Yes or No.
Just because someone does something good for you, that doesn't mean they're good for you.
No. If you're going to consider him for the role you might as well consider any British actor who is "tall, dark, and handsome"
share...at least he's not American? 😕
Just because someone does something good for you, that doesn't mean they're good for you.
Yes.
I think he'd commit to the role, long term and in good ways. It falls back on the producers and their team doing good things with him.
I'm motivated by my Duty.
Yes, simply because he's better than the other rumored candidates, who are all laughable.
Benedict Cumberbatch is a big nancy and Tom Hiddleston...his Thor audition says it all
http://orig02.deviantart.net/3f53/f/2014/029/4/a/tom_hiddleston_5_by_sigyn_goddess-d74admw.gif

Well yeah.
shareNo.
1. He's Superman and committed to the DCEU for the foreseeable future (even if Superman does remain a supporting role).
2. He has yet to impress me with a performance.
It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.
Yes.
shareNo. He's had one passable performance ever, in The Man From UNCLE. Everything else I've seen him in he ranges from atrocious to bad. I cant recall the film, Bruce Willis plays Cavill's father, and Henry delivers one of the most laughable performances out there, truly horrendous. I don't understand the hype.
Is he the popular choice simply due to the fact that he plays Supes and he has the right look? Then why not Chris Hemsworth? He'd be a much better Bond. He can actually deliver a good performance.