I think the industry as a whole has a bad attitude to how the actors and actresses should look and body consciousness is becoming the norm, tho to say everyone is doing extreme exercise and dieting is a nonsense! Lea Seydoux has said in interview she did nothing special to keep her figure and also Monica Belucci said she just enjoyed a sensible lifestyle. Eva green is naturally slim and naomie Harris likes to workout! As for Daniel Craig he trains up for film roles and eats a suitable diet for this. With his natural frame it's easier to achieve his look. I think there is pressure to some degree but an actor should look the part, and field agents tend to be fit to some degree
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.
Daniel Craig has done more for his body than probably any of the women in the Bond series have. The Bond women have normal, healthy bodies, which I don't think is unreasonable to expect. You cannot say the same for Daniel Craig, but you could for Connery in his first four films, Moore in his first two or Lazenby or Dalton. I don't think that men need to be held to higher standards for their body than women do. That has become the case with Bond and many leading men these days.
The aspect that maybe only a certain size actress is considered for the lead roles fundamentaly wrong, but this is in line with the viewing publics demands! Would most people really have preferred hatty Jakes to honour blackman or melissa mcarthy to Lea Seydoux? And if you think back regarding DC he was not at all beefed up when he got the role of Bond. He decided to go that route as part of his character. Not a bad decision when you consider how female bond fans were made due to his la perla trunk wearing scene.
I don't think that men need to be held to higher standards for their body than women do. That has become the case with Bond and many leading men these days.
I dont think men should be held to a higher standard either. I just don't agree that that is happening.
I think it's silly; there's a point where people work out too much and it looks creepy. I don't think Craig is at that point particularly but I can see where criticism might arise.
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.
Absolutely - this is not restricted to Bond actors or Bond girls in any way, you can easily read many accounts of female actors revealing the pressure to undergo cosmetic surgery or risk not getting roles.
Ultimately, yes, however so-called "celebrities" (I hate the term) are in the public light much more than you average gym junkie, and should be better role models than most of them are.
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. )
The big belly on a ripped body is actually caused by the human growth hormone, not steroids – it makes sense, after all the hormone makes the internal organs grow as well. It would certainly be tempting for an actor to use it for quick gains – you have the money, and you will be ready for the role sooner. Stallone is known to be a regular user of HGH. And while gym junkies typically inject themselves in hiding, the benefit of being a well-known actor (or an athlete) is that it can be done under medical supervision, which would minimise health risks and unwanted side effects (like the big belly).
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.
Sure, but my point is it's still largely a contradiction -- an element of the fantasy that a 38-to-47-year-old man can live both lifestyles. It's more of the "living to the extreme" that reflects mostly the indestructibility of the contemporary hero.
In reality yes but Bond is more than a part; he symbolises the epitome of masculinity and the actor has to be able to live up to that aspiration. I mean, he has no personal obligation but publicity-wise, he has to reflect male fantasy.
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!
I think in Andy MacNabs book entitled "Immediate Action" which is a non fictional account of his time in the military, including the "SAS" selection process.
He mentions after each day of "SAS Selection" when allowed, he and others would go to the local pub and have a couple of pints of guiness and fish and chips.
Comments
Daniel Craig has done more for his body than probably any of the women in the Bond series have. The Bond women have normal, healthy bodies, which I don't think is unreasonable to expect. You cannot say the same for Daniel Craig, but you could for Connery in his first four films, Moore in his first two or Lazenby or Dalton. I don't think that men need to be held to higher standards for their body than women do. That has become the case with Bond and many leading men these days.
I dont think men should be held to a higher standard either. I just don't agree that that is happening.
Crossed with Sylvester Stallone... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/may/21/australia.film
Just sayin'.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Absolutely - this is not restricted to Bond actors or Bond girls in any way, you can easily read many accounts of female actors revealing the pressure to undergo cosmetic surgery or risk not getting roles.
Ultimately, yes, however so-called "celebrities" (I hate the term) are in the public light much more than you average gym junkie, and should be better role models than most of them are.
The big belly on a ripped body is actually caused by the human growth hormone, not steroids – it makes sense, after all the hormone makes the internal organs grow as well. It would certainly be tempting for an actor to use it for quick gains – you have the money, and you will be ready for the role sooner. Stallone is known to be a regular user of HGH. And while gym junkies typically inject themselves in hiding, the benefit of being a well-known actor (or an athlete) is that it can be done under medical supervision, which would minimise health risks and unwanted side effects (like the big belly).
In reality yes but Bond is more than a part; he symbolises the epitome of masculinity and the actor has to be able to live up to that aspiration. I mean, he has no personal obligation but publicity-wise, he has to reflect male fantasy.
I think in Andy MacNabs book entitled "Immediate Action" which is a non fictional account of his time in the military, including the "SAS" selection process.
He mentions after each day of "SAS Selection" when allowed, he and others would go to the local pub and have a couple of pints of guiness and fish and chips.
Like you say everthing in moderation
"Do you expect me to talk? "No Mister Bond I expect you to die"