It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I know, you are probably the least respectful person on here, but I ask you all the same.
Now I'm neither a woman nor otherwise someone who would put special value on Craig's physical attractiveness, but I still think he's filling the role quite amazingly, and except for his increasing age could live with him for a few more Bond movies. He's the best Bond since Connery for me, no matter if one finds him "not suave" or whatever.
+1
I'd say - and this is just my personal opinion, of course - how traditionally handsome a man is has very, very, very little to do with how attractive he is. I'll never understand the over-importance often put on mere looks. Attractiveness consists of a combination of stuff, and how a person looks is just one aspect of it, and not a particularly important one, either. A guy can be extremely handsome ("traditionally" or otherwise) and fit, and whatnot and still be either boring or even off putting. Or not traditionally handsome and not fit and still be very attractive. Or be neither handsome nor attractive. Or be both handsome and attractive. Now Hollywood has tons of traditionally handsome actors, and for most part I couldn't care less. I'm not going to find someone attractive just because of how they look. Certainly when I find out someone who is handsome has a winning personality, then it'll be "well helloooo" but I actually think I'm more likely to pay less (rather than more) attention to traditionally handsome actors. And it's the same with someone who is not handsome, but has an awesome personality - that'll be "well helloooo" as well then.
That doesn't mean physical beauty is meaningless. It can certainly be a bonus. But on its own it is indeed meaningless. (To me that is.)
The very idea that an actor's (or anybody else's) attractiveness could be decided by an analysis of some physical features is laughable to me. First because the physical side is only a fraction of a person's attractiveness anyway, and also because when it comes to such things opinions vary. But personality, charm, charisma carry far more weight than any physical attribute could.
I think Craig is attractive - and indeed the most attractive Bond as far as I'm concerned - but not because of how he looks or doesn't look, but because of how he is. The guy's just got it.
In general - at least that's my impression - men are more obsessed with looks-only (or looks-more-than-anything) way of thinking than women are. And often assume women look at men the way they look at women. Not the case. Might be for some, sure, but so often just isn't.
Craig may be the actor with the least symmetrical face, but that doesn't make him the least attractive actor.
Like it is, he looks different from every angle, he takes good shots and lesser ones, but it’s never boring. He has the most interesting face I have ever seen.
I admit I was one of the people who, when Craig was cast as Bond, went "what the heck's this? He's blonde and his ears stick out funny", but approximately five seconds of his acting sold me on the gig.
I might not find him attractive on a 'phwoar, hot' level but I do find him very striking, charismatic and powerful, and I don't want to take my eyes off him when he's onscreen.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-danielcraig-auction/daniel-craig-puts-his-bond-car-up-for-auction-idUSKCN1FZ12G
Because he's strapped for money.
It's for charity. Even if it wasn't, I'd be shocked if he was hurting for money all of a sudden.
Since its for charity, this is a rather xxx thought. I am sure, he loves that car but gives it away anyway for an unstitution he believes in.
So maybe read the whole text before you come to wrong conclusions.
I got it wrong. He doesn't necessarily get them for free but he can drive one anytime he wants, including testing it on a special track. Nevertheless, when he auctions them off as he has done over the years he is giving the company free publicity which they should compensate him for.
https://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/21/daniel-craig-gets-free-pass-to-drive-astons-for-life/
http://www.eonline.com/ca/news/396585/daniel-craig-snags-new-red-aston-martin
dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5412361/BAFTAs-2018-Daniel-Craig-leaves-fans-baffled-face.html
Starting to look a bit like Charles Gray!
I think it is more likely that DC's puffiness is a result of facial edema, brought on by medication, particularly testosterone therapy. And this is actually nothing to joke about. I am the same age as DC, and what happens is that your loss of testosterone leads to general misery and unhappiness. In the early stages, the dosage can be off. One of the side effects is indeed fluid retention, as you see here. His hormone levels are likely a little out of whack.
Well, if that's what it is then I wish him well. It can't be easy enduring the predictably harsh remarks that have surfaced online, particularly as they follow comments about his lack of facial symmetry a few weeks ago.
It certainly looks like he has some kind of lymphatic issue.