Who were the least muscular Bonds?
osris
Posts: 558MI6 Agent
I would say Brosnan, Lazenby and Dalton.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It's been so long since I saw OHMSS I can't remember if Lazenby showed his chest or not.
1. GoldenEye 2. Goldfinger 3. Skyfall 4. OHMSS 5. TWINE
Yes, Moore had the bulk, which made him look good in a suit, but he was approaching flabby in some of the Bond films.
I don't believe Moore brought the bulk. He had good bone structure and a large rib cage. Which gave him a good Frame to wear the suits he did. Connery had more muscle than Moore, smaller rib cage filled in with actual muscle. Just the way I see it based on watching the movies and screen shots from the movies.
Connery was placed in the Mr Universe comp in the late 50s so he must have had some vestiges of muscularity
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Craig
Connery
Dalton
Brosnan
Lazenby
Moore
(Just a rough guess)
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
That's pretty much the exact order I would have gone with. Part of me is undecided on which order Lazenby and Brosnan would be in. Lazenby was a pretty fit guy, slim but fit.
TB
OHMSS
TLD/LTK
TND
Craig is very nicely built for a short guy.
End of story. :007)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Craig
Connery
Lazenby
Brosnan
Dalton
Moore
It's all gone a bit ginger beer round here hasn't it?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
In a world where more and more people choose martial arts as their hobby or sport, it's safe to assume many of Bond's enemies will be very well rounded fighters that have also been trained to kill. Brute force may not be gentlemanly, but it may be necessary to defeat an enemy who's as highly trained as you are.
Also, I believe his level of muscularity adds to the realism of the rebooted series. If he were as slight as some previous Bonds, he would be spending most of his time in the hospital recovering from injuries he wasn't built to take. His muscles act as an armor and with the trouble he gets into, he could use as much armor as possible.
Just my take though.
I can see this sliding into yet another angle at which to dig DC from.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
But he’s not the "perfect" figure for Bond is he; otherwise all the previous Bond actors would have been his build, had his hair colour and lack of charisma.
I think he is a good actor, by the way, but miscast for Bond.
absoloutely agree, Bond is strong but not a body builder and he is supposed to be a spy/secret agent, Craig looks too much like a russian hitman, great actor, grateful he bought the series back but we need that charisma and charm because i feel it's lack has been felt allot more as each film rolled on.
The charisma bit I can get though, and I think we've seen more comedy quips in SF, perhaps bond 24 will bring more charm into the mix?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I hardly see DC's physique as that of a bodybuilder, more someone who is lean, low bodyfat, well trained & looks like a professional in his field. I'm not sure where the eastern european hitman similarity comes in tbh.
IMO a number of the Bonds are dissimilar ... You could hardly compare the demeanour, physicality, stature & charm of say Connery, Moore and Dalton could you? Just seems to me that DC is the one to get the pasting. Isn't he playing the part & character he's been 'asked' to after all??
Yes we do. Everyone expected Craig’s Bond to eventually reach this state, as was hinted at by the producers when CR came out. But we have not had the goods delivered after two more films.
If it doesn’t, what will your thoughts be then? Is there a point for you when you will lose patience with the reboot’s lack of “Bond charisma”?
I’m not blaming Craig for his performance, more the screenwriters and producers. It’s not Craig’s fault he’s been given run-of-the-mill action film scripts to deal with.
Out of interest, you haven't liked CR or SF?
I liked them as action films, and as such they were of the more “intelligent” variety.
SF made an attempt to reconnect with the core Bond audience, presumably recognising that the reboot was a mistake, and alienated too many Bond fans, which the box office does need as well as general cinemagoers that are indifferent to Bond, and who see each new Bond film as any other action film.
Eon has now, I suspect, realised its mistake, and will from now on try to remodel the reboot to satisfy the core Bond fans, who are really the ones who matter, not the indifferent general cinemagoer the reboot was designed to pander to.