As you correctly said, different strokes for different folks. I personally believe that the selection of Daniel Craig was the best decision done in a very long time when it comes to the Bond franchise. At first it did not make sense to many people, but he has not only had immensely high box office takes (Skyfall alone was over US$1 billion) but also revived a brand that after Pierce's run was felt to have run its course (not because of anything wrong Pierce did, although by the rolling of credits of Die Another Day it did seem shaky).
Daniel Craig has been a major boon for the Bond franchise, and the numbers support that significantly.
As for Clive Owen - his name ran prominently at the time the producers were thinking about who would replace Pierce, however I think it would have been a mistake to cast him (and that the producers did a good thing opting for another lead). His action movies (e.g. The International, Killer Elite and Shoot 'em Up) clearly show why he wouldn't have made a great (or for that matter, a good) Bond. While Bond movies are not necessarily famous for their acting, Clive Owen is simply wooden in all his portrayals. Either too serious, or too stiff, or too serious and stiff. Whether it is in movies that ask for physicality and brutality (his role as an assassin in the first Bourne movie, where his hand to hand skills were staccato), or where the scene called for intelligent investigative acumen (opposite Denzel in The Inside Man), or in a James Bondish role in The International, all of them are woody.
He would have been a George Lazenby, or better yet, a Timothy Dalton. An actor who comes close to the character that Ian Fleming may have had for Bond (particularly Dalton), but one that most movie goers would have bought into (both in terms of accepting the character, and paying their hard earned cash to watch).
Anyway, too long a post for actors and movies, and as mentioned it is just one person's opinion, but I do believe that Craig was a better choice than Owen. Even though if one resurrected Ian Fleming, the man would probably see Clive Owen as closer to his idea of what Bond was (in the same way Dalton and Lazenby were close to the portrayal of the character in the original books ...a flawed man, who is a bit of an 'everyman,' is not charming, has real alcohol issues, and the only flair he has is a love of good watches, good wines, and drives a Bentley ...Aston came later). But for movie goers ...Craig is a billion Dollar draw.
Back in the late ‘90s, there used to be a James Bond newsgroup which apparently was read (and sometimes heeded) by the JB producers. At the time, I was particularly critical of Pierce Brosnan (I infamously gave him the nickname of “Pirs Bonbons”). He may have looked the JB part, but his insufferable smugness/arrogance with a touch of silliness (as with Roger Moore still channeling Simon Templar/The Saint in his portrayal, Brosnan was still doing Remington Steele) made him the Bond you just wanted to slap for being a jackass. I complained he was making Bond too silly (the scene of him adjusting his necktie underwater during a boat chase when it momentarily went upside down), and with the next casting, they needed to go with a more serious-minded actor.
I have to admit to not seeing those films you cited from Owen’s oeuvre, however your complaints about Owen’s acting skills remain my virtually identical criticisms of Craig. It’s almost like the producers took my complaints about Brosnan and went in the complete opposite direction, a soulless, bored, bitterly cold blonde thug. No charm, no humanity, just a person distantly staring off into space. A thoroughly miserable soul. If I had been him with that entire outlook, I’d have splattered my brains after Vesper Lind’s death. I’m frankly flabbergasted (gobsmacked ?) that he has found any popularity in the role whatsoever. But the viewing public’s preferences (and voting habits) are often counter to mine.
As was cited in another recent thread, “Moonraker” was a top box-office draw, but other than being high camp, as a serious Bond film it is utter rubbish (I treat it as a comedy, the best way to watch it). By that reckoning, you’d want to keep making “Moonrakers” to keep the bucks rolling in. The public was less enamored of its follow-up, “For Your Eyes Only”, where Rog finally jettisoned the lunacy of the ‘70s films, returned to earth and became the Cold Warrior more appropriate for the character and politically relevant.
Continuing in the theme of box office draw, this 4th film of Craig’s may have been one too many, as it is already apparent that the bad reviews are taking a toll, and it is underperforming “Skyfall.” As cited already, and Craig let the cat out of the bag, how “thrilled” he was to do this one, and it shows.
As for Owen, I watch his Cinemax series, “The Knick”, and he acquits himself in the role quite well. But I still watch him with the lamentation that he should’ve been in these 4 Bond movies instead of Craig.