Really? You think you can see too much? I'm a committed homosexualist and buttock scourer of twenty years but I don't think you can see his arse crack at all. Of course, compared to what I've seen on certain beaches he may as well be wearing a tuxedo.
Really? You think you can see too much? I'm a committed homosexualist and buttock scourer of twenty years but I don't think you can see his arse crack at all. Of course, compared to what I've seen on certain beaches he may as well be wearing a tuxedo.
) No, too much would be an inch lower. But it just seems to be the focus of the photo and pulls your gaze like gravity.
Well, if nothing else, he seems to be in great shape . . . I don't need to see all that, but I suppose this is revenge for all those exploitative images of naked breasts I got to see as a teenager. If his hair and features were darker, I don't think anyone would be complaining that he doesn't look like a modern James Bond.
I just really like what it indicates about the scene and mood. Makes me imagine some great luxurious locations like in Casino Royale. Very classy vibe, even in a very casual night swim. He doesn't look as old with all those muscles! )
Well, if nothing else, he seems to be in great shape . . . I don't need to see all that, but I suppose this is revenge for all those exploitative images of naked breasts I got to see as a teenager. If his hair and features were darker, I don't think anyone would be complaining that he doesn't look like a modern James Bond.
Yeah as some who works out I can certainly appreciate a guy who's in really good shape, and obviously hes in the best shape of all the Bonds. But I think we need to limit the Bond skin shots to a hand full of shirtless scenes for the female Bond fans to enjoy and keep his butt cheeks out of the equation, lol
Its bad enough we were inundated with shots of Connery's bare hairy legs, please no Craig butt cheeks in SF:D
Well, if nothing else, he seems to be in great shape . . . I don't need to see all that, but I suppose this is revenge for all those exploitative images of naked breasts I got to see as a teenager. If his hair and features were darker, I don't think anyone would be complaining that he doesn't look like a modern James Bond.
Yeah as some who works out I can certainly appreciate a guy who's in really good shape, and obviously hes in the best shape of all the Bonds. But I think we need to limit the Bond skin shots to a hand full of shirtless scenes for the female Bond fans to enjoy and keep his butt cheeks out of the equation, lol
Its bad enough we were inundated with shots of Connery's bare hairy legs, please no Craig butt cheeks in SF:D
I was watching the older films in HD a couple weeks ago and noticed those bad Connery shots. It's like they didn't consider that we would ever see them in such HD clarity, so sometimes he'll be laying in tiny swim shorts with his knees at the camera and big hairy thigh shots! Not to mention, several back hair shots.
I agree, skin shots of Bond should be well-considered and not necessarily frequent.
I was watching the older films in HD a couple weeks ago and noticed those bad Connery shots. It's like they didn't consider that we would ever see them in such HD clarity, so sometimes he'll be laying in tiny swim shorts with his knees at the camera and big hairy thigh shots! Not to mention, several back hair shots.
Well back in the 60's guys weren't into shaving their chests, backs, etc so that was the norm. I know we had gotten used to seeing those Bond films on non-HD TV, video tape, DVD, etc and we are now seeing a heightened level of detail with the restored versions on Blu Ray.....but trust me, we saw the same thing back in the 60's when those films were being properly projected from new 35mm prints on 50 ft wide screens.
we saw the same thing back in the 60's when those films were being properly projected from new 35mm prints on 50 ft wide screens.
Yep, a good 35mm print has more resolution than HD. It's the reason why the early Bond films look as good on Blu-ray as recent films. A shame Roger Deakins has ended the 35mm era of Bond by switching to the Arri Alexa for Skyfall.
I think that pic is fantastic :x.... and very clever.
With all the recent pics we've seen (DC not looking overly gorgeous.... a bit 'crumpled' maybe) this pic gives us very little to complain about .... and he can show as much bum crack as he wants ) .... looks like those trunks aren't quite done with either (they look very similar, but can't imagine they would use the same ones....???) And you watch fans get a sneak peak too.
Almost tempted to use this as my wallpaper
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
I was watching the older films in HD a couple weeks ago and noticed those bad Connery shots. It's like they didn't consider that we would ever see them in such HD clarity, so sometimes he'll be laying in tiny swim shorts with his knees at the camera and big hairy thigh shots! Not to mention, several back hair shots.
Well back in the 60's guys weren't into shaving their chests, backs, etc so that was the norm. I know we had gotten used to seeing those Bond films on non-HD TV, video tape, DVD, etc and we are now seeing a heightened level of detail with the restored versions on Blu Ray.....but trust me, we saw the same thing back in the 60's when those films were being properly projected from new 35mm prints on 50 ft wide screens.
I'm not suggesting Connery, or any guy, should have shaved his legs. Just the combination of Connery's extra hairy legs and his little shorts (GF, TB, NSNA) were a bit too much for me
I was watching the older films in HD a couple weeks ago and noticed those bad Connery shots. It's like they didn't consider that we would ever see them in such HD clarity, so sometimes he'll be laying in tiny swim shorts with his knees at the camera and big hairy thigh shots! Not to mention, several back hair shots.
Well back in the 60's guys weren't into shaving their chests, backs, etc so that was the norm. I know we had gotten used to seeing those Bond films on non-HD TV, video tape, DVD, etc and we are now seeing a heightened level of detail with the restored versions on Blu Ray.....but trust me, we saw the same thing back in the 60's when those films were being properly projected from new 35mm prints on 50 ft wide screens.
Hehe. I wasn't saying the hair itself was the problem, I was saying that I can't imagine scenes being filmed like that with home entertainment in HD considered these days. Several shots are less than appealing, but weren't as noticeable to me when I had seen them before in SD.
We are living in the era of the "buff" hero. It seems every star these days, male or female has their own personal trainer and body waxer. I'm sure that if Connery was in his 40's in 2011 and playing Bond the make-up people would make sure that nary a hair would be visible on his back, shoulders or upper arms. He would also be more lean and fit and through the magic of today's great make-up and hair techniques (and maybe a little post production CGI magic) his hairpiece undetectable.
We are living in the era of the "buff" hero. It seems every star these days, male or female has their own personal trainer and body waxer. I'm sure that if Connery was in his 40's in 2011 and playing Bond the make-up people would make sure that nary a hair would be visible on his back, shoulders or upper arms. He would also be more lean and fit and through the magic of today's great make-up and hair techniques (and maybe a little post production CGI magic) his hairpiece undetectable.
Simple, hair transplants from his shoulders and chest to his head. 2 birds with 1 stone
We are living in the era of the "buff" hero. It seems every star these days, male or female has their own personal trainer and body waxer. I'm sure that if Connery was in his 40's in 2011 and playing Bond the make-up people would make sure that nary a hair would be visible on his back, shoulders or upper arms. He would also be more lean and fit and through the magic of today's great make-up and hair techniques (and maybe a little post production CGI magic) his hairpiece undetectable.
I think in the last several years it has become less of a thing, the whole hairless everyone deal. Stars like Hugh Jackman and Sam Worthington don't seem to do it much now, and many others are more natural about the chest as well. Now the backside... well that is still out of the question.
We are living in the era of the "buff" hero. It seems every star these days, male or female has their own personal trainer and body waxer. I'm sure that if Connery was in his 40's in 2011 and playing Bond the make-up people would make sure that nary a hair would be visible on his back, shoulders or upper arms. He would also be more lean and fit and through the magic of today's great make-up and hair techniques (and maybe a little post production CGI magic) his hairpiece undetectable.
Simple, hair transplants from his shoulders and chest to his head. 2 birds with 1 stone
Comments
@merseytart
Exactly! Seriously, this photo was posted in something like six threads!
Yeah as some who works out I can certainly appreciate a guy who's in really good shape, and obviously hes in the best shape of all the Bonds. But I think we need to limit the Bond skin shots to a hand full of shirtless scenes for the female Bond fans to enjoy and keep his butt cheeks out of the equation, lol
Its bad enough we were inundated with shots of Connery's bare hairy legs, please no Craig butt cheeks in SF:D
I was watching the older films in HD a couple weeks ago and noticed those bad Connery shots. It's like they didn't consider that we would ever see them in such HD clarity, so sometimes he'll be laying in tiny swim shorts with his knees at the camera and big hairy thigh shots! Not to mention, several back hair shots.
I agree, skin shots of Bond should be well-considered and not necessarily frequent.
The photo is fine so far IMO.
Well back in the 60's guys weren't into shaving their chests, backs, etc so that was the norm. I know we had gotten used to seeing those Bond films on non-HD TV, video tape, DVD, etc and we are now seeing a heightened level of detail with the restored versions on Blu Ray.....but trust me, we saw the same thing back in the 60's when those films were being properly projected from new 35mm prints on 50 ft wide screens.
With all the recent pics we've seen (DC not looking overly gorgeous.... a bit 'crumpled' maybe) this pic gives us very little to complain about .... and he can show as much bum crack as he wants
Almost tempted to use this as my wallpaper
Only Joking
What I wouldn't do to give that 'Gadget' a test drive..... ;%
Bit ford anglia I hear.....
Not enough poke....
Depends who's driving..... :v
True, but it's hard to get ant thrust out of a two-stroke.... 8-)
You'd be suprised.... sometimes two strokes is all it needs.... (ooops, I feel we're going off topic... and with recent events! :v
I'm not suggesting Connery, or any guy, should have shaved his legs. Just the combination of Connery's extra hairy legs and his little shorts (GF, TB, NSNA) were a bit too much for me
So far all the new shots from SF are leading me to believe its a gay porn lol
Ah no.. Let's move on to the drab suits of bond 23?....
Have you been following the thread on sky fallen wear?
Mantis is sure the suits are called FALCONER by Tom ford, but lexi I rather liked your line....
CRUMPLED 8-)
And at the risk of touching a nerve, don't you think DC looks tired and haggard in these pics?
If TF is responsible for the haircut, it's probably called MALNUTRITIONED...
Hilarious, TP
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Hehe. I wasn't saying the hair itself was the problem, I was saying that I can't imagine scenes being filmed like that with home entertainment in HD considered these days. Several shots are less than appealing, but weren't as noticeable to me when I had seen them before in SD.
Simple, hair transplants from his shoulders and chest to his head. 2 birds with 1 stone
I think in the last several years it has become less of a thing, the whole hairless everyone deal. Stars like Hugh Jackman and Sam Worthington don't seem to do it much now, and many others are more natural about the chest as well. Now the backside... well that is still out of the question.
I see a Q saying:
007 Preset care
And @Blackleiter.... sorry, but when it comes to Craig..... and his tackle....