Why Is the Look of Bond Utterly Unimportant Now?

On a documentary about Ian Fleming that I saw a few years ago, they showed a piece of Fleming's handwriting, and the description was as follows: Six feet tall, black hair, blue gray eyes, and a scar on his face.

I think people do care how the Bond actor should look like its just that expected look has changed. Forget about the color of the hair. Its more about how people expect Bond to look like as the whole package.

Before Craig everyone was just asking for a mature good looking actor but Craig came to the picture and now everyone wants an actor who looks believable as an assassin as someone who could you believe would kill someone with his bare hands.

I think part of the answer lies in the requirements for modern action movies. Action sequences are easier to shoot with shorter actors.

Hiddleston is quite tall, about 6'2" (1.88m; taller than Vin Diesel and about as tall as Schwarzenegger in his prime), which gives problems when you're trying to create spectacular action scenes (unless you're filming in front of a green screen, where you can manipulate everything in post-production). For example, it makes it harder to find an actor who would be taller and look like a menacing villain compared to him. Framing action scenes (shot composition, to get everything nicely into view) would also be more challenging.

Then there's the dynamic: suppose Bond needs to run from A to B in a certain amount of time. A tall actor like Hiddeston would need, say, 20 paces to do that while a shorter actor like Daniel Craig would need 30 paces to do that. As a result, Craig's run would look much more energetic; Hiddleston's run would seem "lazy" or "nonchalant", which might fit in a Bond film in an era when "casualness" and "suaveness" was the trend. But nowadays the trend is focused on high-octane gritty action, which is better achieved with shorter actors.

______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0

Now? Roger Moore says hi.

Hiddleston could never play Bond, he's just not tough enough.

Didn't Fleming envision a young David Niven? That's not exactly very intimidating.


http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

I disagree. Craig looks the part. He just looks different then what we are used to. He also fits with the type of James Bond they are trying to portray in his film era. They do care about Bonds looks.

look is important tom hiddleston dosent look tuff he looks like a slimy guy not saying he is but in no way dose he look like a bad ass craig looks like he would whoop ass thats the difference depending on what bond your going to do is what look you should go with craig looks like a fighter but also looks good in a suit thats what he brings