I would like to add that (having seen the preview today for the upcoming Bond) and drooled over Craig newly buff bod.
He is hot enough to play whatever he wants.
Or do whatever he wants.
To me.
Anytime.
Methinks the OP is a bit off base. I’m willing to give Craig a chance. Connery owned the role, of course, but each of his successors has put his own imprint upon it (although Roger Moore is far and away my least favorite, particularly towards the end of his run). But I’m one of those who actually thinks that Timothy Dalton did a pretty good job in the role, so what do I know? 
I read the OP, looked at the picture, and thought, “Yeah, he’s right. The real Daniel Craig does look like a troll compared to the modified version.” But then again, I thought the one on the right was the original.
I don’t understand all the hate, either. He’s relatively good-looking, and give him a break–we haven’t even seen him in the role, yet. He might be stink, yes, but then again he just might be perfect. Give Craig a chance.
(The same applies to Brandon Routh as future Superman. I idolize Christopher Reeve as much as anybody, but come on.)
I wouldn’t say looking like Putin is a bad thing anyhow. That man has charisma. Something just yells authority and father figure about him.
Anyhow, I think this new bond is a step in the right direction. I only hope they remove the chauvinistic traits, but Craig doesn’t look like two-moralling type so it should be good.
Well, I saw the trailer this weekend and if you think Daniel Craig (shirtless) is not HOT, I … well since this isn’t the pit I’ll keep it clean, believe me he has the best bod since Connery.
A few points:
looking Russian is not a negative in a British spy. I’d say it was more of a positive.
Brosnan was my favourite Bond, then Dalton, then Connery, Lazenby next and finally Moore my least*. I liked Brosnan not because he was handsome (although he was) but because he had, to me, an underlying cruelty. Maybe it’s that IRA film of his that influenced me, I don’t know…
I think Craig can project that cruelty, but what do I know, I’ve only seen him in Lara Croft.
- Never seen Niven.
Brosnan’s my favorite Bond-I always thought Remington Steele was basically James Bond Lite-but I’m withholding final judgement on the Daniel Craig matter until I see the movie.
Am I the only one who thinks the right Daniel Craig is just the same picture of the left Daniel Craig with the brightness cranked up?
(ok, after close examination, the neck is slightly different, the eyebrows are more focused, and some of his features look a little less droopy, but I really think 90% of the difference is the brightness level)
My criticism of Craig is about his face, not his body. He looks great shirtless, I admit. So does Ben Stiller. Nobody would ever think of casting HIM, or someone who resembled him, as James Bond. The face is way more important than the physique. Why not get someone who has an amazing body AND has a handsome face?
I don’t get the Brandon Routh comparison. On his board on IMDB nobody is saying that he isn’t handsome enough for the role. There’s no argument about it. It is accepted that he is handsome and that he looks fit to portray Superman.
I am no expert on James Bond – I’ve only seen some of the films and have only read one of the books. But I’m a heterosexual woman and Daniel Craig is definately handsome, IMO. “Ruggedly handsome” is how I would put it. In that way, Craig resembles Connery (whom I also consider to be ruggedly handsome). Brosnan and Moore are also handsome, of course, but not ruggedly so – they were both more pretty-handsome. Not that there’s anything wrong with that in itself, certainly. But I’d say that ruggedly-handsome is more appropriate for James Bond.
Brandon Routh looks great for Superman, as far as his face goes, but I don’t think he’s big enough, body-wise. Superman oughta be huge – like Schwarzenegger-huge. I had the same complaint about Reeve, back in the day.
I am aghast at all these people insisting that Pierce Brosnan is not rugged. He is absolutely rugged. He has a slightly receding hairline, which on the right guy looks very handsome especially with thick black hair. He has a stubbly face, not a smooth one that you would associate with a “pretty boy.” Look at this picture of Pierce Brosnan and tell me he is not rugged looking. He absolutely is.
A pretty boy is someone like Jared Leto. Look at that face. There is nothing rugged about it at all. He’s handsome, because his face is symmetrical - he also has big eyes, which make him look like a feminine Anime character. To give you a less predictable example - Christopher Walken. He has become known as someone who plays scary, weird characters, but in his younger days Christopher Walken was pretty. In this picture, he even looks a little like Johnny Depp, another example of someone who is pretty and not at all rugged. These guys all have essentially soft features, small noses, feminine lips - they are pretty boys.
I don’t see how people can call Brosnan a pretty boy. His face is slightly boyish, but it is still quite rugged. This is why Brosnan was a perfect Bond - he was boyish and rugged at the same time. Charming and rough at the same time. Seductive and vicious at the same time. The character of the film Bond is ALL ABOUT the meshing of these two factors, the charm and the ruggedness. Craig only has ONE of them, the ruggedness, and not the other.
Why settle for someone who only has one, when they could have cast someone who had both?
I stopped watching Bond movies, other than on TV, back in the Sean Connery days. My son dragged me along to, I guess, the last Brosnan one and I thought he was pretty good and remember that Fleming said he looked like this.
On the weekend I saw shorts of the new Bond movie (and they looked pretty damn good) but it took me some moments to register that Daniel Craig was meant to be Bond. He seemed very lifeless in the snippets I saw.
You’re on crack, dear. Pierce Brosnan is not my type, but there’s no arguing with the fact that he’s a very good-looking man.
Daniel Craig, on the other hand . . . if James Bond is supposed to look like Hoagy Carmichael, then he ought to be a reasonably good-looking man. Daniel Craig is not just ugly, he’s distractingly ugly. I haven’t seen him in any films; perhaps his charisma manages to overcome his seriously painful face. But from all the still pictures I’ve seen, I’ve been puzzling over this. Sean Connery was not gorgeous, but he was a reasonably handsome man. Most of the previous Bonds have been. And Daniel Craig looks like he spent way too much time in the sun as a kid. He’s not just not good-looking, he’s seriously an ugly, ugly man.
Appeals to Ian Fleming’s “vision” are nonsense, as this man does not look one iota like Hoagy Carmichael. For starters, Hoagy Carmichael was very good-looking - it’s clear that Fleming envisioned a suave, handsome Bond, not this guy who looks like his hobby is bare-knuckle boxing.
I wouldn’t see the movie either way, but (yeah, so I’m shallow) this casting would drive me away if I was. It would be distracting to try to watch a movie whose leading actor was that ugly, at least if that’s not what the role called for. And incidentally, if I found him in my bed, I’d throw heavy things at him and call the cops. :: shudder ::
What you seem to have missed is that the OP is arguing that the dude’s looks are wrong for the role. That can happen. For instance, I’d argue that Chris Farley’s looks are wrong for the role of James Bond. The best acting in the world won’t fix it if the actors are physically unbelievable.
Incidentally, the wussy-looking dude they cast as the new Superman makes me pretty disinclined to see that, and that’s a film I would see otherwise. If you cast people who are physically inappropriate for their parts, your movie will simply not work.
?!
Says you.
I like Daniel Craig - I think he’s a fine actor and a damn good looking one, at that. I think he’ll do well. He’s certainly got menacing down to a fine art.
Well I’m another who was throuroughly confused about the two pictures in the OP. Confused both about the brightness levels and which was ‘before’ which ‘after’.
Another female of the hetero persuasion and I say give him a chance - a lot of Bond is in his voice not just his looks. Dalton just didn’t cut it with that breathy whisper thing he did - Brosnan (my favourite*) could look charming but utter threats with the utmost conviction.
Personally I think he looks like this guy , which is fine by me, just fine.
*I came to Connery and Moore on the small screen (harbouring a grudge against Moore as I wasn’t allowed to go to the cinema with my dad and brother to see For Your Eyes Only), they’ve always been there and I can’t be objective about them - they were the guys who played Bond on telly. OHMSS is almost too different for me to see it as a Bond film.
Brosnan and Connery tie (so far) for best Bond. Connery brought him alive on the screen, and then he became a bit of an action joke, and then Brosnan took him places he’d never been. I’ve seen Daniel Craig in Layer Cake and in Munich and he was terrific in both. I think he’d be a great Bond, though I’m sorry they decided to drop Brosnan because he really was fantastic.
I don’t think “handsome” is a Bond requirement. Sexy is though, and Brosnan, Connery, and Craig are all that. Roger Moore never struck me as sexy. That being said, on the handsome scale, I think it’s Brosnan, Craig, Connery. Sean Connery got better looking as he got older though.
Daniel Craig is hot. I’m sick of pretty boy Bonds. If they are going to a rougher, more violent, less winkwinknudgenudge Bond installment, I’ll be one of the first to buy a ticket. They were getting ridiculously cartoonish. And Pierce Brosnan was WAY TOO OLD to continue playing Bond.
Good call, Cat Jones – Craig does look alot like Steve McQueen!
Personal tatse is a funny thing, isn’t it? I cannot imagine anyone thinking Daniel Craig is ugly!
If you want good cartoonish action movies, the Mission Impossible series got a lot better with the latest installment. Ethan Hunt can serve as the cartoony action hero. It’d be nice to have a James Bond who is, as Ogre suggests, just a little bit of a cold-hearted sociopath.