A small point I would like to add if I may as it has been puzzling me for ages, in Dr No Connery/Bond is 32/33 and has been a 00 for 10 years because this is mentioned when Bond is being told off by M for using a berreta so that means Bond became a 00 at 22/23
Cavills age at the time of CR so why oh why do people keep saying he was to young he would have been ideal.
Start again I say with the cast I mentioned earlier.
Though Connery was 32 at the time of filiming it dosen't nessecarily mean James Bond was also 32. I think that "10 year" remark, which was relating to his use of the beretta and not his 00 status BTW, confirms that Connery was playing a man possibly 5 to 10 years his senior in real life. So I think someone in his late twenties would probably be the ideal person to begin a career as a 00 agent.
A small point I would like to add if I may as it has been puzzling me for ages, in Dr No Connery/Bond is 32/33 and has been a 00 for 10 years because this is mentioned when Bond is being told off by M for using a berreta so that means Bond became a 00 at 22/23
Cavills age at the time of CR so why oh why do people keep saying he was to young he would have been ideal.
Start again I say with the cast I mentioned earlier.
Though Connery was 32 at the time of filiming it dosen't nessecarily mean James Bond was also 32. I think that "10 year" remark, which was relating to his use of the beretta and not his 00 status BTW, confirms that Connery was playing a man possibly 5 to 10 years his senior in real life. So I think someone in his late twenties would probably be the ideal person to begin a career as a 00 agent.
And yet ol Babs chose a 37 year old Putin lookalike.
The mind boggles.
A small point I would like to add if I may as it has been puzzling me for ages, in Dr No Connery/Bond is 32/33 and has been a 00 for 10 years because this is mentioned when Bond is being told off by M for using a berreta so that means Bond became a 00 at 22/23
Cavills age at the time of CR so why oh why do people keep saying he was to young he would have been ideal.
Start again I say with the cast I mentioned earlier.
Though Connery was 32 at the time of filiming it dosen't nessecarily mean James Bond was also 32. I think that "10 year" remark, which was relating to his use of the beretta and not his 00 status BTW, confirms that Connery was playing a man possibly 5 to 10 years his senior in real life. So I think someone in his late twenties would probably be the ideal person to begin a career as a 00 agent.
And yet ol Babs chose a 37 year old Putin lookalike.
The mind boggles.
Oh you. Still though, I can't deny that Craig clearly was too old to play a rookie 00.
Though Connery was 32 at the time of filiming it dosen't nessecarily mean James Bond was also 32. I think that "10 year" remark, which was relating to his use of the beretta and not his 00 status BTW, confirms that Connery was playing a man possibly 5 to 10 years his senior in real life. So I think someone in his late twenties would probably be the ideal person to begin a career as a 00 agent.
And yet ol Babs chose a 37 year old Putin lookalike.
The mind boggles.
Oh you. Still though, I can't deny that Craig clearly was too old to play a rookie 00.
Basketball star LeBron James is only 26, and he has the folds and creases on his face to look at least 10 years older. Genetics, lifestyle, geography, and even race can affect how old or young someone looks rather than simple chronology. For a rough and tumble guy like Bond to look as smooth-skinned and pampered as a metrosexual is pretty silly, so Craig could easily be playing a man who by today's standards looks older than he is. Certainly Connery was as rough-looking when he played the role.
j.bladesCurrently? You must be joking?Posts: 530MI6 Agent
edited December 2010
You guys do no how Fleming reacted to Connery right? From face value he wanted Roger to play Bond. In a an autobiography of Fleming I read it stated that in Flemings point of view Bond was a tight-faced man, he didn't have many wrinkles, thats how he saw himself and thats how he pictured Bond.
And I think that given a few years and some dedication to the role Cavill can pull it off, as we've seen before with Craig. out of pure determination and dedication a man that looked liked Craig in 2005, who had me worried, changed and became Bond. Why can't Cavill do that? Sure right now he's a pretty boy but, theres unseen potential there to become Bond for him too.
And I'm not exactly taking any sides in this post, just displaying the facts overtly. And at this time, as long as Barbara Broccoli's on the helm it seems more probable that Cavill will be Bond #7.
Craig pre-Bond 2005
Craig post Bond
"I take a ridiculous pleasure in what I eat and drink."
But the Bond of the films is by comparison mostly an action-hero caricature of the man in the books, whose exploits typically did not require the physical rigor that certainly Craig's Bond leads us to believe is quite common in his James Bond's life. In this, like Connery and Lazenby, the film Bond looks like the type of man who puts his body through physical punishment but is all the more vigorous because of the lifestyle.
And yet ol Babs chose a 37 year old Putin lookalike.
The mind boggles.
Oh you. Still though, I can't deny that Craig clearly was too old to play a rookie 00.
Basketball star LeBron James is only 26, and he has the folds and creases on his face to look at least 10 years older. Genetics, lifestyle, geography, and even race can affect how old or young someone looks rather than simple chronology. For a rough and tumble guy like Bond to look as smooth-skinned and pampered as a metrosexual is pretty silly, so Craig could easily be playing a man who by today's standards looks older than he is. Certainly Connery was as rough-looking when he played the role.
Who says he has to have a baby face ? I am just saying that he obviously just looks too old to be playing a 00 agent at the beginning of his career. Also Connery wasn't that "rough looking", he had strong masculine features. I think an example of rough looking actors were Jack Palance and Charles Bronson.
As for LeBron James, he looks older mostly due to his height and weight.
As I have said before I have mates in the forces who look and have been models and they are as tough as nails and imo Craig is not rough or tough looking just plain and completely unBond.
You guys do no how Fleming reacted to Connery right? From face value he wanted Roger to play Bond. In a an autobiography of Fleming I read it stated that in Flemings point of view Bond was a tight-faced man, he didn't have many wrinkles, thats how he saw himself and thats how he pictured Bond.
And I think that given a few years and some dedication to the role Cavill can pull it off, as we've seen before with Craig. out of pure determination and dedication a man that looked liked Craig in 2005, who had me worried, changed and became Bond. Why can't Cavill do that? Sure right now he's a pretty boy but, theres unseen potential there to become Bond for him too.
And I'm not exactly taking any sides in this post, just displaying the facts overtly. And at this time, as long as Barbara Broccoli's on the helm it seems more probable that Cavill will be Bond #7.
Craig pre-Bond 2005
A haircut and shave plus a suite that fits still does not make him Bond imo.
Honestly anyone who thinks Cavill is not right for 007 should watch him in the Tudors.
One great scene I rewatched last night is when Cavill on the orders of the king stops one of the kings adversarys in an alley and the adversary is with his son,Cavill gives the adversary his late fathers ring and the polite,yet firm vield threat from Cavill is amazing.
You know just not to mess with him and there was not a pout or trip to the gym insight.
Craig post Bond
My prediction is "The Cold Light of Day" will see "The Cold Light of Box Office Mediocrity."
I think I made it clear from the start that I didn't think it was going to be a huge hit. It's not a Hollywood mega production it's just a decent action movie by the sound of it. So I'm sure it'll do ok, but nothing more than that. I don't even want it to be a big hit, because if it is, it'll be harder for him to be cast as Bond. They don't generally pick people who are too popular already to play Bond. So this would just be one more step, but nothing huge or anything.
As I have said before I have mates in the forces who look and have been models and they are as tough as nails and imo Craig is not rough or tough looking just plain and completely unBond.
Thank you. I have friends who are models who would kick Craig's ass any day. Because they don't just do that, they also play rugby. Just to cite an example. And by the way, Cavill played rugby too, he stopped because of injuries. Being an actor and on a primetime series for four seasons, he couldn't exactly afford to arrive on set with a shiner after a game ) So yeah, I also think Cavill would kick Craig's ass any day (not to mention merely physically he's way bigger than Craig since he's 6 ft 1 and built.) So there goes the whole "pretty boy" theory, really. Not to mention, in real life Cavill would have joined the forces if he hadn't pursued a career in acting. This whole "pretty boy" thing is getting very repetitive and tedious. Bond WAS handsome. That is repeatedly and very clearly stated in the books. So Cavill fits the bill perfectly from that pov. He is also a good actor, AND he does well in fighting scenes. It's interesting how people who have seen him in nothing still hand out judgment of him just being a "pretty boy". Because of course now being good-looking is a fault, not a plus. 8-) I'll take a "pretty boy" over an ordinary, unattractive man (like Craig) ANY DAY.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
What it comes down to is you need an actor who can "play" James Bond...they don't need to be James Bond in real life. Cavill, like George Clooney or Carey Grant could age or mature into his looks very well. Craig's portrayal of the cinematic Bond is based upon the premise (I'm basing this on the faux background bio given on the CR website by EON) that he is a man with a long tough background in military Special Forces (SBS) and as a non "00" intelligence operative prior to becoming a "00".
You guys do no how Fleming reacted to Connery right? From face value he wanted Roger to play Bond. In a an autobiography of Fleming I read it stated that in Flemings point of view Bond was a tight-faced man, he didn't have many wrinkles, thats how he saw himself and thats how he pictured Bond.
And I think that given a few years and some dedication to the role Cavill can pull it off, as we've seen before with Craig. out of pure determination and dedication a man that looked liked Craig in 2005, who had me worried, changed and became Bond. Why can't Cavill do that? Sure right now he's a pretty boy but, theres unseen potential there to become Bond for him too.
And I'm not exactly taking any sides in this post, just displaying the facts overtly. And at this time, as long as Barbara Broccoli's on the helm it seems more probable that Cavill will be Bond #7.
Craig pre-Bond 2005
I have always suspected that a little 'work' was done as the transformation was so marked.
You guys do no how Fleming reacted to Connery right? From face value he wanted Roger to play Bond. In a an autobiography of Fleming I read it stated that in Flemings point of view Bond was a tight-faced man, he didn't have many wrinkles, thats how he saw himself and thats how he pictured Bond.
And I think that given a few years and some dedication to the role Cavill can pull it off, as we've seen before with Craig. out of pure determination and dedication a man that looked liked Craig in 2005, who had me worried, changed and became Bond. Why can't Cavill do that? Sure right now he's a pretty boy but, theres unseen potential there to become Bond for him too.
And I'm not exactly taking any sides in this post, just displaying the facts overtly. And at this time, as long as Barbara Broccoli's on the helm it seems more probable that Cavill will be Bond #7.
Craig pre-Bond 2005
I have always suspected that a little 'work' was done as the transformation was so marked.
Craig post Bond
I don't agree that any work was done - the first picture was taken pre 2005 and the second one 2009 at the earliest... in fact prob more like early 2010 - that's almost 5 years. And the styling is so completley different - he has sideburns for starters in the first one.... and a hair cut of that difference can change the entire face - which it has, as it's amplified his cheek bones, and those amazing eyes.....
The first pic was taken post Munich - (sideburns abound in the 1970's.... ) and the second photo was a publicity photo for QoS - which are two very different styles of films.....
In fact, he has even quoted “It’s tricky, it really is, because no-one likes to get old and sag. People can improve themselves when they are younger, but when you’re 60 or 70, you start looking like a freak." Although what people say, and what they do can be two completley different things )
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
I agree with you Lexi - there is a seventies sort of look to the first photo, and that would tie in with Munich. And, although I don't look at his face in the same way as you those features are enhanced by different styling.
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
If Cavill was cast for 23 in 2012 he would be 29 and if they make them every 2 years he could possibly do 8 films and he would only be 45 the age when 00s are supposed to retire.
Cubby tried to get Lazenby to sign up for a 7 film deal when he was 29 but Georges agent said it was a bad idea[some agent].
My prediction is "The Cold Light of Day" will see "The Cold Light of Box Office Mediocrity."
I think I made it clear from the start that I didn't think it was going to be a huge hit. It's not a Hollywood mega production it's just a decent action movie by the sound of it. So I'm sure it'll do ok, but nothing more than that. I don't even want it to be a big hit, because if it is, it'll be harder for him to be cast as Bond. They don't generally pick people who are too popular already to play Bond. So this would just be one more step, but nothing huge or anything.
As I have said before I have mates in the forces who look and have been models and they are as tough as nails and imo Craig is not rough or tough looking just plain and completely unBond.
Thank you. I have friends who are models who would kick Craig's ass any day. Because they don't just do that, they also play rugby. Just to cite an example. And by the way, Cavill played rugby too, he stopped because of injuries. Being an actor and on a primetime series for four seasons, he couldn't exactly afford to arrive on set with a shiner after a game ) So yeah, I also think Cavill would kick Craig's ass any day (not to mention merely physically he's way bigger than Craig since he's 6 ft 1 and built.) So there goes the whole "pretty boy" theory, really. Not to mention, in real life Cavill would have joined the forces if he hadn't pursued a career in acting. This whole "pretty boy" thing is getting very repetitive and tedious. Bond WAS handsome. That is repeatedly and very clearly stated in the books. So Cavill fits the bill perfectly from that pov. He is also a good actor, AND he does well in fighting scenes. It's interesting how people who have seen him in nothing still hand out judgment of him just being a "pretty boy". Because of course now being good-looking is a fault, not a plus. 8-) I'll take a "pretty boy" over an ordinary, unattractive man (like Craig) ANY DAY.
It depends on who knows how to fight, height and weight rarely matter. I have known men much shorter who could kick peoples asses six ways from sunday. My old Ju-Jitsu teacher probably wasn't anymore than 5 ft 7 and he was heavy.
As for Fleming's James Bond, he was handsome but he certainly wasn't soft looking either. Going back that official comissioned image of Bond, he looked like a killer. Take example Moonraker when Bond entered Blades, people noticed how dangerous he looked. Then again in From Russia With Love when the brains of SMERSH noticed how nasty Bond looked. Cavill certaintly dosen't give off that nature.
Oh you. Still though, I can't deny that Craig clearly was too old to play a rookie 00.
Basketball star LeBron James is only 26, and he has the folds and creases on his face to look at least 10 years older. Genetics, lifestyle, geography, and even race can affect how old or young someone looks rather than simple chronology. For a rough and tumble guy like Bond to look as smooth-skinned and pampered as a metrosexual is pretty silly, so Craig could easily be playing a man who by today's standards looks older than he is. Certainly Connery was as rough-looking when he played the role.
Who says he has to have a baby face ? I am just saying that he obviously just looks too old to be playing a 00 agent at the beginning of his career. Also Connery wasn't that "rough looking", he had strong masculine features. I think an example of rough looking actors were Jack Palance and Charles Bronson.
As for LeBron James, he looks older mostly due to his height and weight.
No, LeBron just looks older -- compare him to Yao Ming or even Michael Jordan at the same age. The point is, not everyone looks the same just because of their chronological age. Europeans in particular seem to age much faster than, say, Asians or Hispanics, and very fair haired and skinned people often wrinkle a lot faster than people with darker features.
Connery was rough looking (and so were Palance and Bronson, though the former less so). Take a look at photos of him from that period, and you'll see his face has deep crevices and furrows and that his skin has large pores. A "weathered look" is a masculine trait to be sure, but it would be hard to say that he wasn't rough looking. In those days, they did put a lot of makeup on actors, so some of it was hidden when he was filmed. But as my mother points out -- for she was a teenager when the Bond films came out -- a lot of women didn't think Connery was all that attractive. They thought his face was too scrawny and rat-like and that he was kind of a big thug. But she said by the time Goldfinger premiered, Connery's image was pretty much everywhere, and even some of his detractors began to see him differently. Such is the power of media. Even today, a lot of women tell me Connery got better looking as he aged.
My prediction is "The Cold Light of Day" will see "The Cold Light of Box Office Mediocrity."
I think I made it clear from the start that I didn't think it was going to be a huge hit. It's not a Hollywood mega production it's just a decent action movie by the sound of it. So I'm sure it'll do ok, but nothing more than that. I don't even want it to be a big hit, because if it is, it'll be harder for him to be cast as Bond. They don't generally pick people who are too popular already to play Bond. So this would just be one more step, but nothing huge or anything..
Oh, I don't know about that, but I want to clarify that I don't expect it to be a hit at all. It will debut and quickly fade from the box office. If it's lucky, it'll break even, and then mostly from cable and video. Let's check back in six months and see who's right.
No, LeBron just looks older -- compare him to Yao Ming or even Michael Jordan at the same age. The point is, not everyone looks the same just because of their chronological age. Europeans in particular seem to age much faster than, say, Asians or Hispanics, and very fair haired and skinned people often wrinkle a lot faster than people with darker features.
I don't agree. If Lebron was a lot slimmer and shorter he'd probably look a lot younger.
Connery was rough looking (and so were Palance and Bronson, though the former less so). Take a look at photos of him from that period, and you'll see his face has deep crevices and furrows and that his skin has large pores. A "weathered look" is a masculine trait to be sure, but it would be hard to say that he wasn't rough looking. In those days, they did put a lot of makeup on actors, so some of it was hidden when he was filmed. But as my mother points out -- for she was a teenager when the Bond films came out -- a lot of women didn't think Connery was all that attractive. They thought his face was too scrawny and rat-like and that he was kind of a big thug. But she said by the time Goldfinger premiered, Connery's image was pretty much everywhere, and even some of his detractors began to see him differently. Such is the power of media. Even today, a lot of women tell me Connery got better looking as he aged.
Again, I don't agree. Connery did not look that weathered or rough, he just had strong masculine features. Also it's a pretty common fact that actors were made up to look more appealing on screen all the time and it still happens today. Lighting is also another important factor as well.
My prediction is "The Cold Light of Day" will see "The Cold Light of Box Office Mediocrity."
I think I made it clear from the start that I didn't think it was going to be a huge hit. It's not a Hollywood mega production it's just a decent action movie by the sound of it. So I'm sure it'll do ok, but nothing more than that. I don't even want it to be a big hit, because if it is, it'll be harder for him to be cast as Bond. They don't generally pick people who are too popular already to play Bond. So this would just be one more step, but nothing huge or anything.
As I have said before I have mates in the forces who look and have been models and they are as tough as nails and imo Craig is not rough or tough looking just plain and completely unBond.
Thank you. I have friends who are models who would kick Craig's ass any day. Because they don't just do that, they also play rugby. Just to cite an example. And by the way, Cavill played rugby too, he stopped because of injuries. Being an actor and on a primetime series for four seasons, he couldn't exactly afford to arrive on set with a shiner after a game ) So yeah, I also think Cavill would kick Craig's ass any day (not to mention merely physically he's way bigger than Craig since he's 6 ft 1 and built.) So there goes the whole "pretty boy" theory, really. Not to mention, in real life Cavill would have joined the forces if he hadn't pursued a career in acting. This whole "pretty boy" thing is getting very repetitive and tedious. Bond WAS handsome. That is repeatedly and very clearly stated in the books. So Cavill fits the bill perfectly from that pov. He is also a good actor, AND he does well in fighting scenes. It's interesting how people who have seen him in nothing still hand out judgment of him just being a "pretty boy". Because of course now being good-looking is a fault, not a plus. 8-) I'll take a "pretty boy" over an ordinary, unattractive man (like Craig) ANY DAY.
It depends on who knows how to fight, height and weight rarely matter. I have known men much shorter who could kick peoples asses six ways from sunday. My old Ju-Jitsu teacher probably wasn't anymore than 5 ft 7 and he was heavy.
As for Fleming's James Bond, he was handsome but he certainly wasn't soft looking either. Going back that official comissioned image of Bond, he looked like a killer. Take example Moonraker when Bond entered Blades, people noticed how dangerous he looked. Then again in From Russia With Love when the brains of SMERSH noticed how nasty Bond looked. Cavill certaintly dosen't give off that nature.
Hee, hee -- it's funny how some people obsess about physical size when it comes to toughness, as though having a few more inches in height or a few more pounds in size automatically makes a person stronger or tougher. The Germans are among the tallest and biggest people in the world, yet they managed to lose the two world wars they helped start. The Chinese, North Koreans, and North Vietnamese were all physically smaller than their western counterparts, yet went undefeated. Right now, the Iraqis and Afghanistanis are putting up a pretty strong fight against their bigger and better fed western counterparts, just as the latter did the British and Russians, who never conquered them. The highest decorated American soldier in WWII was Audie Murphy, and he was 5.5.
For the sake of consistency, Bond should be tallish, but an inch or two difference isn't going to be important. Even at 6', he'd stand out like a sore thumb in most parts of the world where that's considered tall. (Hey, who do you think the British agent is? I'll bet it's that white guy standing a head taller than everyone else.) I realize the film Bond is a fantasy character, but making him a metrosexual underwear model isn't going to be an improvement to being any tougher.
No, LeBron just looks older -- compare him to Yao Ming or even Michael Jordan at the same age. The point is, not everyone looks the same just because of their chronological age. Europeans in particular seem to age much faster than, say, Asians or Hispanics, and very fair haired and skinned people often wrinkle a lot faster than people with darker features.
I don't agree. If Lebron was a lot slimmer and shorter he'd probably look a lot younger.
Connery was rough looking (and so were Palance and Bronson, though the former less so). Take a look at photos of him from that period, and you'll see his face has deep crevices and furrows and that his skin has large pores. A "weathered look" is a masculine trait to be sure, but it would be hard to say that he wasn't rough looking. In those days, they did put a lot of makeup on actors, so some of it was hidden when he was filmed. But as my mother points out -- for she was a teenager when the Bond films came out -- a lot of women didn't think Connery was all that attractive. They thought his face was too scrawny and rat-like and that he was kind of a big thug. But she said by the time Goldfinger premiered, Connery's image was pretty much everywhere, and even some of his detractors began to see him differently. Such is the power of media. Even today, a lot of women tell me Connery got better looking as he aged.
Again, I don't agree. Connery did not look that weathered or rough, he just had strong masculine features. Also it's a pretty common fact that actors were made up to look more appealing on screen all the time and it still happens today. Lighting is also another important factor as well.
Well, just do a quick Google search of young Connery photos rather than movie images, and you can see. If you want to compare movie images, there's even one that shows a side by side of Connery and Craig as 007, where they both look about the same in terms of the wrinkles and lines.
LeBron's face wouldn't look less wrinkled because he was slimmer or shorter. If that were the case, then Sammy Davis, Jr., would have looked like an infant when he was the same age. LeBron just looks a lot older.
Personally, I think the lines and wrinkles give character to a man's face, so it actually makes the actor look more interesting to me than someone whose face looks like a baby's bottom. And that's coming from someone who looks a lot younger than his middle-aged years and who has been called "pretty" more times than he wishes to admit.
No, LeBron just looks older -- compare him to Yao Ming or even Michael Jordan at the same age. The point is, not everyone looks the same just because of their chronological age. Europeans in particular seem to age much faster than, say, Asians or Hispanics, and very fair haired and skinned people often wrinkle a lot faster than people with darker features.
I don't agree. If Lebron was a lot slimmer and shorter he'd probably look a lot younger.
Connery was rough looking (and so were Palance and Bronson, though the former less so). Take a look at photos of him from that period, and you'll see his face has deep crevices and furrows and that his skin has large pores. A "weathered look" is a masculine trait to be sure, but it would be hard to say that he wasn't rough looking. In those days, they did put a lot of makeup on actors, so some of it was hidden when he was filmed. But as my mother points out -- for she was a teenager when the Bond films came out -- a lot of women didn't think Connery was all that attractive. They thought his face was too scrawny and rat-like and that he was kind of a big thug. But she said by the time Goldfinger premiered, Connery's image was pretty much everywhere, and even some of his detractors began to see him differently. Such is the power of media. Even today, a lot of women tell me Connery got better looking as he aged.
Again, I don't agree. Connery did not look that weathered or rough, he just had strong masculine features. Also it's a pretty common fact that actors were made up to look more appealing on screen all the time and it still happens today. Lighting is also another important factor as well.
Well, just do a quick Google search of young Connery photos rather than movie images, and you can see. If you want to compare movie images, there's even one that shows a side by side of Connery and Craig as 007, where they both look about the same in terms of the wrinkles and lines.
LeBron's face wouldn't look less wrinkled because he was slimmer or shorter. If that were the case, then Sammy Davis, Jr., would have looked like an infant when he was the same age. LeBron just looks a lot older.
Personally, I think the lines and wrinkles give character to a man's face, so it actually makes the actor look more interesting to me than someone whose face looks like a baby's bottom. And that's coming from someone who looks a lot younger than his middle-aged years and who has been called "pretty" more times than he wishes to admit.
But that's just it, I don't notice any more wrinkles on LeBron's face then the average man. I think it has a lot to do with his height and weight. Also you know I don't mean this the same case for everyone. 8-)
We just have to agree to disagree on this subject. You think Connery was "rough looking" back then, I don't.
I don't agree. If Lebron was a lot slimmer and shorter he'd probably look a lot younger.
Again, I don't agree. Connery did not look that weathered or rough, he just had strong masculine features. Also it's a pretty common fact that actors were made up to look more appealing on screen all the time and it still happens today. Lighting is also another important factor as well.
Well, just do a quick Google search of young Connery photos rather than movie images, and you can see. If you want to compare movie images, there's even one that shows a side by side of Connery and Craig as 007, where they both look about the same in terms of the wrinkles and lines.
LeBron's face wouldn't look less wrinkled because he was slimmer or shorter. If that were the case, then Sammy Davis, Jr., would have looked like an infant when he was the same age. LeBron just looks a lot older.
Personally, I think the lines and wrinkles give character to a man's face, so it actually makes the actor look more interesting to me than someone whose face looks like a baby's bottom. And that's coming from someone who looks a lot younger than his middle-aged years and who has been called "pretty" more times than he wishes to admit.
But that's just it, I don't notice any more wrinkles on LeBron's face then the average man. I think it has a lot to do with his height and weight. Also you know I don't mean this the same case for everyone. 8-)
We just have to agree to disagree on this subject. You think Connery was "rough looking" back then, I don't.
Well, if you don't see that LeBron James looks a lot older than a typical 26 year old, basketball player or otherwise, you're right in that we just won't agree. The same goes for Connery, though I will say again that I think rougher looking is what the film Bond should be, not mannequin like, to make the character even more interesting.
If you go back to Bond's cinematic roots (not the novels) Harry and Cubby gambled that taking rough and polishing it up would make for a more convincing movie Bond than toughening up someone a bit soft. Some believe it was Cubby and Harry's little private joke...take a rough and tumble Scotsman with little formal education and make him into a highly educated gentleman agent. Also, don't forget that Connery's Bond was as much a reflection of Terence Young's persona as it was of Fleming's Bond.
I have always longed for a Bond at the end of his career, a little burnt out, more than a tad jaded and having to struggle to 'pull it out of the bag' Dalton would have been perfect. It would have been a great Swansong for Brosnan, and could be for DC if he makes more than one more.
It's been made before. It's called A View to a Kill
How tall is Cavill? He may look too boyish if he's around 5" 9. Height makes one look more manly, Craig would look way too old if he was 6ft 2 for instance.
How tall is Cavill? He may look too boyish if he's around 5" 9. Height makes one look more manly, Craig would look way too old if he was 6ft 2 for instance.
According to IMDB, he's 6'1". About right for a Bond actor, give or take an inch or so.
I have always longed for a Bond at the end of his career, a little burnt out, more than a tad jaded and having to struggle to 'pull it out of the bag' Dalton would have been perfect. It would have been a great Swansong for Brosnan, and could be for DC if he makes more than one more.
It's been made before. It's called A View to a Kill
Sorry I was not clear enough. I meant a Bond towards the end of his career but still viable, not completley passed his sell by date
How tall is Cavill? He may look too boyish if he's around 5" 9. Height makes one look more manly, Craig would look way too old if he was 6ft 2 for instance.
According to IMDB, he's 6'1". About right for a Bond actor, give or take an inch or so.
I think 6'1 is a tad on the short side for Bond. Bond does not blend in, or dissapear in a crowd although 'real' agents probably would Bond is not real, but highly idealised. He needs to be a commanding prescence, and it's central to his character that he does not fit in anywhere. He is the perpetual outsider. Dont forget that references to Fleming's view of the characters height are misleading. 6'1 in 1953 would be quite tall, 6'1 today is not. I'm just under 6'5 and increasingly notice how I am no longer likely to be the tallest in any Bar or Club. People in general are just bigger. 6'1 is the same as Brosnan who I believe was the shortest actor to play Bond prior to DC.
We can debate the particulars as tall is clearly a relative term, as is 'Handsome'. However it is simply inescapeable that Bond is 'tall, dark and (cruely) handsome by the prevailing standards of the day. I am of course not saying that 6'1 would or should rule Cavill out, just that it does nothing to strengthen his case. DC is considerably shorter than Cavill, and although far from an/ (my)ideal Bond but on balance still has more toughness than Cavill exhibits yet, and yes I have seen the Tudors. Also his voice sounds a little fey to me, and DC has the best Bond voice of all so far in my view.
Comments
http://apbateman.com
Though Connery was 32 at the time of filiming it dosen't nessecarily mean James Bond was also 32. I think that "10 year" remark, which was relating to his use of the beretta and not his 00 status BTW, confirms that Connery was playing a man possibly 5 to 10 years his senior in real life. So I think someone in his late twenties would probably be the ideal person to begin a career as a 00 agent.
The mind boggles.
And I think that given a few years and some dedication to the role Cavill can pull it off, as we've seen before with Craig. out of pure determination and dedication a man that looked liked Craig in 2005, who had me worried, changed and became Bond. Why can't Cavill do that? Sure right now he's a pretty boy but, theres unseen potential there to become Bond for him too.
And I'm not exactly taking any sides in this post, just displaying the facts overtly. And at this time, as long as Barbara Broccoli's on the helm it seems more probable that Cavill will be Bond #7.
Craig pre-Bond 2005
Craig post Bond
~ Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Who says he has to have a baby face ? I am just saying that he obviously just looks too old to be playing a 00 agent at the beginning of his career. Also Connery wasn't that "rough looking", he had strong masculine features. I think an example of rough looking actors were Jack Palance and Charles Bronson.
As for LeBron James, he looks older mostly due to his height and weight.
I think I made it clear from the start that I didn't think it was going to be a huge hit. It's not a Hollywood mega production it's just a decent action movie by the sound of it. So I'm sure it'll do ok, but nothing more than that. I don't even want it to be a big hit, because if it is, it'll be harder for him to be cast as Bond. They don't generally pick people who are too popular already to play Bond. So this would just be one more step, but nothing huge or anything.
Thank you. I have friends who are models who would kick Craig's ass any day. Because they don't just do that, they also play rugby. Just to cite an example. And by the way, Cavill played rugby too, he stopped because of injuries. Being an actor and on a primetime series for four seasons, he couldn't exactly afford to arrive on set with a shiner after a game
I don't agree that any work was done - the first picture was taken pre 2005 and the second one 2009 at the earliest... in fact prob more like early 2010 - that's almost 5 years. And the styling is so completley different - he has sideburns for starters in the first one.... and a hair cut of that difference can change the entire face - which it has, as it's amplified his cheek bones, and those amazing eyes.....
The first pic was taken post Munich - (sideburns abound in the 1970's....
In fact, he has even quoted “It’s tricky, it really is, because no-one likes to get old and sag. People can improve themselves when they are younger, but when you’re 60 or 70, you start looking like a freak." Although what people say, and what they do can be two completley different things
http://apbateman.com
Cubby tried to get Lazenby to sign up for a 7 film deal when he was 29 but Georges agent said it was a bad idea[some agent].
It depends on who knows how to fight, height and weight rarely matter. I have known men much shorter who could kick peoples asses six ways from sunday. My old Ju-Jitsu teacher probably wasn't anymore than 5 ft 7 and he was heavy.
As for Fleming's James Bond, he was handsome but he certainly wasn't soft looking either. Going back that official comissioned image of Bond, he looked like a killer. Take example Moonraker when Bond entered Blades, people noticed how dangerous he looked. Then again in From Russia With Love when the brains of SMERSH noticed how nasty Bond looked. Cavill certaintly dosen't give off that nature.
Connery was rough looking (and so were Palance and Bronson, though the former less so). Take a look at photos of him from that period, and you'll see his face has deep crevices and furrows and that his skin has large pores. A "weathered look" is a masculine trait to be sure, but it would be hard to say that he wasn't rough looking. In those days, they did put a lot of makeup on actors, so some of it was hidden when he was filmed. But as my mother points out -- for she was a teenager when the Bond films came out -- a lot of women didn't think Connery was all that attractive. They thought his face was too scrawny and rat-like and that he was kind of a big thug. But she said by the time Goldfinger premiered, Connery's image was pretty much everywhere, and even some of his detractors began to see him differently. Such is the power of media. Even today, a lot of women tell me Connery got better looking as he aged.
I don't agree. If Lebron was a lot slimmer and shorter he'd probably look a lot younger.
Again, I don't agree. Connery did not look that weathered or rough, he just had strong masculine features. Also it's a pretty common fact that actors were made up to look more appealing on screen all the time and it still happens today. Lighting is also another important factor as well.
For the sake of consistency, Bond should be tallish, but an inch or two difference isn't going to be important. Even at 6', he'd stand out like a sore thumb in most parts of the world where that's considered tall. (Hey, who do you think the British agent is? I'll bet it's that white guy standing a head taller than everyone else.) I realize the film Bond is a fantasy character, but making him a metrosexual underwear model isn't going to be an improvement to being any tougher.
LeBron's face wouldn't look less wrinkled because he was slimmer or shorter. If that were the case, then Sammy Davis, Jr., would have looked like an infant when he was the same age. LeBron just looks a lot older.
Personally, I think the lines and wrinkles give character to a man's face, so it actually makes the actor look more interesting to me than someone whose face looks like a baby's bottom. And that's coming from someone who looks a lot younger than his middle-aged years and who has been called "pretty" more times than he wishes to admit.
But that's just it, I don't notice any more wrinkles on LeBron's face then the average man. I think it has a lot to do with his height and weight. Also you know I don't mean this the same case for everyone. 8-)
We just have to agree to disagree on this subject. You think Connery was "rough looking" back then, I don't.
It's been made before. It's called A View to a Kill
Roger Moore 1927-2017
According to IMDB, he's 6'1". About right for a Bond actor, give or take an inch or so.
Sorry I was not clear enough. I meant a Bond towards the end of his career but still viable, not completley passed his sell by date
I think 6'1 is a tad on the short side for Bond. Bond does not blend in, or dissapear in a crowd although 'real' agents probably would Bond is not real, but highly idealised. He needs to be a commanding prescence, and it's central to his character that he does not fit in anywhere. He is the perpetual outsider. Dont forget that references to Fleming's view of the characters height are misleading. 6'1 in 1953 would be quite tall, 6'1 today is not. I'm just under 6'5 and increasingly notice how I am no longer likely to be the tallest in any Bar or Club. People in general are just bigger. 6'1 is the same as Brosnan who I believe was the shortest actor to play Bond prior to DC.
We can debate the particulars as tall is clearly a relative term, as is 'Handsome'. However it is simply inescapeable that Bond is 'tall, dark and (cruely) handsome by the prevailing standards of the day. I am of course not saying that 6'1 would or should rule Cavill out, just that it does nothing to strengthen his case. DC is considerably shorter than Cavill, and although far from an/ (my)ideal Bond but on balance still has more toughness than Cavill exhibits yet, and yes I have seen the Tudors. Also his voice sounds a little fey to me, and DC has the best Bond voice of all so far in my view.