
How Tall is Daniel Craig?
#61
Posted 23 November 2005 - 03:10 AM
#62
Posted 24 November 2005 - 09:56 PM
I mean for God's sake, it's all very well that Craig is a superb actor with terrific screen presence whilst I've never actually acted, but lets get things in perspective!
The fact is, my height and hair colour should have shot me right to the front of the queue ahead of established actors like Daniel Craig.
What are EON thinking?
#64
Posted 25 November 2005 - 03:04 AM
Speaking as a 6'2 chap with dark hair, I am appalled that a blondie shortarse has been given the part ahead of me.
I mean for God's sake, it's all very well that Craig is a superb actor with terrific screen presence whilst I've never actually acted, but lets get things in perspective!
The fact is, my height and hair colour should have shot me right to the front of the queue ahead of established actors like Daniel Craig.
What are EON thinking?
Nice bit of sarcasm, but I don't think many posters on this thread have said that Craig's height should disqualify him from playing Bond. His lack of inches doesn't worry me at all, but what does irritate me is the way fans are taken for mugs. We live in a world of spin and spin doctors, which IMO translates as dishonesty and deception. If the likes of Amy Pascal want to tell us that Craig is as tall as Connery, I think we're entitled to respond.
#65
Posted 26 December 2005 - 12:25 PM
Edited by Niwram, 26 December 2005 - 01:16 PM.
#66
Posted 02 January 2006 - 11:43 AM
A poster called Stratus supplied a photograph of Daniel Craig and Gwyneth Paltrow standing on a beach. Please note that both actors are without lifts, which is a very important factor in assessing true height. As Stratus suggested, Paltrow seems no more than 5'8". Considering Paltrow is leaning back, this would put Craig, standing right next to her, at 5'9" - 5'10" (at an absolute stretch). Anecdotally, it's also worth noting that there's little in Craig's build to suggest that he is a rangey man - neither his legs nor his back are particularly striking in their length.
As many posters have pointed out, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the very solid height of 5'9/10". It is indeed an average height in Britain and with a good pair of shoes, Craig will look absolutely fine in the role of Bond.
A genuine 6 ft individual will be noticably tall. Ian Fleming made no mistake about this, as the literary Bond (6 ft) is constantly being described as "tall". I seriously doubt that Brosnan, for example, is 6'2", otherwise his shoes would probably put him at the 6'3.5" mark in the movies. But a genuine 6 ft seems very reasonable. He IS a tall man.
#67
Posted 02 January 2006 - 12:20 PM
#68
Posted 02 January 2006 - 12:21 PM
#69
Posted 02 January 2006 - 12:25 PM
#70
Posted 02 January 2006 - 04:25 PM
#71
Posted 02 January 2006 - 09:58 PM
#72
Posted 02 January 2006 - 10:35 PM
#74
Posted 03 January 2006 - 04:01 PM
#75
Posted 03 January 2006 - 06:02 PM
I just saw Munich and I noticed he seems much bigger (bulkier) than in his previous films, as if he has been working out more. Does anyone else see that?
I certainly hope so. I think the major problem I have with Craig is that he doesn't come across as very physically imposing on screen (in height or build).
Having said that, I watched Tomb Raider again the other night and he does have a very good physique in that shower scene, really ripped, possibly the best of any Bond actor.
So beyond the use of cgi to make him look larger, I'm not really sure what the answer is

#76
Posted 04 January 2006 - 12:29 PM
#77
Posted 29 January 2006 - 12:56 PM
#78
Posted 29 January 2006 - 07:07 PM
#79
Posted 29 January 2006 - 08:28 PM

Edited by Quartermaster007, 29 January 2006 - 08:28 PM.
#80
Posted 29 January 2006 - 08:31 PM
Answer: That depends on Martin Campbell.

Seriously, he is tall enough. Whether he is 5'10" or 6' is irrelevant to me. If you will forgive the pun, there are bigger issues for me regarding Craig as Bond than his height.
#81
Posted 30 January 2006 - 06:11 AM

Craig is tall enough to play Bond, which he is.
#82
Posted 30 January 2006 - 12:57 PM
#83
Posted 01 February 2006 - 06:08 AM
Maybe we should start denoting height strictly in metric. At 177.8 cm, he doesn't seem much shorter than Lazenby at 188...
#85
Posted 09 March 2006 - 09:58 PM
#86
Posted 09 March 2006 - 10:03 PM
After seeing the new footage of Craig, I think we may possibly be able to get a better idea of how tall he actually is. If someone has the technology and the know-how, can someone post a pic of the screen grabs from the footage of Craig walking with M as well as Brosnan walking with M in the underground trainstation from DAD? I haven't seen DAD for quite some time but I remember Brosnan being head and shoulders taller than Dench and in this new footage, Craig seem to be at least a head taller than Dence. Anyway, if someone could post a pic of those shots, that would be greatly appreciated.
Are you serious?
Why does it matter to you?
#87
Posted 10 March 2006 - 03:12 AM
#88
Posted 10 March 2006 - 06:22 AM

#89
Posted 10 March 2006 - 03:26 PM

#90
Posted 10 March 2006 - 03:35 PM