music genre. It’s not all just mounties, hockey, and Molson, eh?

          Comment by Bill — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 9:46am PST  
      • Uuumm Superman actually originated in the mind of the American artist Jerry Siegel when his father died. Him and Joe Shuster eventually created Superman together, both living in American at the time…making them both Americans.

        Nice try in trying to steal our American icon, Canadian. Run along now with your ketchup chips and amazingly hot actresses, eh? :)

        Comment by Stephen — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 10:15pm PST  
      • Despite the nationality of the Superman creator, the character was an American farm boy who was larger than life. It drew directly from the American archetype of the farm and the rural values that predominated the landscape.

        Comment by susan — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 4:11am PST  
      • Well, you know, there’s that whole Superman motto, you know… Truth, Justice, and the AMERICAN way? Maybe that’s why people know he’s American. You know, just maybe.

        Comment by Erin — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 5:04am PST  
      • Actually – Shuster was FROM Canada, but he was an immigrant and created Superman after his family moved to the states. Superman is the ultimate immigrant story – and his own experiences led to his creation. Superman has always been and will always be – AMERICAN first, and KRYPTONIAN second.

        Comment by George — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 7:07am PST  
      • being a canadian artist does not make superman canadian, the creator of the story is what you would judge by.

        Comment by Rick — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 7:20am PST  
      • Canada is basically part of America.

        Comment by Mr. Inkerwinker — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 7:22am PST  
      • Superman was a Canadian creation? Superman was created in Cleveland Ohio, by American Jerry Siegel. Joe Shuster, the artist, was born in Canada, but had been living in Cleveland since he was 10 years old.

        Poor Canadians and their inferiority complex.

        Comment by FrankBlack — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 9:19am PST  
      • If we were able to kidnap superman then that makes US the greatest ever

        Comment by Jimmy Sailer — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 10:07am PST  
      • Leave it to Canada to find any tenuous connection. Shuster WAS born in Toronto, but grew up in Cleveland, Ohio.
        Shuster’s parents were immigrants and found it hard to make a living in Canada and moved to Ohio when Joe was ten years old.
        Canadian? You get that on a technicality.
        But, Jerry Siegel, the son of another immigrant, Mitchell Siegel also created Superman, making him a son of many countries.
        Coming to America in 1924 was vastly different than it is today.
        You just drove over the border.
        Heck, in 1978, I personally flew to Mississauga with nothing more than a Louisiana driver’s license.
        Seems off point, but it’s a big changing world and Superman is an alien masquerading as a human, mush less as an American.
        As long as the actor is good, it shouldn’t matter if he’s from Afghanistan or Texas.

        Comment by Claude Parish — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 12:25pm PST  
      • I’m pretty sure that Superman is from the planet Krypton, not America or Canada.

        Comment by Anonymous — Monday February 14, 2011 @ 5:43am PST  
      • You’re an idiot. Superman was created by two Jewish kids from Cleveland Ohio . . . USA!

        Comment by jerry — Saturday June 25, 2011 @ 9:22am PDT  
    • ITA. Henry Cavill is a fine actor, but three American icons played by Brits, all opening in a single year, is insulting. The frustrating thing is, it doesn’t go the other way around. Remember the hissy fit the British press threw when Haley Joel Osment was in talks to play Harry Potter?

      If I had enough money, I would make a movie about Queen Victoria and have Madonna star just to piss them off.

      Comment by Michael — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 10:49am PST  
      • It’s hardly insulting: it’s insulting when the best actor doesn’t get the job. The most iconic film franchise of all time (James Bond – in terms of adjusted gross nothing comes close) has had its lead character, who is supossed to be English, played by two Englishmen, an Irishman, A Welshman, a Scotsman, and an Australian. Who is from where? Who is the best Bond? The worst Batman was Clooney – a fine actor, normally, who was terrible in a terrible movie – but he’s American, and Bale is not only a better Batman, but a better Bruce Wayne. All that matters is that the best actor for the role gets it. Stop being insulted. Or, at least, recognise that the guy who directed the highest-grossing and best reviewed super hero film of all time might know something about casting Superman.

        Comment by Mickey — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 12:23pm PST  
        • I’m with this guy.

          Comment by Brian — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 12:46pm PST  
        • the best batman ever was ADAM WEST!!

          Comment by champ — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 4:27pm PST  
        • Actually, Bond is supposed to be Scottish, but that doesn’t change your argument any. Good point.

          Comment by Alamanach — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 4:31pm PST  
          • Didn’t Fleming only specify that Bond was a Scot after having seen Connery as Bond? I’m not sure if I recall this correctly and I haven’t the time right now to dig up the information.

            Comment by Sebestian Toombs — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 9:20pm PST  
          • I think you’re right that it was apparently a post-film release description. I don’t think his parentage was any more descriptive than both parents were killed in a skiing accident before Connery came along.

            Comment by Mark Clark — Tuesday February 8, 2011 @ 9:07am PST  
        • Cavill is too soft looking. His face is pretty, but weak. Bad choice Warners.

          Comment by no — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 4:40pm PST  
          • I doubt you’ve seen enough photos of him or all his film work. He is definitely not “soft looking” and I have no doubt he is perfect for the part. You’ll be eating those words! Checkout his photo gallery at Picasso if you don’t believe.

            Comment by deb — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 4:59pm PST  
        • Bada BOOM!

          Comment by Dr. A — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 6:39am PST  
      • The only Brit who complained about the Harry Potter thing was the author.

        Plus Superman is CANADIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Comment by Jordan — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 1:43pm PST  
        • Are you retarded?
          Superman comes from a different planet and landed in Kansas

          Comment by jll — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 2:49pm PST  
          • Not to mention he’s a freakin’ COMIC BOOK CHARACTER! Not real people. Not real.

            Comment by Dr. A — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 6:41am PST  
          • Not to mention he’s a freakin’ COMIC BOOK CHARACTER! Not real people. Not real.

            You. Me. Outside.


            Comment by SethJ — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 8:32am PST  
        • Bro, the artist was Canadian, the write was American. He was created in Ohio. Nice try though.

          Comment by Kyle M. — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 5:10pm PST  
      • The British press had a “hissy fit” because their film industry is – alas, given most of their films are good quality – tiny. In fact, American money made Harry Potter, so in terms of ownership it is/was an American film franchise.

        As for British actors in American roles – they are often simply better. Also, they can do American accents whereas American actors cannot, as a rule, do British accents.

        And before anyone accuses me of being a British superiorist or something, I’m Irish, and I’m from the bit of Ireland where you *don’t* like the Brits.

        Comment by Colm — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 3:42pm PST  
        • Henry Cavill’s claim to fame is doing historical soft porn. Nobody is overawed by his acting skills.

          Comment by 4real — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 4:46pm PST  
          • Have you actually seen all his work? I have and as an actor he has incredible range, he can cry “on demand”, he has comedy and presence. He will be perfect for this role. You won’t be disappointed. He has the leading role in 2 films coming out in 2011 which will possibly be his best work. Kudos.

            Comment by deb — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 5:01pm PST  
          • true, he did do a pretty hot nude scene in tudors s1 ep1 ;)

            Comment by genie — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 5:19pm PST  
        • “As for British actors in American roles – they are often simply better. Also, they can do American accents whereas American actors cannot, as a rule, do British accents.”

          What a false and ignorant thing to say

          Comment by American — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 10:08pm PST  
          • I disagree. Hugh Laurie’s accent is pretty bad in House, and Ian McShane (tho i loved the part) was lousy in Deadwood. I will give you that Americans (and Canadians) have struggled with British accents. Namely Natalie Portman (does she count?), and Kevin Costner to name a couple of the worst. But you can’t say the British actor can always pull it off.

            Comment by Bob — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 9:07am PST  
          • A young fellow (at the time) named James Marsters handled his English accent like he was brought up with it. For quite a while, I didn’t think he was American.
            Gillian Anderson spent seven years of her childhood in England and has somehow after moving back as an adult reverted to a splendid accent.
            It’s called acting.
            Mimicry is part of it.
            Hugh Laurie’s accent as House is atrocious, though.

            Comment by Claude Parish — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 12:38pm PST  
        • As for British actors in American roles – they are often simply better. Also, they can do American accents whereas American actors cannot, as a rule, do British accents.<<<

          That's a pantload. A Brit might not be able to distinguish one American accent from another, but I certainly can, and Brit actors try American accents with varying degrees of success, just like the reverse. Doing RSC does not make one a great actor.

          Comment by Klaw — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 11:18am PST  
      • Madonna’s already played a cultural icon from another country. She was, of course, cast as Argentina’s First Lady, Eva Peron, in “Evita,” and there was quite an uproar at the time, despite some eventual solid reviews of her performance. Something tells me she’ll never agree to do something like that again.

        Comment by TB — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 5:14pm PST  
      • Other transplants from the Yank side of the Atlantic:

        Movie “From Hell” had two American leads Johnny Depp and Heather Graham.

        Robert Downey, Jr plays Sherlock Holmes.

        Brad Pitt as Mickey O’Neill in Snatch (Irish/Pikey)

        Renee Zellweger as Bridget Jones in Bridget Jones’s Diary

        Mickey Rourke as Martin Fallon in A Prayer For The Dying

        They’re all professionals playing pretend. I wish more closet Yanks on the UK side would take a chance at playing an American. It’s very entertaining. I knew of a Brit who’d get George Bush down perfectly. He stopped mimicing Bush when I said that if he kept it up England may not allow him to return. His eyes widened like saucers and he went several shades whiter…which is quite a feat for someone without a tan. Any whiter and we’d have used him for solar energy.

        Comment by Joe — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 6:31pm PST  
      • This debate about actor nationality reminds me of the once famous dilemma that involved Vivien Leigh and Scarlett O’Hara. Because Leigh was British, there was some public outcry ( much like I am reading on this message board) that an American and a Southerner should claim the role of Scarlett from the novel, Gone with the Wind. Although no one today could imagine another actress in the role, it was a real issue back in 1939. The public ire was evidently assuaged by the studio submitting a statement about the genesis of most southern families and that they had all invariably had British roots! That seemed to appease everyone. I suppose it might work today as well.

        Comment by susan — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 4:15am PST  
      • Wasn’t Kevin Costner as Robin Hood punishment enough?

        Comment by Obentag — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 8:43am PST  
      • That’s really ignorant.
        They choose the best actor for the job – regardless of their nationality.
        Oh and the “it doesn’t go the other way around” comment made me laugh. At least the brits attempt (and often succeed) at doing the character justice and doing a good american accent. There have been many cases where american actors potray iconic british roles as completely american e.g Blade (yes, he was english) Peter Pan, Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes etc etc. So stop b

        Comment by Sami — Tuesday February 15, 2011 @ 3:26am PST  
      • I totally agree that’s its insulting to have 3 American icons played by Brits, really? I guess there are no good American actors left. I miss Christopher Reeve. Next time lets make James Bond an American am sure the English will pay good money and not complain either. Lets see the Brits take it as passively as we have. I guess the American Revolution was in vain,since now we adore anything British especially their stupid British accents. Next time cast an American damn it and don’t tell me there are NO good American actors to play these roles, I doubt that.

        Comment by May — Sunday July 7, 2013 @ 1:05am PDT  
    • Dear America, produce better actors under 40 and this doesn’t need to happen. If he’s good in the role I certainly won’t care.

      Comment by Matt — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 11:13am PST  
      • So true. America has been churning out plenty of pretty boy-men (leo, tobey, etc). But when it comes to the men who fill out the screen, we seem to turn to the Euros and Aussies (bale, worthington, craig, etc). Not sure what it means but America’s on-screen talent needs to step it up.

        Comment by IJustGottaSay — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 3:04pm PST  
        • Tobey is a pretty boy? Could have fooled me lol.

          Comment by bmg — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 9:25pm PST  
        • Tobey Maguire is a pretty boy? This is news to me. Leonardo DiCaprio? What is this, 1997? Have you seen him lately? He’s looking like Jack Nicholson these days.

          Comment by angela — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 1:48am PST  
          • By that do you mean doughy and overrated?

            Comment by Pat — Tuesday February 1, 2011 @ 5:29pm PST  
      • Hollywood is too commercialized. They will never have the likes of of the ‘old’ Hollywood. They are too consumed with trying to be pretty with white teeth and plastic.

        Comment by Paula — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 4:54pm PST  
        • Hollywood has always been commercialized. And FYI, it was even worse during “old hollywood”. For some reason people look back at it so fondly.

          Comment by angela — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 1:49am PST  
          • Maybe because the movies were better.

            Comment by Klaw — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 11:20am PST  
      • How about Mark Ruffalo? If they were going the “Henry Cavill” route and wanted an actual American, Mark would have fit the bill. (Although he is 5’8 vs. Cavill’s 6’1…)

        Comment by Branson — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 5:22pm PST  
        • Mark Ruffalo is fat.

          Comment by Pounce Kitty — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 8:14pm PST  
        • Ruffalo’s already playing the Hulk in The Avengers. No double-dipping!

          Comment by Andre — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 5:26am PST  
      • Cavill is a great choice… his work is The Tudors was substantial, even though it wasn’t scene-stealing. You can see potential, and he has the masculinity and ‘unknown’ quality that you need for Superman.

        That being said, doubt the movie will be any good… particularly if it is an “origin story”, and if the villain is Luther, then it sucks on arrival. While Luther IS a great villain, he’s played out. And Superman’s best foes are aliens, like himself, as they can really test him.

        As you American actors under 40 being of quality and substance, blame that on the pretty boy quality that runs rampant for actors in the late teens and 20s; they bank on their physicality and then don’t have a consistent ability to be truthfully dramatic… Robert Pattison? Shouldn’t be a star. Taylor Lautner? Shouldn’t be a star? They’re acting is bland, but compared to K. Stewart Kazan would sing their praises…

        Comment by Ras The Exhorter — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 7:14pm PST  
        • He is too feminine right now to be honest. BUT, he has half a year to pack on the muscle and that will cause subtle changes to his face too, making it more masculine. He better end up bigger than the Marvel heroes or the fanboys will raise holy hell!

          Comment by HANSU — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 7:36pm PST  
      • “Dear America, produce better actors under 40 and this doesn’t need to happen. If he’s good in the role I certainly won’t care.”

        80-90% of the actors in American movies are American, and yet you Canadian and Bri’ish sissies still shell out the big $$ to watch our American actors/actresses. Who has better actors/actresses again?

        Comment by Stephen — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 10:24pm PST  
        • “80-90% of the actors in American movies are American, and yet you Canadian and Bri’ish sissies still shell out the big $$ to watch our American actors/actresses. Who has better actors/actresses again?”

          Such ignorance. Take Justin Bieber as an example. Anyone with sense can tell he has no talent, and is a crap singer, yet he has so many fans. Popularity doesn’t prove if something is good or not. And as for calling Canadians and the British ‘sissies’, your average Canuck or Brit is far tougher than your average American.

          Comment by Adam — Saturday February 19, 2011 @ 12:56pm PST  
      • Joseph Gordon-Levitt
        Emile Hirsch
        Armie Hammer
        Just a few american actors under 40 with talent.

        Joaquin Phoenix
        Casey Affleck
        Leonardo DiCaprio
        Jesse Eisenberg
        Garrett Hedlund
        Anthony Mackie

        Comment by redmenace — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 4:53am PST  
      • So what if he’s Brithish!! I thought he was good in the Tudors and he looks the part! Also Also, how many times have Americans played foreign charactors? But I hope for Henry Cavill it’s not a death sentence to his acting career like all the other Supermans!

        Comment by Pete — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 6:37am PST  
    • If talent meant anything, none of America’s famous actors beyond Steep and a Hathaway would be famous. None. The writers and actors in this town are sorely lacking in talent. This is a town that takes James Franco seriously.

      Comment by Talent — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 11:31am PST  
      • “The writers and actors in this town are sorely lacking in talent.”

        With pukes like Channing Tatum, and Shia LeBoof stinking up the screen, I agree Hollywood’s Gen-Y actors suck, but you can blame the casting directors for that. There’s TONS of American actors who can “fill the screen” and are talented as any generation of actors has ever been, but as Tarantino said, “casting directors have their little lists, and if you aren’t on that list you don’t get offered the roles.”
        A whole generation of American-born leading men has come and are now 40-plus already without having been noticed because Hollywood has passed them over. Most of them have been driven to cable TV and all but blacklisted from features.

        As for the writers…

        No one can tell me that Tony Gilroy, Oliver Stone, Steven Zallian, David Goyer, Quintin Tarantino, David Milch or Jonah Nolan (yes, his brother is British-born, but Jonah was born and raised in the US in Chicago) are all “sorely lacking” in talent.

        Orci and Kurtzman on the other hand are total no-talents, but they’re only dangerous so long as Michael Bay or JJ Abrams can toss them projects.

        BTW when I think of UK screenwriters I think of Paul W.S. Anderson. Now THAT’S “sorely lacking” in talent!

        Comment by JaySmack — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 6:26pm PST  
        • If you had ever seen The Unborn, you would have a question mark over David Goyer’s inclusion in your list.

          I take it you haven’t.

          Comment by Esquire — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 10:55am PST  
        • uh..excuse me, but citing the ever-cheesy Paul Anderson as an example of “British writing talent” is like citing Geraldo Rivera as an example of “fine investigative journalism talent”.. hello

          Comment by Anonymous — Monday February 14, 2011 @ 11:55pm PST  
      • Great Point!

        Comment by Pony Express — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 8:56pm PST  
    • An American is currently Sherlock Holmes, and an American previously portrayed Robin Hood. It’s not that big a deal.

      Comment by doop — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 12:00pm PST  
    • It’s all revenge for making Downey Jr. the next Sherlock Holmes. Expect the trend to continue lol.

      Comment by Haggar — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 12:36pm PST  
    • I’m appalled that they didn’t cast a Kryptonian in the role.

      Comment by ger — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 12:50pm PST  
      • LOL! That pretty much sums up the futility of talking about casting someone who perfectly matches the nationality/size/features of a character. This is fiction: some of the characters will be IMPOSSIBLE to match exactly.

        Comment by Leo — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 2:50am PST  
      • I was actually hoping for a cardboard cut-out of one of Christopher Reeve. They could pull a ‘Clutch Cargo’ mouth overlay. It’d be the same, right?

        Comment by Dr. A — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 6:47am PST  
      • Haha great post – people need to chill.

        The best person for the role should get the role – end of.

        Comment by Sumit — Tuesday February 1, 2011 @ 1:48am PST  
    • EVEN Captain America is’nt Captain “America” anymore— the producers are changing the name and taking the “AMERICA” out of the American superheroes name.

      Comment by DJT — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 1:45pm PST  
      • Not so. At least, not entirely. At least, the last I read. It has been publicized that some such tweaking will take place for certain segments of the international market. But generally, Captain America will, in fact, be Captain America.

        Comment by Lurker — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 3:40pm PST  
      • The character is still called Captain America – they are only changing the title of the movie to First Avenger in a few countries.

        Comment by Sumit — Tuesday February 1, 2011 @ 1:47am PST  
      • not one thing in your statement makes any sense. Cap is still Cap. and Superman is still Superman

        Comment by kk — Tuesday February 1, 2011 @ 4:35pm PST  
    • I agree with you on the casting point. I’m getting a bit tired of the European invasion in movies and television. I don’t think it is a matter of American actors not having the acting chops (as some posters are suggesting). I’m sure there is a certain level of international appeal in making these decisions. And Hollywood loves Europeans. They would never cast an American in the role of James Bond or Harry Potter.

      These are huge franchises. And I love Christian Bale as Batman. It just would be nice to see some American actors in these iconic American roles. Hell, it would be nice to see more Americans in lead roles across the board (television included).

      Comment by frustratedintheUS — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 1:58pm PST  
    • Oh no, the Brits are taking over the film industry! American’s better step up their game…

      Comment by Anonymous — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 2:04pm PST  
    • The scales have to be balanced. An American plays Sherlock Holmes, so it takes all the American comic book characters to make up for that.

      Comment by Hroot — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 3:51pm PST  
    • It’s just another example of a foreigner doing one of those jobs Americans just won’t do…

      Comment by RockyMountainMosaics.Com — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 7:06pm PST  
    • They do but prior to Ricky Gervais pointing out the nonsense that is hollyweird, rappers & pop stars were preferred. So many a serious actor simply chose other careers rather than deal with the madness

      Comment by Pony Express — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 7:35pm PST  
    • Yes, but they’re full of over-emoting soap stars.

      Comment by HappyDance — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 8:21am PST  
    • how about an american new york born playing sherlock holmes?

      Comment by Anonymous — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 9:04am PST  
    • No

      Comment by anonymous — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 1:55pm PST  
    • Andrew Garfield is NOT british. Only his mother is british. andrew Garfield was born in california, and his father is also american.

      Comment by z3ro — Tuesday February 1, 2011 @ 12:36am PST  

      WHY ARE WE OURSOURCING SUPERMAN?????????????????

      Comment by `carol — Tuesday February 1, 2011 @ 6:46am PST  
  • Unless things go terribly wrong, Warners will make a gazillion dollars in December 2012 (between this Superman and The Hobbit).

    Comment by Joen — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 9:20am PST  
    • Add to this the summer release of “The Dark Knight Rises” and they can live without another Harry Potter adaptation.

      Comment by Dwigt — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 9:47am PST  
    • I bet ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ Will make more money than Hobbit and Superman

      Comment by Ihsan — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 10:30am PST  
    • Yowza. Me like.

      Comment by intohim — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 11:19am PST  
      • Agree he was super in The Tudors. Now I will see Superman

        Comment by Lin — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 11:54am PST  
        • Yummy….me too!!

          Comment by Tracy — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 2:59pm PST  
        • Cavill is a mite fey for Superman, but I’m sure Snyder will whip him into shape. Snyder is very conscious of the visual aspect. His Superman won’t be a fey metrosexual. By the time Snyder is finished, Cavill will make Chris Evans and Hemsworth will look like pikers.

          Comment by greg — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 7:46pm PST  
          • Too true – in Snyder I trust!

            Comment by Sumit — Tuesday February 1, 2011 @ 1:50am PST  
    • Yeah, that’s going to be one epic December for Warner Bros. It will be interesting to see how they will handle this. Two major tentpoles in one month. I’m guessing The Hobbit will open on December 19th, that’s a Wednesday, just like the Lord of the Rings movies. And then they’ll have to find a suitable release date for Superman.

      Comment by Mr. Pricklepants — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 12:15pm PST  
      • $50 says this is moved to May of 2013 (See ‘Star Trek).

        Comment by Anonymous — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 3:25pm PST  
      • The question becomes, are there enough 3D/ 3D IMAX screens to accommodate? Warners will need to spend the next 8 months making deals for screen time.

        Essentially the back-to-back releases of these 3D movies blocks ANY other studio from accessing them for their films.

        Just sayin’…

        Comment by Better hire legal consultants... — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 5:30pm PST  
      • The world ends 48 hours later, spend that money fast ;-)

        Comment by blue jacket — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 9:53pm PST  
    • Well, that is, if we are all still here…

      Comment by Benzin Bruder — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 5:26pm PST  
  • Nice!!!

    Comment by lee — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 9:22am PST  
  • So excited Henry Cavill will be getting the recognition he is due – loved him in Tudors and have hoped to see more of him!

    Comment by K — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 9:22am PST  
  • Not buying it need something official. Plus seriously this guy as Superman, what a joke if its true.

    Comment by Gary — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 9:28am PST  
    • Only joke funnier would have been to cast this lump as “BOND, James Bond.”.

      Comment by djt — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 1:46pm PST  
  • Good call!

    Comment by Greg — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 9:30am PST  
  • Whoever they cast as Lois will probably suck just like this dude. Lets all pray this isn’t true because if it is, I smell epic fail.

    Comment by Jason Grant — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 9:31am PST  
    • epic fail? wishful thinking from a hater. i think that stench you smell is yourself, dude. how can you say a project written and produced by the guy who did the batman reboot AND inception as well as directed by the guy from 300 AND watchmen AND sucker punch gonna suck??? superman is gonna be very well written and visually awesome to watch. keep crossing your fingers dude and maybe someday you’ll find that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow too

      Comment by baby jesus — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 12:11pm PST  
      • Sucker Punch isn’t even out yet – why are you using it here?

        Comment by January — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 5:35pm PST  
        • sucker punch doesn’t need to be already released to see the visual tone of the movie. just look at the trailers and footage. or is that too much thinking outside the box for you?

          Comment by baby jesus — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 3:25pm PST  
    • Actually, calling an ‘epic fail’ isn’t that far off base. Could easily happen. Everyone was touting the Singer ‘reboot’ until it reached the screen and was a serious yawn fest. He didn’t punch anything, fight much other than with Lois, and of course, banter (and poorly I might add) with Luthor (Yes, it was the writers fault). Ultimately, this movie failed to be the monster predicted. While it wasn’t an epic fail in terms of money, it certainly was to most long term fans of the character and the films. Very much akin to Superman III & IV or the god awful Batman & Robin for that franchise (serious shudder then puke).

      Comment by Dr. A — Monday January 31, 2011 @ 6:54am PST  
      • The one thing we won’t have to worry about a Zach Snyder Superman movie is a lack of action!

        Comment by Sumit — Tuesday February 1, 2011 @ 2:05am PST  
  • Full praise to Henry! I just watched all the episodes of The Tudors and absolutely love him! Fantastic work, Henry!

    Comment by Tabatha — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 9:36am PST  
  • I don’t recall much I’veen him in, but look wise he might pull it off. He needs to tame his hair and be clean, to the skin, shaven, though

    Comment by GimplyGump — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 9:37am PST  
  • Interesting. Glad they chose a Brit, just like with Batman. I’ve only seen him in The Tudors, but he had a dynamic and charismatic presence that the likes of Brandon Routh, Tom Welling, and Dean Cain definitely lacked. He seems like a real actor, not just some American soap hunk. Definitely a step in the right direction of moving Superman away from being boring and bland.

    Comment by bmg — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 9:37am PST  
    • Well said!!!

      Comment by Yup! — Sunday January 30, 2011 @ 12:10pm PST  
  |  More Comments

Sorry, comments are closed for this article.