No idea if what I saw 12/31 at my local megaplex is the final poster or not.....
Please describe what you have seen. -{
See my post in this thread P. 276 from 1/1/2020.
Those 'standee movie displays' are often different to the official poster. Skyfall's standee was Bond prone with his gun out, the poster was Bond in the gunbarrel.
Spectre's posters were DC in the black rollneck and then DC in the white Tux with the death mask behind him. The standee was this; https://www.007.com/spectre-standee-art/
The NTTD standee is simply a larger version of the Bond character poster. The first NTTD poster is competely different, so I think the next poster will be different again.
The Spectre teaser poster (Bond in black rollneck) was out on 17 March 2015 and the Bond in white tux poster was out on 3 September 2015. There were 171 days, 5 months and 18 days, between the two. Poster 2 came out 53 days before the UK release date.
The NTTD poster with Bond in a black tux in front of a blue wall was out on October 5, so 171 days after that means 24 March for poster two, but that seems late to me as that is only 9 days before the UK 2 April release date. 53 days before 2 April 2020 is 9 February.
I recognise that NTTD's marketing has not followed Sony's approach for the last few films, as it is Universal now, but the February date gives an idea of when we might see another poster. The ongoing poster competition may alter the timetable again.
What I thing is odd (but positive) is that the NTTD-standees have shown up so far in advance. At first I thought maybe only a few cinemas in metropolises would have them but no, even my little cinema at home has it.
Those 'standee movie displays' are often different to the official poster. Skyfall's standee was Bond prone with his gun out, the poster was Bond in the gunbarrel.
The gunbarrel poster was the teaser poster, not the official one-sheet. You're conflating the two. There's been no official one-sheet for NTTD yet.
I am guessing that since NTTD is the first Bond to be partially shot with actual IMAX cameras that there will also be a poster/standee unique/exclusive to IMAX as there has been for other big releases.
What should they have done? Make him wear high heels?
You could have easily prevented that situation by not allowing women to wear high heels.
Why would they even care? What’s the big deal about his height?
Because the appearance of being the shortest person on stage deprives him of a substantial part of his authority and dominance that a man like Craig exudes.
Authority / dominance is a vital part of the James Bond character and amoungst other things height plays an important role in that.
You could have easily prevented that situation by not allowing women to wear high heels.
Why would they even care? What’s the big deal about his height?
Because the appearance of being the shortest person on stage deprives him of a substantial part of his authority and dominance that a man like Craig exudes.
Authority / dominance is a vital part of the James Bond character and amoungst other things height plays an important role in that.
My guess is that almost all pf the attention was towards the trailer and probably a very few people cared who was looking more dominantly in the brief moment they all stood up... ?:)
Why would they even care? What’s the big deal about his height?
Because the appearance of being the shortest person on stage deprives him of a substantial part of his authority and dominance that a man like Craig exudes.
Authority / dominance is a vital part of the James Bond character and amoungst other things height plays an important role in that.
My guess is that almost all pf the attention was towards the trailer and probably a very few people cared who was looking more dominantly in the brief moment they all stood up... ?:)
Yes, but situations like this has happened and will happen many times.
Those 'standee movie displays' are often different to the official poster. Skyfall's standee was Bond prone with his gun out, the poster was Bond in the gunbarrel.
The gunbarrel poster was the teaser poster, not the official one-sheet. You're conflating the two. There's been no official one-sheet for NTTD yet.
You could have easily prevented that situation by not allowing women to wear high heels.
Why would they even care? What’s the big deal about his height?
Because the appearance of being the shortest person on stage deprives him of a substantial part of his authority and dominance that a man like Craig exudes.
Authority / dominance is a vital part of the James Bond character and amoungst other things height plays an important role in that.
No it doesn't. All that matters is when he is on the screen as Bond. Height or the lack there of has not been an issue for Craig in the films. Craig's screen presence, the way he moves/carries himself, and intense physicality are much more important than 2 or 3 more inches in height. Height can be easily faked in film but not those other attributes.
Those 'standee movie displays' are often different to the official poster. Skyfall's standee was Bond prone with his gun out, the poster was Bond in the gunbarrel.
The gunbarrel poster was the teaser poster, not the official one-sheet. You're conflating the two. There's been no official one-sheet for NTTD yet.
Why would they even care? What’s the big deal about his height?
Because the appearance of being the shortest person on stage deprives him of a substantial part of his authority and dominance that a man like Craig exudes.
Authority / dominance is a vital part of the James Bond character and amoungst other things height plays an important role in that.
No it doesn't. All that matters is when he is on the screen as Bond. Height or the lack there of has not been an issue for Craig in the films. Craig's screen presence, the way he moves/carries himself, and intense physicality are much more important than 2 or 3 more inches in height. Height can be easily faked in film but not those other attributes.
It's true that how he moves, carries himself and not to mention acting ability is more important than a few inches. But that doesn't mean height isn't an issue. Would you have accepted a Bond standing 5' 2''? I think most people will agree hight matters for a Bond actor, it's more a question where the line is. You mention height and how a man carries himself is (among other factors) a product of how tall he is.
Camera tricks can be used to make a person look taller on screen, but that takes time and effort. With the other Bond actors it wasn't an issue. Another thing that wasn't an issue was the height of other cast members (not that way, it worked the other way with Connery and Lana Wood). There was probably no potential Bond girl out there who was rejected because they were too tall compared to the first five Bond actors. We don't know if any good potential Bond girls were rejected because they are too tall compared to Craig, but we certainly can't rule it out. Would Famke Jansen (5'' 11 1/2'') have been cast in GE if Brosnan was Craig's height? I doubt it. These things can be faked too, Ingrid Bergman was taller than Humpfrey Bogart, but it took time and effort. A tall leading man, perhaps especially if it's James Bond, means fewer problems for the filmmakers.
Why would they even care? What’s the big deal about his height?
Because the appearance of being the shortest person on stage deprives him of a substantial part of his authority and dominance that a man like Craig exudes.
Authority / dominance is a vital part of the James Bond character and amoungst other things height plays an important role in that.
No it doesn't. All that matters is when he is on the screen as Bond. Height or the lack there of has not been an issue for Craig in the films. Craig's screen presence, the way he moves/carries himself, and intense physicality are much more important than 2 or 3 more inches in height. Height can be easily faked in film but not those other attributes.
It's a western world thing, in particular. There's actually a study of western businessmen that shows for every inch over average height, a man can expect to earn $1,000 more on average. Height isn't as critical in many other cultures, where leadership is often determined by wisdom or who is the best speaker. But for people of northern and western Europe, it's often very important.
It matters in other countries too. It seems like very tall North Korean men (who usually are even shorter than South Koreans) automatically get drafted to border guard duty:
It matters in other countries too. It seems like very tall North Korean men (who usually are even shorter than South Koreans) automatically get drafted to border guard duty:
Didn't say it wasn't -- only that it's much more obsessed over in western nations, in business and otherwise, especially among Scandanavian and Germanic cultures, as they have among the tallest people on average in the world. But the military (and professional sports) are outliers, too. They don't represent the experiences of the vast numbers of people in a country.
It's almost a pre-requisite for CEOS in the U.S. and western Europe, for instance, to be tall. There are always exceptions, but there's a lot of "halo effect" attached to who is the better leader based only on height. Taller people are wiser, smarter, stronger, etc. It's a reason why Napoleon -- who was actually of average height for his time period -- is considered an avatar of going beyond his station. Had he been taller, a lot of the criticisms ("Napoleon Complex") would have been dismissed.
Which isn't to say that shorter or average people can't rise to promenance. Of course they can. Hitler wasn't tall but average. One of the wealthiest men in the world, Jack Ma, is dimunitive. The most decorated American soldier of WW2, Audie Murphy, was only 5' 5".
But concerns about Craig's height come right out of this tradition, even though it would be absurd for a secret agent -- who is supposed to blend in and not stand out -- to be tall and obvious.
My point is that height matters and there's a limit to how short an actor can be and still be accepted as James Bond. We've established that, I think. Most of us have not only accepted and even admire Craig as Bond, but this is in spite of and not because he's 5'10'' frame (or whatever his real height is).
You could have easily prevented that situation by not allowing women to wear high heels.
Why would they even care? What’s the big deal about his height?
Because the appearance of being the shortest person on stage deprives him of a substantial part of his authority and dominance that a man like Craig exudes.
Authority / dominance is a vital part of the James Bond character and amoungst other things height plays an important role in that.
I would say Craig is the Bond with the most physical dominance and authority since Connery. Yeah has not the tallest Bond but he has a large muscular frame which makes him look more imposing and dangerous in a way previous Bonds post Connery never really were.
I don't mean to be rude but this ridiculous topic of height doesn't really seem to have any relevance to NTTD. Does it really need to be crowding up one of the main B25 threads? If it's so important can it just get its own thread in the general Bond chat section?
My point is it matters to some much more than others. I'm fine with Craig's height, but it seems to be obssessed over by others, to the degree the subject comes up over and over again. My guess is they come from these cultures or from ones heavily influenced by them. And research shows reality to the bias. Our current U.S. President is quite tall, to the degree that no matter what his foibles, quite a few people still see him as leadership material.
The funny thing is it's men who seem more concerned about Craig's height and appearance than women. I've yet to meet a woman who watches his films and says anything about either, though I don't doubt they exist.
Since Bond is fantasy -- no matter the pretensions about "realism" -- it's okay for him to be anywhere from 5'10" to 6' 3". If he goes below what is average height for someone in western Europe, that probably will be too much of a distraction for some moviegoers. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, but then I'm about 5' 9", so its actually refreshing to see someone of normal height on the screen. )
I don't mean to be rude but this ridiculous topic of height doesn't really seem to have any relevance to NTTD. Does it really need to be crowding up one of the main B25 threads? If it's so important can it just get its own thread in the general Bond chat section?
I think that's a fair point, though the issue seems to be tied to Craig's height compared to that of his co-stars in NTTD, as opposed to just Craig's height in general. But as it's an issue that comes up any time Craig is mentioned, perhaps it does deserve its own thread that can just be added to over the years.
Those 'standee movie displays' are often different to the official poster. Skyfall's standee was Bond prone with his gun out, the poster was Bond in the gunbarrel.
The gunbarrel poster was the teaser poster, not the official one-sheet. You're conflating the two. There's been no official one-sheet for NTTD yet.
That's a teaser poster (and part of a series of character posters, to boot). An official one-sheet will have a credit block on it. We haven't gotten one yet!
Why would they even care? What’s the big deal about his height?
Because the appearance of being the shortest person on stage deprives him of a substantial part of his authority and dominance that a man like Craig exudes.
Authority / dominance is a vital part of the James Bond character and amoungst other things height plays an important role in that.
I would say Craig is the Bond with the most physical dominance and authority since Connery. Yeah has not the tallest Bond but he has a large muscular frame which makes him look more imposing and dangerous in a way previous Bonds post Connery never really were.
What Craig gets right -- and that Connery did, too -- is he creates Bond from the inside out, not the outside in. He's such a good actor that you pay attention to that, so it doesn't matter if Craig is average height, blond haired, boxer nosed, or whatever. You pay attention the person. Connery did the same thing, except in his case, the viewer could still identify with him because despite all of his advantages, he still came across a flesh-and-blood person.
Because the appearance of being the shortest person on stage deprives him of a substantial part of his authority and dominance that a man like Craig exudes.
Authority / dominance is a vital part of the James Bond character and amoungst other things height plays an important role in that.
No it doesn't. All that matters is when he is on the screen as Bond. Height or the lack there of has not been an issue for Craig in the films. Craig's screen presence, the way he moves/carries himself, and intense physicality are much more important than 2 or 3 more inches in height. Height can be easily faked in film but not those other attributes.
You misunderstood me.
I was never referring to Craigs height in general.
In fact Craig is even 1 inch taller than the average American man.
I was just referring to the trailer event during which I noticed immediately how ridiculous he looked there by appearing as if he was the shortest person on stage and thereby looking like a midget, even though he is taller than all the other actors on stage including the female host.
All I was saying is that someone should have prevented that ridiculous scene from ever taking place.
You could have easily prevented that situation by not allowing those women to wear high heels.
How exactly would that conversation go? “You’re not allowed to wear heels today Lashana because it will make this middle aged white man look too short. We don’t care if you look your best, so put on some flats.” )
Well, they wouldn't have looked worse if they had worn stack-heel shoes that were a little bit smaller.
Why did they have to wear shoes with such an extreme heel that even Léa Seydoux who is more than 5 inches shorter than Craig looks taller than him?
And Craig certainly has shoes in his closet that are a little bit higher than those he wore during that event.
Because the appearance of being the shortest person on stage deprives him of a substantial part of his authority and dominance that a man like Craig exudes.
Authority / dominance is a vital part of the James Bond character and amoungst other things height plays an important role in that.
No it doesn't. All that matters is when he is on the screen as Bond. Height or the lack there of has not been an issue for Craig in the films. Craig's screen presence, the way he moves/carries himself, and intense physicality are much more important than 2 or 3 more inches in height. Height can be easily faked in film but not those other attributes.
You misunderstood me.
I was never referring to Craigs height in general.
In fact Craig is even 1 inch taller than the average American man.
I was just referring to the trailer event during which I noticed immediately how ridiculous he looked there by appearing as if he was the shortest person on stage and thereby looking like a midget, even though he is taller than all the other actors on stage including the female host.
All I was saying is that someone should have prevented that ridiculous scene from ever taking place.
No one cares. No one thought he looks ridiculous because he’s global movie star Daniel Craig and he didn’t look ridiculous.
Honestly, it’s like saying a female movie star looked ridiculous because she’s being interviewed by someone with bigger boobs. Adults don’t care about this stuff.
Wasn't Cubby an adult?
I also remember watching Layer Cake with a woman after we more or less knew Craig would be the next James Bond, but before the release of CR. Her reaction was: "Isn't he too short to be Bond?"
Saying "Adults don’t care about this stuff." when you're discussing with adults is talking down to us, or at least trying to. This discussion has been very civil and Nice. Let's continue that way.
Wasn't Cubby an adult?
I also remember watching Layer Cake with a woman after we more or less knew Craig would be the next James Bond, but before the release of CR. Her reaction was: "Isn't he too short to be Bond?"
Saying "Adults don’t care about this stuff." when you're discussing with adults is talking down to us, or at least trying to. This discussion has been very civil and Nice. Let's continue that way.
It’s not civil though because it’s insulting someone’s appearance based on flawed logic. It’s nasty and it’s tiresome and it is rather ridiculous. Your friend was rather proven to be wrong, and that’s rather that. Cubby chose someone based on their looks rather than ability to be his second Bond and he was absolutely wrong too: invoking him as some kind of perfect great sage doesn’t really work (that’s if he even believed they had to be abnormally tall).
I really don’t think people do care: it’s only two people on this forum I’ve seen take issue with his appearance on that TV show.
I haven't insulted Daniel Craig's appearence at all and that's a fact. What I argued is that a taller actor makes it easier for the filmmakers, but Craig has still done a great job because of his many virtues. Claiming that no adults care about this while you know you're discussing with adults is bad form. Listen to yourself: when I pointed out that adults like Cubby and my friend did care if Bond actors are tall, you tried to change to issue from what you said to arguing that they were wrong. They may very well be and I'm perfectly willing to discuss that. I'm only asking you refrain from inderectly calling those who disagree with you children.
Comments
Those 'standee movie displays' are often different to the official poster. Skyfall's standee was Bond prone with his gun out, the poster was Bond in the gunbarrel.
Spectre's posters were DC in the black rollneck and then DC in the white Tux with the death mask behind him. The standee was this; https://www.007.com/spectre-standee-art/
The NTTD standee is simply a larger version of the Bond character poster. The first NTTD poster is competely different, so I think the next poster will be different again.
The Spectre teaser poster (Bond in black rollneck) was out on 17 March 2015 and the Bond in white tux poster was out on 3 September 2015. There were 171 days, 5 months and 18 days, between the two. Poster 2 came out 53 days before the UK release date.
The NTTD poster with Bond in a black tux in front of a blue wall was out on October 5, so 171 days after that means 24 March for poster two, but that seems late to me as that is only 9 days before the UK 2 April release date. 53 days before 2 April 2020 is 9 February.
I recognise that NTTD's marketing has not followed Sony's approach for the last few films, as it is Universal now, but the February date gives an idea of when we might see another poster. The ongoing poster competition may alter the timetable again.
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
The gunbarrel poster was the teaser poster, not the official one-sheet. You're conflating the two. There's been no official one-sheet for NTTD yet.
Authority / dominance is a vital part of the James Bond character and amoungst other things height plays an important role in that.
My guess is that almost all pf the attention was towards the trailer and probably a very few people cared who was looking more dominantly in the brief moment they all stood up... ?:)
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
Yes, but situations like this has happened and will happen many times.
Bond, gun barrel.
https://www.007.com/new-uk-skyfall-poster-revealed/
Your example doesn't quite fit that description, does it?
..but I know you're a fan of moving the goalposts in here.
In any event, the prone version was indeed the one-sheet in the States.
No it doesn't. All that matters is when he is on the screen as Bond. Height or the lack there of has not been an issue for Craig in the films. Craig's screen presence, the way he moves/carries himself, and intense physicality are much more important than 2 or 3 more inches in height. Height can be easily faked in film but not those other attributes.
No official one-sheet for NTTD?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/OO7-No-Time-To-Die-Theatrical-Teaser-Poster-DS-27x40-Never-Used-Edge-Wear-Dents/254467625258?hash=item3b3f73d12a:g:6toAAOSwD5teCno2
It's true that how he moves, carries himself and not to mention acting ability is more important than a few inches. But that doesn't mean height isn't an issue. Would you have accepted a Bond standing 5' 2''? I think most people will agree hight matters for a Bond actor, it's more a question where the line is. You mention height and how a man carries himself is (among other factors) a product of how tall he is.
Camera tricks can be used to make a person look taller on screen, but that takes time and effort. With the other Bond actors it wasn't an issue. Another thing that wasn't an issue was the height of other cast members (not that way, it worked the other way with Connery and Lana Wood). There was probably no potential Bond girl out there who was rejected because they were too tall compared to the first five Bond actors. We don't know if any good potential Bond girls were rejected because they are too tall compared to Craig, but we certainly can't rule it out. Would Famke Jansen (5'' 11 1/2'') have been cast in GE if Brosnan was Craig's height? I doubt it. These things can be faked too, Ingrid Bergman was taller than Humpfrey Bogart, but it took time and effort. A tall leading man, perhaps especially if it's James Bond, means fewer problems for the filmmakers.
But he isn't 5'2. He's average height. It's not like he's very short. Just average. Which is fine by me.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
It's almost a pre-requisite for CEOS in the U.S. and western Europe, for instance, to be tall. There are always exceptions, but there's a lot of "halo effect" attached to who is the better leader based only on height. Taller people are wiser, smarter, stronger, etc. It's a reason why Napoleon -- who was actually of average height for his time period -- is considered an avatar of going beyond his station. Had he been taller, a lot of the criticisms ("Napoleon Complex") would have been dismissed.
Which isn't to say that shorter or average people can't rise to promenance. Of course they can. Hitler wasn't tall but average. One of the wealthiest men in the world, Jack Ma, is dimunitive. The most decorated American soldier of WW2, Audie Murphy, was only 5' 5".
But concerns about Craig's height come right out of this tradition, even though it would be absurd for a secret agent -- who is supposed to blend in and not stand out -- to be tall and obvious.
The funny thing is it's men who seem more concerned about Craig's height and appearance than women. I've yet to meet a woman who watches his films and says anything about either, though I don't doubt they exist.
Since Bond is fantasy -- no matter the pretensions about "realism" -- it's okay for him to be anywhere from 5'10" to 6' 3". If he goes below what is average height for someone in western Europe, that probably will be too much of a distraction for some moviegoers. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, but then I'm about 5' 9", so its actually refreshing to see someone of normal height on the screen.
That's a teaser poster (and part of a series of character posters, to boot). An official one-sheet will have a credit block on it. We haven't gotten one yet!
I was never referring to Craigs height in general.
In fact Craig is even 1 inch taller than the average American man.
I was just referring to the trailer event during which I noticed immediately how ridiculous he looked there by appearing as if he was the shortest person on stage and thereby looking like a midget, even though he is taller than all the other actors on stage including the female host.
All I was saying is that someone should have prevented that ridiculous scene from ever taking place.
Why did they have to wear shoes with such an extreme heel that even Léa Seydoux who is more than 5 inches shorter than Craig looks taller than him?
And Craig certainly has shoes in his closet that are a little bit higher than those he wore during that event.
No one cares. No one thought he looks ridiculous because he’s global movie star Daniel Craig and he didn’t look ridiculous.
Honestly, it’s like saying a female movie star looked ridiculous because she’s being interviewed by someone with bigger boobs. Adults don’t care about this stuff.
I also remember watching Layer Cake with a woman after we more or less knew Craig would be the next James Bond, but before the release of CR. Her reaction was: "Isn't he too short to be Bond?"
Saying "Adults don’t care about this stuff." when you're discussing with adults is talking down to us, or at least trying to. This discussion has been very civil and Nice. Let's continue that way.
It’s not civil though because it’s insulting someone’s appearance based on flawed logic. It’s nasty and it’s tiresome and it is rather ridiculous. Your friend was rather proven to be wrong, and that’s rather that. Cubby chose someone based on their looks rather than ability to be his second Bond and he was absolutely wrong too: invoking him as some kind of perfect great sage doesn’t really work (that’s if he even believed they had to be abnormally tall).
I really don’t think people do care: it’s only two people on this forum I’ve seen take issue with his appearance on that TV show.
Please take any further arguments along these increasingly personal lines to PM.
Thread temporarily closed to make the point. I'll reopen it soon.