About Craig's face

[Dark Knight]

OK, what hell is the damage? People actually complaining about Craig's face. So I ask why?

Ok, so the guy's got a bit of a weathered and beaten down face. He's got some crags and some wrinkes. But so what? He's rugged. And Bond should be rugged.

Sean Connery was also rugged. He wasn't a fresh-faced, metrosexual pretty-boy. He was a rugged and cold bastard.

But people complaining about Craig's face is just sort of how superficial the complaining about him has become. And how much crap it is. It reminds me of the whiney fanboy kids complaining about the looks of Kirsten Dunst and Bryce Dallas Howard for Spider-man.

I guess Craig isn't sexy enough for some moronic fanboys.

I totally know what you mean.....some fanboys need to relax. Craig is a good actor....he needs to be given a chance.

 

[xwolverine2]

how is he not sexy?

 

[Thot]

CR is attributed with ingredients that make an excellent formula, we just need to see it all in its entirety but you hope it fails so we can go back to the likes of DAD? You fool. CR has everything that allows it to revert back to what we were getting in the 60s.

"You fool"? Get a grip pal. This isn't life or death here. The right "ingredients"? "What we were getting in the 60's"? Which James Bond films have you been watching? Surely not films such as "From Russia With Love", "Dr. No", "Thunderball", or even "Goldeneye" (a great Bond film). DAD had it's flaws but it was an o.k. flick. I would love to see a return to the 60's vibe we got with Connery, but it aint gonna happen with Craig. Too many elements will be missing, e.g. Moneypenny, gadgets, a leading man with leading man looks, the sly, naughty sense of humor that has characterized Bond's rakish manner, the slight touch of camp that always gets a laugh at just the right moment, the sophisticated world of James Bond that is out of reach for the average-Joe-movie-goer, etc, etc. It's depressing really.

 

[super_fan]

People might be interested in this. I think this proves Craig is 100 percent miscast as James Bond.

That is Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre. But he looks like James Bond.

And Craig's Bond versus Mads Mikkelsen's Bond:

In my opinion, Mads Mikkelsen looks far more like Bond than Daniel Craig.

How can we believe Craig is Bond when the villain looks closer to the part than Craig's Bond? In total honesty, I would say Craig is 100 percent visually miscast.

Will people pay to see a Bond film where Bond looks more like the villain and the villian looks more like Bond? Seems unlikely. I accept Craig could give a good or even great Bond performance but film is a visual medium and I think Mikkelsen has a stronger Bond look than Craig. When they're in the same scenes acting together this could damage Craig's credibility - the look of Bond, at any rate.

Bond should never look less handsome than the villain. I don't think so, but Eon, under Barbara Broccoli and MG Wilson, seem to think otherwise. Time and box office figures will tell if they made the right casting decisions. It does seem unlikely general movie goers will want to see a Bond film where the lead actor playing Bond looks more like the villain! Without wishing to be voice of doom and gloom, expect Casino Royale to take considerably less box office than Brosnan's Bond films.

 

[kit1982]

Because if their complaints are "he's not sexy or handsome enough" then they have some unresolved issues.

It's funny how you see and read what you want to read, but you have a lot of complainers who come around and say, "he's not sexy enough", "his hair isn't brown", and "he's not handsome at all."

Who cares about his look? It'd be different if they casted Ashton Kutcher for the role of James Bond or Sean William Scott.

How about maybe just maybe it's because these people are more familiar and indeed probably prefer the romanticised version that we have seen in previous movie in which the look of the character has played an important part. Who cares about his look? I do for one it's an important part of any character especially the iconic ones, again using Batman as an example how many people were sold on Batman Begins because Christian Bale a bloke who had the acting skills and the right look was playing Batman? I myself am quite content with Craig and think he'll do a very good job but just because people have certain reservations about things doesn't mean their moronic, well except when they say Craig is too rough looking I want Clive Owen for Bond.

 

[Agentsands77]

Ahh, super_fan - so you're Moomoo.

 

[Everyman]

People might be interested in this. I think this proves Craig is 100 percent miscast as James Bond.

That is Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre. But he looks like James Bond.

And Craig's Bond versus Mads Mikkelsen's Bond:

In my opinion, Mads Mikkelsen looks far more like Bond than Daniel Craig.

How can we believe Craig is Bond when the villain looks closer to the part than Craig's Bond? In total honesty, I would say Craig is 100 percent visually miscast.

Will people pay to see a Bond film where Bond looks more like the villain and the villian looks more like Bond? Seems unlikely. I accept Craig could give a good or even great Bond performance but film is a visual medium and I think Mikkelsen has a stronger Bond look than Craig. When they're in the same scenes acting together this could damage Craig's credibility - the look of Bond, at any rate.

Bond should never look less handsome than the villain. I don't think so, but Eon, under Barbara Broccoli and MG Wilson, seem to think otherwise. Time and box office figures will tell if they made the right casting decisions. It does seem unlikely general movie goers will want to see a Bond film where the lead actor playing Bond looks more like the villain! Without wishing to be voice of doom and gloom, expect Casino Royale to take considerably less box office than Brosnan's Bond films.

I think Mikkelsen looks way too delicate and effeminate as Le Chiffre to seem any Bondian (and I was skeptical about Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre because he was a bit young, but while not as ugly as the novel's original character he does have a few similar traits). Especially in these pictures, Mikkelsen looks nothing like Bond (and the stupid bubble doesn't change anything). Craig has something of Sean Connery in many images of him as Bond.

 

[Avangarde]

Does bond "REALLY" have to go by looks, I mean its his personality that makes him, so if Craig can pull off the personality aspect then he has my vote. Remember the saying "You cant judge a book by its cover", just have to wait and see.

 

[xwolverine2]

Le chiffre is teh hawtnezz

 

[jrd550]

I'm fine with Craig's look - I think it's what the franchise needs - putting another dark haired guy in there would be just another Bond.

 

[Iphus04]

how is he not sexy?

I remember being in the cinema watching Layer Cake. When Daniel got his shirt off during the 'underwear scene' with Sienna Miller every woman in the vicinity suddenly started paying attention...

 

[James"007"Bond]

And after he's gone, I think there'd be a natural return to the more crowd-pleasing style of Bond film.

Define, crowd-pleasing style of Bond.

I'm most certainly part of the crowd and it looks to me that CR is heading in the right direction in every conceivable aspect, a direction that the Bond movies had blatantly veered from.

 

[James"007"Bond]

"You fool"? Get a grip pal. This isn't life or death here. The right "ingredients"? "What we were getting in the 60's"? Which James Bond films have you been watching? Surely not films such as "From Russia With Love", "Dr. No", "Thunderball", or even "Goldeneye" (a great Bond film). DAD had it's flaws but it was an o.k. flick. I would love to see a return to the 60's vibe we got with Connery, but it aint gonna happen with Craig. Too many elements will be missing, e.g. Moneypenny, gadgets, a leading man with leading man looks, the sly, naughty sense of humor that has characterized Bond's rakish manner, the slight touch of camp that always gets a laugh at just the right moment, the sophisticated world of James Bond that is out of reach for the average-Joe-movie-goer, etc, etc. It's depressing really.

I think you need to get a grip. I called you a fool because you hope for this movie to fail. Seriously what kind of selfish behaviour is that? This is a back to basics story, before a pre-established Bond. Crawl before you run comes to mind.
You talk as though you've actally seen CR. Do you know that we wont be getting the highlited? I've seen every Bond movie multiple times and to me CR is bringing back the excitement of what we got in the 60s. Beautiful, exotic locations, sexy obscure actresses and most importanly, a good script, good director and very talented actors.
The 60s vibe is certainly apparent but its obvious we're not getting the exact magic that we got with Connery's movies because that was a different time, a different era and the way society and society's perceptions are today, its fact that more than obvious changes and differences besides the contemporary are apparent.

In closing its my opinion that a restoration of class to the Bond movies will be brought back, something that has been long overdue but at last we're getting it. I find the whole situation entirely uplifting and look foward to this and future Bond movies, at least with Craig anyway.

 

[swifty]

this is so far the best pic of Craig as Bond but unfortunately in most other pics his mouth looks like a chicken's rectum.

this pics also shows that he should've had the bond hair style not the scruffy blond hair.

 

[Hades]

He looks like, 50 yet he's only 38?
I mean, damn. YOu have to wonder what one does to age that much.

And I don't see why he couldn't have just done his hair like this

 

[MKO1234]

I remember as a young child in school, teachers always taught students not to judge books by their covers, but by their contents. If 5 and 6 year olds are able to grasp the concept, some more of us adults might need to as well.

 

[Masut]

this is so far the best pic of Craig as Bond but unfortunately in most other pics his mouth looks like a chicken's rectum.

I lol'd.

He looks like, 50 yet he's only 38?
I mean, damn. YOu have to wonder what one does to age that much.

And I don't see why he couldn't have just done his hair like this

I can see why, lol. The colour's right, but that massive fringe ain't exactly attractive.

 

[Hades]

I lol'd.



I can see why, lol. The colour's right, but that massive fringe ain't exactly attractive.

Yes, Indeed.
-the fringe

 

[DorkyFresh]

it's not Craig's face that's the problem...it's his eye and hair color. they should've made him like like this imo...

 

[블라스]

LOL super fan is back!
That guy is hilarious

 

[DA Harvey Dent]

Does bond "REALLY" have to go by looks, I mean its his personality that makes him, so if Craig can pull off the personality aspect then he has my vote. Remember the saying "You cant judge a book by its cover", just have to wait and see.

Yes. One of Bond's defining characteristics is his looks. Taking away this aspect means that you are not left with Bond anymore, and the very reason Craig isn't Bond, but an ersatz one. What you're asking is equivalent to saying does Superman really have to be from krypton? or does Bruce Wayne have to be a billionare? etc.

 

[DorkyFresh]

What you're asking is equivalent to saying does Superman really have to be from krypton? or does Bruce Wayne have to be a billionare? etc.

to be fair...Superman being from Krypton and Bruce Wayne being a billionare has nothing to do with looks. it'd be more like asking if Superman has to be black haired/blue eyed.

 

[DA Harvey Dent]

to be fair...Superman being from Krypton and Bruce Wayne being a billionare has nothing to do with looks. it'd be more like asking if Superman has to be black haired/blue eyed.

Reading comprehension . Go back and read what I wrote. I didn't say looks as the characteristic, I said it is a defining characteristic (one of a number of things that, sum total identify the character). With Bond there are certain defining characteristics: good looks, british, former naval officer, etc. Same thing with superman and batman, they each have their defining characteristics. Once you remove one of these defining characteristics, its not true to the character anymore (think Keaton as bruce wayne and you'll see what I'm getting at). All the other actors who previously portrayed bond had all these defining characteristics, although their acting abilities varied. Even if Craig is an excellent actor, the fact that he doesnt have a defining characteristic of bond (good looks) means that he isn't bond at all. Which is why I'm not blasting this film or craig b/c I don't consider this a james bond film at all.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Even if Craig is an excellent actor, the fact that he doesnt have a defining characteristic of bond (good looks) means that he isn't bond at all.

wait a minute, just because you don't think he looks good doesn't make it a fact. i know a couple of ladies that think Daniel Craig is a handsome man and are "thrilled" (their words) to see Casino Royale because of him.

also, how do you justify saying that an actor isn't Bond at ALL if they're just missing one defining characteristic? Bond is supposed to be a brutal man, yet Roger Moore played him more laid back...does that mean that Moore wasn't Bond at all?

 

[DA Harvey Dent]

wait a minute, just because you don't think he looks good doesn't make it a fact. i know a couple of ladies that think Daniel Craig is a handsome man and are "thrilled" (their words) to see Casino Royale because of him.

also, how do you justify saying that an actor isn't Bond at ALL if they're just missing one defining characteristic? Bond is supposed to be a brutal man, yet Roger Moore played him more laid back...does that mean that Moore wasn't Bond at all?

Its true, good looks are a subjective thing. However, the general consensus among the public is that craig is an ugly dude and there were far more handsome actors to play bond.

Moore did have a more campy bond, but he still killed when necessary and unnecessary, destroyed property, etc. Just b/c moore was campy and comical did not mean he lost that bond brutality.

How do I justify it? its simple really, like I said before the defining characterisitcs are sum total representative of the character. If you're missing one, the entire character is lost. It just so happens that good looks is one defining characteristic of bond. Most people think craig doesn't have it. Some people do. I fall in the former category.