Well, duh. Guess what, pal, I'm only going by what I see. And I've seen Craig in person, and he looked even older than what we see on the big screen. At the time, I thought a decrepit homeless guy stumbled into the hotel lobby. Anyway, there's no need for you to throw a hissy fit in your response. Pull yourself together. No one's here to make war with you. You're the guy who brought this upon yourself by raising this topic and then showing you're intolerant of other views. I wasn't even responding to you directly. I just started commenting on the things that came to mind as I saw the photos above. As the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, and Craig's mug shots speak volumes, revealing all the problems with him in the role. But unfortunately for you, you absolutely make no sense. The Connery photo, which you seem to have a disturbing obsession with, doesn't show him with crags. Sure, he's older in that photo, and overweight, and has touches of grey at the temples, but he's not severely withered-looking with crags like Craig. None of that on my HD screen. Zilch, nada. And yet by you're admittance Craig was already craggy all the way back in CR. By the time we see him in Skyfall, he looked even worse, forcing the filmmakers to address the whole ageing thing in the story. For Spectre, they're desperately avoiding the look he had Skyfall, even getting him to have longer hair (or plopping a piece of rug to thicken what he has left) and casting a 50-year old Monica Belucci to ease or compliment Craig's decrepit face. Moreover, Craig in that ski photo looks gaunt, a withered old man. He has more lines on his forehead than Connery has in the DAF photo. Craig simply didn't look that way in CR. And that's him layered with massive amounts of makeup. Yet, with all that professional makeup, he still looks craggy. If you look closely, there are lines around his mouth, which I don't see in the Connery mug. Here's what's even more disturbing, and this will require some cognitive exercises: the guy's not even 50 but he already looks 70, by your acknowledgement. In other words, he's a biological wreck. By contrast, Connery didn't even look 70 in DAF. He just looked like a middle-age guy. Putting aside comparisons to other actors, how in hell is Craig ageing well when he looks 70 before he's even 50? It tells us he wasn't even ageing nicely before he got the part, and in the span of 10 years he degraded big time, forcing a PR controversy within the studio, as suggested by the flurry of reports about studio heads wanting Craig to have plastic surgery. You gotta reexamine your thesis there, pal.The Sweeney wrote:
I'm only going by what I see, and the photo you showed with Craig in his shades without the make-up, it doesn't show that many wrinkles on his face. He doesn't look as old as Connery did in DAF.
Whether you think Craig is suited for the part of Bond or not, this is nothing to do with that issue. It's purely about ageing, and I think Craig looks pretty much the same now as he did 10 years ago.
Yes, his face looks craggy, yes he isn't conventionally handsome, and yes he looked old even in CR. I am not disputing any of that. But if you compare photos of Craig now, to him in CR, there isn't that much of a difference, particularly when you view the comparisons of Connery and Moore. To say Craig has aged more than Connery did in the same timeframe is delusional.
At this stage, let's put this all into context so you don't throw another hissy fit: remember, this is just me explicating why I believe Craig has aged the worst. As for this topic not being relevant to Craig's suitably for the role...um, actually it is relevant, but you just don't realize it in your self-importance. The reality factor tells us the rationale for recasting the part back in 2005 was to reboot the series with a younger actor so Eon could pursue the bullsh**t origin story angle. Yet, by your admission, Craig was already craggy back then, inadvertently implying he was miscast for that approach. So your comments self-destruct at so many levels, unless it didn't matter to you because your only intention all along was to feel a tad more precious in this forum by taking a stance that's different from the rest of the members. If that's the case, then you're a flaming narcisist. This not a condemnation of you, just me thinking out loud based on the bizarre way you've handled yourself. Let's end this with Mazer Rackham's witty comment above: "Plenty of cash goes into making [Craig] appear less decrepit. . . . You simply wouldn't believe the sorcerers on staff at these places."
[/quote]
Also, some nut named Ron at that other site you also frequent had some interesting things to say about you that I feel you need to know: "Jet Set Willy is the other and he gave this site one of the most profound reviews of CR, personal yet analytical. Personal because he unabashedly revealed how he felt an awakening to his true sexual identity through Daniel Craig. We hope he will return to this site but one of our friends noticed he's now at another forum under the name The Sweeney. That makes sense since he is a new man." 
Why does Broccoli emasculate Bond?
roduction Budget: $40 million...........so far it grossed worldwide:$410,648,000............treat a woman like junk, and look at the profit margin 
