I could maybe get on board with some of what you say, but when you call Daniel Craig a very limited actor after you mention Michael Caine as a possibility for The Master, I don't know where you're coming from. Michael Caine's range has deserted him as he's aged. These days he's very limited.
He's limited only in the roles he gets, not in what he's capable of. Have you seen him recently in anything outside of Christopher Nolan films? Like many older actors who still work in Hollywood, they've shoved him into a very limited type of role. But see some of the indy films he's done lately, like Harry Brown
or Is Anybody There?
and tell me that he's "limited."
Benedict Cumberbatch is limited as well.
Again, have you only seen him in Sherlock
and Into Darkness
? How about The War Horse
or Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
? How about To the Ends of the Earth
or The Last Enemy
or Small Island
? These are quite different roles from his Sherlock, and he's superb in them. Range? Check.
But since you go on and on about Craig, it seems as if you have a personal bias against him. Don't quit your day job and become a casting director, then.
My only bias against him in this regard is that he's never shown range outside his typical roles, of which the Master is far afield. Name one
role that Craig has done that shows he has greater range than "thug" as an actor. Like I said, he's good at what he does. But he's never shown himself capable of doing anything else.
We'll have to agree to disagree here.
Obviously, unless you can provide evidence to support your thesis.