Connery and Craig’s physique briefly contrasted

osrisosris Posts: 558MI6 Agent
Just thought I’d mention an article that very briefly contrasts Connery’s and Craig’s physique. It says the following:

“Sean Connery, who is widely regarded as the definitive movie James Bond, was certainly in great shape in the early 1960s. But no more so than, say, an ordinary construction worker or ranch hand. Leap ahead to Daniel Craig, today’s Bond, and you’ve got the body of a world class athlete."

It also looks at the pressure on modern male film actors to be well built and have a six-pack, things that never used to be the case until very recently. Could this mean that Bond from now on has to be overly muscular because of this sort of pressure, rather than be true to the character’s “actual” physique, as described by Fleming?

See:

“Hollywood’s Changing Male Ideal"

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/hollywoods-changing-male-ideal/
«1

Comments

  • HatThrowingHenchmanHatThrowingHenchman Russia With LovePosts: 1,834MI6 Agent
    Nearly everone (Actor wise) has a sixpack today, in the 80's there were Stallone, Arnold, JCVD, but they were the big action stars.

    I think SC's physique is just perfect for a role like that.

    I always found DC's Bond must be so blessed, doing nothing in Turkey besides drugs, alcohol and here and there a woman and he still looks like a greek god :))
    "You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
    Yes, he does have a body very much like my own ! :D

    Any bloke who takes his shirt off in a movie these days has to have
    a six pack and perfect pecks etc. This is just Hollywood expanding
    their perfect body doctrine, which women have had to put up with
    for years.
    "I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
  • Julius No M.D.Julius No M.D. Posts: 110MI6 Agent
    Just because a six-pack suits Craig and his portrayal of the character, doesn't mean all actors in the future will need it. Connery had a perfect body in his first few films.
  • LoeffelholzLoeffelholz The United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
    I can't help but think that Craig has raised the bar for shirtless Bonds going forward...some previous actors (who shall remain unnamed) look more like accountants without their shirts than SBS-trained assassins {:)
    Check out my Amazon author page! Mark Loeffelholz
    "I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
    "Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
  • JagJag Posts: 1,167MI6 Agent
    Just because a six-pack suits Craig and his portrayal of the character, doesn't mean all actors in the future will need it. Connery had a perfect body in his first few films.

    Connery had a perfect body for Bond of any era. Then again, all the others until Craig did more or less as well. I totally get it what it the article says, and would most likely enjoy Craig's portrayal more if he wasn't forced (or chose) to rely on steroids, HGH and whatever else they make him inject.
  • Gassy ManGassy Man USAPosts: 2,972MI6 Agent
    osris wrote:
    Just thought I’d mention an article that very briefly contrasts Connery’s and Craig’s physique. It says the following:

    “Sean Connery, who is widely regarded as the definitive movie James Bond, was certainly in great shape in the early 1960s. But no more so than, say, an ordinary construction worker or ranch hand. Leap ahead to Daniel Craig, today’s Bond, and you’ve got the body of a world class athlete."

    It also looks at the pressure on modern male film actors to be well built and have a six-pack, things that never used to be the case until very recently. Could this mean that Bond from now on has to be overly muscular because of this sort of pressure, rather than be true to the character’s “actual” physique, as described by Fleming?

    See:

    “Hollywood’s Changing Male Ideal"

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/hollywoods-changing-male-ideal/
    In the 1960s, someone who looked like they spent three hours a day in the gym but somehow still had time to be a globe-trotting international spy would have made the character seem even more ludicrous. Audiences of the day wanted to see a man they could relate to -- like the men who actually did fight wars, police their streets, fix their cars, or even build their buildings. It's what gives Connery both a relatable and a larger-than-life quality at the same time.

    Remember, these were the days after WWII and Korea, and during the early stages of Vietnam. Audiences knew what real heroes looked like. And they didn't look like cartoonish narcissists who rather than defend their country or work a hard job somehow had huge amounts of time to oil themselves and hang out at the gym. Those were the people in the back of comic books kicking sand in some poor guy's face. Watch the TV shows and movies of the era: The over-muscled and defined man was a meathead, a bully, a dope.

    Today, where more people work in retail and offices rather than in blue collar jobs, we have a class of people who actually do have the time to hang out at the gym. And movies and TV of the past 30 years have created more and more fantastic expectations of the physicality of the heroes. If in the past they might get into a bar fight, now they're blown across rooms by explosions, pounded relentlessly by even bigger meatheads, fall 20, 30, or 40 feet and walk away without injury, or scale buildings or even the outside of racing aircraft with nothing but their fingernails to cling with. No amount of injury or physical punishment seems to result in anything more than some temporary bruising and catching of breath. It's silly, juvenile, outrageous, and unrealistic, but audiences unhesitantly accept it without question, and so the hero, too, has become a caricature rather than person.
  • welshboy78welshboy78 Posts: 10,292MI6 Agent
    Jag wrote:
    Just because a six-pack suits Craig and his portrayal of the character, doesn't mean all actors in the future will need it. Connery had a perfect body in his first few films.

    Connery had a perfect body for Bond of any era. Then again, all the others until Craig did more or less as well. I totally get it what it the article says, and would most likely enjoy Craig's portrayal more if he wasn't forced (or chose) to rely on steroids, HGH and whatever else they make him inject.

    You are kidding right?? He is not exactly a bodybuilder, just works out and looks after himself.
    Instagram - bondclothes007
  • Ens007Ens007 EnglandPosts: 863MI6 Agent
    Jag wrote:
    Just because a six-pack suits Craig and his portrayal of the character, doesn't mean all actors in the future will need it. Connery had a perfect body in his first few films.

    Connery had a perfect body for Bond of any era. Then again, all the others until Craig did more or less as well. I totally get it what it the article says, and would most likely enjoy Craig's portrayal more if he wasn't forced (or chose) to rely on steroids, HGH and whatever else they make him inject.

    I'm sorry but that latter statement is just pathetic to read. What an absolute load of guff. So because Craig is in good shape, works out well & follows a strong nutritional programme, he's pumped full of PEDs? What complete & utter garbage. Offer some proof if you're going to post such a strong assassination of his hard work. Look at his physique in the likes of Tomb Raider & Layer Cake - any semi decent PT worth their salt could put lean muscle on that.
  • LoeffelholzLoeffelholz The United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
    Ens007 wrote:
    Jag wrote:
    Just because a six-pack suits Craig and his portrayal of the character, doesn't mean all actors in the future will need it. Connery had a perfect body in his first few films.

    Connery had a perfect body for Bond of any era. Then again, all the others until Craig did more or less as well. I totally get it what it the article says, and would most likely enjoy Craig's portrayal more if he wasn't forced (or chose) to rely on steroids, HGH and whatever else they make him inject.

    I'm sorry but that latter statement is just pathetic to read. What an absolute load of guff. So because Craig is in good shape, works out well & follows a strong nutritional programme, he's pumped full of PEDs? What complete & utter garbage. Offer some proof if you're going to post such a strong assassination of his hard work. Look at his physique in the likes of Tomb Raider & Layer Cake - any semi decent PT worth their salt could put lean muscle on that.

    + 1 Glad I didn't have to say it; thanks.
    Check out my Amazon author page! Mark Loeffelholz
    "I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
    "Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
  • Miles MesservyMiles Messervy Posts: 1,757MI6 Agent
    Gassy Man wrote:
    osris wrote:
    Just thought I’d mention an article that very briefly contrasts Connery’s and Craig’s physique. It says the following:

    “Sean Connery, who is widely regarded as the definitive movie James Bond, was certainly in great shape in the early 1960s. But no more so than, say, an ordinary construction worker or ranch hand. Leap ahead to Daniel Craig, today’s Bond, and you’ve got the body of a world class athlete."

    It also looks at the pressure on modern male film actors to be well built and have a six-pack, things that never used to be the case until very recently. Could this mean that Bond from now on has to be overly muscular because of this sort of pressure, rather than be true to the character’s “actual” physique, as described by Fleming?

    See:

    “Hollywood’s Changing Male Ideal"

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/hollywoods-changing-male-ideal/
    In the 1960s, someone who looked like they spent three hours a day in the gym but somehow still had time to be a globe-trotting international spy would have made the character seem even more ludicrous. Audiences of the day wanted to see a man they could relate to -- like the men who actually did fight wars, police their streets, fix their cars, or even build their buildings. It's what gives Connery both a relatable and a larger-than-life quality at the same time.

    Remember, these were the days after WWII and Korea, and during the early stages of Vietnam. Audiences knew what real heroes looked like. And they didn't look like cartoonish narcissists who rather than defend their country or work a hard job somehow had huge amounts of time to oil themselves and hang out at the gym. Those were the people in the back of comic books kicking sand in some poor guy's face. Watch the TV shows and movies of the era: The over-muscled and defined man was a meathead, a bully, a dope.

    Today, where more people work in retail and offices rather than in blue collar jobs, we have a class of people who actually do have the time to hang out at the gym..

    I think you miss the point of why people who spend the majority of their days sitting in offices make time to work out. For instance, I seldom spend less than ten hours at the office each day, yet I make an effort to get into the gym 2-3 times per week because, otherwise, my lifestyle would be very sedentary. You are correct that if I worked a blue collar job that required me to be on my feet all day, then perhaps I wouldn't feel the urge to exercise in the evenings or on the weekends. But I don't exercise because I am the member of a "class of people who have time to hang out at the gym" or because I feel societal pressure to do so; I exercise because I desire to be healthy and as active as possible.

    Further, this isn't the 1960s where the real heroes you mention smoked and gave little regard to diet and exercise. To the contrary, most military and even law enforcement personnel tend to be in excellent physical condition. So, while your statement about the physical norms of the Connery-Bond era is true, it has now been flipped. Audiences today would find the character of Bond less believeable if he wasn't in top shape. I will concede that if Bond was less of an action hero and more of a spy, this wouldn't be an issue, but that that's not the directio the last 20 years of Bond have taken, so it's a moot point for the purposes of this discussion.
  • TeenageBondTeenageBond London, UKPosts: 211MI6 Agent
    Gassy Man wrote:
    osris wrote:
    Just thought I’d mention an article that very briefly contrasts Connery’s and Craig’s physique. It says the following:

    “Sean Connery, who is widely regarded as the definitive movie James Bond, was certainly in great shape in the early 1960s. But no more so than, say, an ordinary construction worker or ranch hand. Leap ahead to Daniel Craig, today’s Bond, and you’ve got the body of a world class athlete."

    It also looks at the pressure on modern male film actors to be well built and have a six-pack, things that never used to be the case until very recently. Could this mean that Bond from now on has to be overly muscular because of this sort of pressure, rather than be true to the character’s “actual” physique, as described by Fleming?

    See:

    “Hollywood’s Changing Male Ideal"

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/hollywoods-changing-male-ideal/
    In the 1960s, someone who looked like they spent three hours a day in the gym but somehow still had time to be a globe-trotting international spy would have made the character seem even more ludicrous. Audiences of the day wanted to see a man they could relate to -- like the men who actually did fight wars, police their streets, fix their cars, or even build their buildings. It's what gives Connery both a relatable and a larger-than-life quality at the same time.

    Remember, these were the days after WWII and Korea, and during the early stages of Vietnam. Audiences knew what real heroes looked like. And they didn't look like cartoonish narcissists who rather than defend their country or work a hard job somehow had huge amounts of time to oil themselves and hang out at the gym. Those were the people in the back of comic books kicking sand in some poor guy's face. Watch the TV shows and movies of the era: The over-muscled and defined man was a meathead, a bully, a dope.

    Today, where more people work in retail and offices rather than in blue collar jobs, we have a class of people who actually do have the time to hang out at the gym..

    I think you miss the point of why people who spend the majority of their days sitting in offices make time to work out. For instance, I seldom spend less than ten hours at the office each day, yet I make an effort to get into the gym 2-3 times per week because, otherwise, my lifestyle would be very sedentary. You are correct that if I worked a blue collar job that required me to be on my feet all day, then perhaps I wouldn't feel the urge to exercise in the evenings or on the weekends. But I don't exercise because I am the member of a "class of people who have time to hang out at the gym" or because I feel societal pressure to do so; I exercise because I desire to be healthy and as active as possible.

    Further, this isn't the 1960s where the real heroes you mention smoked and gave little regard to diet and exercise. To the contrary, most military and even law enforcement personnel tend to be in excellent physical condition. So, while your statement about the physical norms of the Connery-Bond era is true, it has now been flipped. Audiences today would find the character of Bond less believeable if he wasn't in top shape. I will concede that if Bond was less of an action hero and more of a spy, this wouldn't be an issue, but that that's not the directio the last 20 years of Bond have taken, so it's a moot point for the purposes of this discussion.

    Well put Miles Messervy
  • Gassy ManGassy Man USAPosts: 2,972MI6 Agent
    I'd argue that what audiences expect today is probably less realistic than ever before -- that the human body can survive stresses and injuries far more in excess of plausibility and that the hero never seems to tire or falter in a meaningful way. To me, the hero's physique is more an attempt to codify this than a recognition that society has evolved in some way. And the hero appears to have the luxury of time and resources to keep that physique.

    What's interesting about Bond -- though perhaps not as much with the Craig version -- is that if Bond were the gourmand he is traditionally presented to be, it would be tough for him to maintain a physique anything like Craig's. That includes drugs and heavy drink, which Craig's Bond never seems to tire of.

    Nutritionists will tell you that if the choice is between diet or exercise in terms of controlling weight, that diet is the more effective of the two. Skipping dessert will shed calories a lot easier and faster than an hour at the gym. And all that exercise may actually yield fewer benefits. Studies keep showing that moderate exercise -- closer to the Connery era -- yields most of the same benefits as vigorous, long-hour exercise in many cases. In addition, exercising too much may actually be harmful. People are having joint and hip replacements at younger and younger ages these days, for instance, which is attributed to exercising too much.

    The odd thing is the real heroes of Connery's era and before, with all their poor habits and less sculpted physiques, are living into their 90s and 100s, while the generation today is actually seeing a dip in their life expectancy. Lots of reasons can be attributed to this, but the buff, six-pack hero of today's movies still remains largely a fantasy figure.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Western Mass, USAPosts: 9,061MI6 Agent
    Look at Bruce Lee. You can't live that way without burning out.
    Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool.
    #1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 36,053Chief of Staff
    Connery in a Mr Universe contest in the early 50s (sources dispute the exact date):

    aa_old_man_4.jpg

    As a big, strong man he was a reasonable contender in those days (the story is he came 3rd- perhaps it should have been held in Japan :D ) but with that physique he wouldn't be in any danger of being considered at any time in the last (say) 40 years with the fashion for Schwarzenegger-like bodies taking over.
  • JagJag Posts: 1,167MI6 Agent
    welshboy78 wrote:
    Jag wrote:
    Just because a six-pack suits Craig and his portrayal of the character, doesn't mean all actors in the future will need it. Connery had a perfect body in his first few films.

    Connery had a perfect body for Bond of any era. Then again, all the others until Craig did more or less as well. I totally get it what it the article says, and would most likely enjoy Craig's portrayal more if he wasn't forced (or chose) to rely on steroids, HGH and whatever else they make him inject.

    You are kidding right?? He is not exactly a bodybuilder, just works out and looks after himself.


    Of course he works out, but just working out will not make you look like that (don't take my word, ask a good PT, and HGH is perfectly legal in some countries). As for looking after himself... Craig is a smoker, so I will disagree.
  • JagJag Posts: 1,167MI6 Agent
    Barbel wrote:
    Connery in a Mr Universe contest in the early 50s (sources dispute the exact date):

    aa_old_man_4.jpg

    As a big, strong man he was a reasonable contender in those days (the story is he came 3rd- perhaps it should have been held in Japan :D ) but with that physique he wouldn't be in any danger of being considered at any time in the last (say) 40 years with the fashion for Schwarzenegger-like bodies taking over.

    A real man! That's what a man who works out without injecting will look like even today (not sure about looking after himself - I think he was a smoker, and probably not a healthy eater, at least back then).
  • welshboy78welshboy78 Posts: 10,292MI6 Agent
    edited January 2016
    Jag wrote:
    welshboy78 wrote:
    Jag wrote:

    Connery had a perfect body for Bond of any era. Then again, all the others until Craig did more or less as well. I totally get it what it the article says, and would most likely enjoy Craig's portrayal more if he wasn't forced (or chose) to rely on steroids, HGH and whatever else they make him inject.

    You are kidding right?? He is not exactly a bodybuilder, just works out and looks after himself.


    Of course he works out, but just working out will not make you look like that (don't take my word, ask a good PT, and HGH is perfectly legal in some countries). As for looking after himself... Craig is a smoker, so I will disagree.

    I work out with people who have far more muscle then DC - and believe me I live in a country where steroids and HGH don't exist! My gym is a British Military gym in the Falklands on a MOD base! Seen hundreds of squaddies in better shape!

    Low carbs - high protein and hit the gym! Simple if you have dedication

    He does not even have that much muscle - he is more toned then anything! I would whip him in a guns comp but he would whip me in a low fat contest!!

    Seriously he is a very fit guy but nothing out of the ordinary if you go to a gym and eat clean

    Now if you were talking about a wrestler or pro body-builder......

    PS - smoking although not good for your health does not mean one is unfit! Ive seen military PTI's smoke in the pubs and have a drink on the weekend and still smash marathons etc All about moderation!
    Instagram - bondclothes007
  • welshboy78welshboy78 Posts: 10,292MI6 Agent
    edited January 2016
    Jag wrote:
    Barbel wrote:
    Connery in a Mr Universe contest in the early 50s (sources dispute the exact date):

    aa_old_man_4.jpg

    As a big, strong man he was a reasonable contender in those days (the story is he came 3rd- perhaps it should have been held in Japan :D ) but with that physique he wouldn't be in any danger of being considered at any time in the last (say) 40 years with the fashion for Schwarzenegger-like bodies taking over.

    A real man! That's what a man who works out without injecting will look like even today (not sure about looking after himself - I think he was a smoker, and probably not a healthy eater, at least back then).

    Is DC larger then the guy on the left (Right of Connery??) Nope!
    Instagram - bondclothes007
  • Miles MesservyMiles Messervy Posts: 1,757MI6 Agent
    welshboy78 wrote:
    Jag wrote:
    Barbel wrote:
    Connery in a Mr Universe contest in the early 50s (sources dispute the exact date):

    aa_old_man_4.jpg

    As a big, strong man he was a reasonable contender in those days (the story is he came 3rd- perhaps it should have been held in Japan :D ) but with that physique he wouldn't be in any danger of being considered at any time in the last (say) 40 years with the fashion for Schwarzenegger-like bodies taking over.

    A real man! That's what a man who works out without injecting will look like even today (not sure about looking after himself - I think he was a smoker, and probably not a healthy eater, at least back then).

    Is DC larger then the guy on the left (Right of Connery??) Nope!

    Craig's physique as Bond is actually quite similar to Connery's from his body building days. Much different in terms of their height and bone structure, though.
  • Miles MesservyMiles Messervy Posts: 1,757MI6 Agent
    Gassy Man wrote:
    I'd argue that what audiences expect today is probably less realistic than ever before -- that the human body can survive stresses and injuries far more in excess of plausibility and that the hero never seems to tire or falter in a meaningful way. To me, the hero's physique is more an attempt to codify this than a recognition that society has evolved in some way. And the hero appears to have the luxury of time and resources to keep that physique.

    What's interesting about Bond -- though perhaps not as much with the Craig version -- is that if Bond were the gourmand he is traditionally presented to be, it would be tough for him to maintain a physique anything like Craig's. That includes drugs and heavy drink, which Craig's Bond never seems to tire of.

    Nutritionists will tell you that if the choice is between diet or exercise in terms of controlling weight, that diet is the more effective of the two. Skipping dessert will shed calories a lot easier and faster than an hour at the gym. And all that exercise may actually yield fewer benefits. Studies keep showing that moderate exercise -- closer to the Connery era -- yields most of the same benefits as vigorous, long-hour exercise in many cases. In addition, exercising too much may actually be harmful. People are having joint and hip replacements at younger and younger ages these days, for instance, which is attributed to exercising too much.

    The odd thing is the real heroes of Connery's era and before, with all their poor habits and less sculpted physiques, are living into their 90s and 100s, while the generation today is actually seeing a dip in their life expectancy. Lots of reasons can be attributed to this, but the buff, six-pack hero of today's movies still remains largely a fantasy figure.

    Craig's Bond is certainly a drinker, although I think we can agree that that trait is in keeping with Fleming's character. As for the drugs, this is only referenced in Skyfall to my knowledge, and I took it as Bond self-medicating because he had shrapnel lodged in his shoulder.

    In any event, Bond doesn't strike me as a character that plans to live to a ripe old age, so I think with his health, he's more interested in the short term.
  • superadosuperado Regent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,651MI6 Agent
    Another thread reeking of DC sacred-cow fanboyism :)) I wonder if even non-active SBS Marines look that cut. For someone who's "Fleming's Bond," he looks like he does more than 20 press-ups every morning...which is more like 2-3 hours in the gym under the care of a trainer. Sure, Bond should look healthily muscular, but I don't think DC ever needed to go to those extremes to deliver in his portrayal. What I do think, is that from the word "go" with so much opposition to the reboot to overcome, with such a dramatic paradigm shift in the Bond series, all the stops were pulled out to ensure that his Bond became a resounding success and that included DC's body-building efforts, which again I think to the extent it went, was unnecessary.
    "...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
  • JagJag Posts: 1,167MI6 Agent
    welshboy78 wrote:
    Jag wrote:
    Barbel wrote:
    Connery in a Mr Universe contest in the early 50s (sources dispute the exact date):

    aa_old_man_4.jpg

    As a big, strong man he was a reasonable contender in those days (the story is he came 3rd- perhaps it should have been held in Japan :D ) but with that physique he wouldn't be in any danger of being considered at any time in the last (say) 40 years with the fashion for Schwarzenegger-like bodies taking over.

    A real man! That's what a man who works out without injecting will look like even today (not sure about looking after himself - I think he was a smoker, and probably not a healthy eater, at least back then).

    Is DC larger then the guy on the left (Right of Connery??) Nope!


    To me, DC's body does look larger than the guy on the left, not much though, and I may be wrong. However, it's not about how lean someone is, or how much muscle he has. Back in the day bodybuilders had few substances to help them, so obviously had to work harder, but the result was that their muscles - no matter how big - looked much more natural. Now you get that bloated, unnatural look. There is a big pressure on actors to achieve a certain look nowadays, there are time constraints, so I don't blame the actors - they deal with it as best they can. Simple low carb - high protein (dangerous and unhealthy as it is) will only work if you spend a lot of your time exercising - which your military buddies probably do as part of their everyday regime.
  • JagJag Posts: 1,167MI6 Agent
    superado wrote:
    Another thread reeking of DC sacred-cow fanboyism :)) I wonder if even non-active SBS Marines look that cut. For someone who's "Fleming's Bond," he looks like he does more than 20 press-ups every morning...which is more like 2-3 hours in the gym under the care of a trainer. Sure, Bond should look healthily muscular, but I don't think DC ever needed to go to those extremes to deliver in his portrayal. What I do think, is that from the word "go" with so much opposition to the reboot to overcome, with such a dramatic paradigm shift in the Bond series, all the stops were pulled out to ensure that his Bond became a resounding success and that included DC's body-building efforts, which again I think to the extent it went, was unnecessary.


    That's precisely my point too, and I feel that actors are actually victims when they are pressured to go to such extreme lengths to achieve unnecessary ends.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Western Mass, USAPosts: 9,061MI6 Agent
    Today's Bond should look like Bruce Lee.
    ;%
    Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool.
    #1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
  • Miles MesservyMiles Messervy Posts: 1,757MI6 Agent
    Jag wrote:
    superado wrote:
    Another thread reeking of DC sacred-cow fanboyism :)) I wonder if even non-active SBS Marines look that cut. For someone who's "Fleming's Bond," he looks like he does more than 20 press-ups every morning...which is more like 2-3 hours in the gym under the care of a trainer. Sure, Bond should look healthily muscular, but I don't think DC ever needed to go to those extremes to deliver in his portrayal. What I do think, is that from the word "go" with so much opposition to the reboot to overcome, with such a dramatic paradigm shift in the Bond series, all the stops were pulled out to ensure that his Bond became a resounding success and that included DC's body-building efforts, which again I think to the extent it went, was unnecessary.


    That's precisely my point too, and I feel that actors are actually victims when they are pressured to go to such extreme lengths to achieve unnecessary ends.

    I suppose you feel that way about the Bond girls as well? The same logic certainly applies.
  • welshboy78welshboy78 Posts: 10,292MI6 Agent
    Jag wrote:
    welshboy78 wrote:
    Jag wrote:

    A real man! That's what a man who works out without injecting will look like even today (not sure about looking after himself - I think he was a smoker, and probably not a healthy eater, at least back then).

    Is DC larger then the guy on the left (Right of Connery??) Nope!


    To me, DC's body does look larger than the guy on the left, not much though, and I may be wrong. However, it's not about how lean someone is, or how much muscle he has. Back in the day bodybuilders had few substances to help them, so obviously had to work harder, but the result was that their muscles - no matter how big - looked much more natural. Now you get that bloated, unnatural look. There is a big pressure on actors to achieve a certain look nowadays, there are time constraints, so I don't blame the actors - they deal with it as best they can. Simple low carb - high protein (dangerous and unhealthy as it is) will only work if you spend a lot of your time exercising - which your military buddies probably do as part of their everyday regime.

    Daniel Craigs got arms nowhere near that size in my opinion! Hes prob more similar to Connery in that picture
    Instagram - bondclothes007
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
    I do remember reading that the slight "pot" belly look Craig had in CR
    is a sign of steroid use ? Which much explain my big belly ;) but I
    can't figure out how I'm getting the steroids. :))
    "I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
  • Ens007Ens007 EnglandPosts: 863MI6 Agent
    As a pretty avid & "clean" weight trainer, I can't believe some of the nonsense I'm reading regarding DC & steroids. It is staggering to hear claims that he must be "on gear" as he's packed some muscle on! I'd honestly suggest looking up the likes of Nick Mitchell & UP Fitness based in London & see the transformations that they've achieved with 'ordinary' man on the street types in as little as 12 weeks.

    All this bloated look etc talk is utter rubbish in my opinion & shows a very naive view of what can be achieved with the right nutrition, rest & training - especially considering the resources DC has to hand every moment of every day.
  • Matt SMatt S Oh Cult Voodoo ShopPosts: 6,596MI6 Agent
    Jag wrote:
    superado wrote:
    Another thread reeking of DC sacred-cow fanboyism :)) I wonder if even non-active SBS Marines look that cut. For someone who's "Fleming's Bond," he looks like he does more than 20 press-ups every morning...which is more like 2-3 hours in the gym under the care of a trainer. Sure, Bond should look healthily muscular, but I don't think DC ever needed to go to those extremes to deliver in his portrayal. What I do think, is that from the word "go" with so much opposition to the reboot to overcome, with such a dramatic paradigm shift in the Bond series, all the stops were pulled out to ensure that his Bond became a resounding success and that included DC's body-building efforts, which again I think to the extent it went, was unnecessary.


    That's precisely my point too, and I feel that actors are actually victims when they are pressured to go to such extreme lengths to achieve unnecessary ends.

    I suppose you feel that way about the Bond girls as well? The same logic certainly applies.

    If the Bond girls are going through as much effort as Craig does, it's certainly unnecessary. But I don't recall any Bond girls who are visually ripped. To look as great as Ursula Andress they don't need to do anywhere close to the kind of work that Craig does.
    Visit my blog, Bond Suits
  • Miles MesservyMiles Messervy Posts: 1,757MI6 Agent
    Matt S wrote:
    Jag wrote:


    That's precisely my point too, and I feel that actors are actually victims when they are pressured to go to such extreme lengths to achieve unnecessary ends.

    I suppose you feel that way about the Bond girls as well? The same logic certainly applies.

    If the Bond girls are going through as much effort as Craig does, it's certainly unnecessary. But I don't recall any Bond girls who are visually ripped. To look as great as Ursula Andress they don't need to do anywhere close to the kind of work that Craig does.

    The perfectly toned and sculpted Bond woman of the past several films with their nonexistent body fat may not spend hours each day pushing weight like Craig does, but I find it hard to believe that they are able to achieve that look without considerable effort related to diet and exercise.

    But my broader point, like those stated above, goes to audience expectations: Several members in this thread have railed against the modern audience expectation that heroes be heavily muscled. This has been called "extreme" and "unnecessary." But no one seems to find the longstanding audience expectation that Bond women look unrealistically perfect to be extreme or unnecessary.

    I wouldn't necessarily call myself a feminist, but the double standard in this regard is worth pointing out.
Sign In or Register to comment.