I agree in a large part with your post that it is all subjective in how you like to see the role portrayed. But let's not forget that Bond is primarily a literary role. The novels existed long before the films. The two actors who have come least close to portraying Bond the way Fleming wrote him were Brosnan and Moore (in that order) and the ones who have come the closest were Dalton, Connery and Lazenby (in that order).
I actually prefer to see the character portrayed as the one in the novels (having read a novel long before I saw a film) and it's all very well saying the two things are totally separate but there isn't another literary character that the film industry would be allowed to get away with such liberties in portraying without severe criticism.
I don't agree though that the main problem with Moore was the material he was given. To an extent, this was the case with Brosnan because the books had long run out by then and the poor guy was relying on third-rate storylines and scripts and an ever-increasing reliance on fantasy and CGI (though it can be argued that a better actor could have made a childlike fairy story look like Shakespeare). Moore chose to play Bond in a camp and almost Carry On style.
In my opinion, the best Bond film Moore made was "For Your Eyes Only" where we not only got to see a more serious side to Moore's undeniable acting skills but also a more than one-dimensional Bond (the sort that had been played by Sean Connery and not seen since George Lazenby in "OHMSS" and continued by Timothy Dalton). When "FYEO" was being planned, Moore had said he would not play Bond again and the screenwriters adapted the story for Dalton (who was their first choice, not Brosnan, and who had been their first choice before Lazenby and then Moore - though Dalton considered himself too young on both occasions) and likewise with "Goldeneye". In both cases, the fact that the scripts were written for another actor were telling but the difference is that the superior acting talent of Moore prevailed where Brosnan couldn't.
Byronic Hero - No, Craig does not look anything like Fleming described Bond (he is blond for a start) but that's not to say that he could not possibly capture the essence of the Bond character in the same way that another fine actor, Christopher Eccleston, was able to capture the essence of a TV character, "Dr Who", without the need for outlandish costumes. To my mind, Bond is best when he is hard-edged because Fleming intended him to be a trained assassin with a charming side (particularly to the ladies - and whether Daniel Craig melts your butter or not, he doesn't mine particularly, it can't be denied there is something about the guy in the same way as those actors who have gone before him) and not a comedian like Moore played him or a vulnerable pussycat of a man like Brosnan played him. He is supposed to be good looking and sexy, but rugged and tough - and for that read Connery, Lazenby, Dalton AND CRAIG).
