108 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

Personally I thought he looked a lot less physically impressive and Bond-like in Quantum of Solace - more like a starving wolf in the scenes where he where's wearing a tux or a suit. I'm not talking about the same definition he had in Casino Royale, just the muscle mass, like what Connery had (due him being an ex-Mr. Universe).

What do you think?

i don't think sc had as much muscle mass as dc does in either of his films.

I'd disagree:

Nice try, but SC was never that ripped in any of his Bond films.

[The Shark]

I'm talking about muscle not definition, or body hair for that matter.

[Odd Jobbies]

DC should definitely stay lean, as in QoS.

The thuggish musclebound-bricky look was ok for CR - bond's just left the SAS after all, a less refined department than the Secret Service. But now he should stay lean - even leaner and more wirey than QoS. Bond supposed to be trained to kill in the subtlest, cleverest, quickest ways (as in the cold climax of QoS' balcony fight). He's not trained to crush skulls between his glistening biceps.

As a spy, Bond's danger is in disguise after all. When does a hard working spy have the time or inclination to be so vein as to be obsessed with the gym and his healthy diet. Doesn't sound like Bond at all - he loves his carcinogenic indulgences.

If he bulks up again it'll disappointing and laughable.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 17 August 2009 - 08:36 AM.

[Judo chop]

I think we should have this same conversation for the Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan eras to give ourselves some perspective and a refreshed sense of gratitude.

No offense to the Shark, but I find the ‘either/or’ and ‘should’ components of the question to be most sophistic. He looked positively, absolutely great in both films. Give me either.

[Mr_Wint]

I think they should move away from that bulky look we saw in CR. Mind over muscles.

[Bucky]

I think he should keep his build close to that of Quantum of Solace as it seemed more realistic.

[Syndicate]

I think Criag should not have that muscle. Because James Bond is not someone who works out like a bodybuilder or a male model. His more of a fitness type.

[The Shark]

DC should definitely stay lean, as in QoS.

The thuggish musclebound-bricky look was ok for CR - bond's just left the SAS after all, a less refined department than the Secret Service. But now he should stay lean - even leaner and more wirey than QoS. Bond supposed to be trained to kill in the subtlest, cleverest, quickest ways (as in the cold climax of QoS' balcony fight). He's not trained to crush skulls between his glistening biceps.

As a spy, Bond's danger is in disguise after all. When does a hard working spy have the time or inclination to be so vein as to be obsessed with the gym and his healthy diet. Doesn't sound like Bond at all - he loves his carcinogenic indulgences.

If he bulks up again it'll disappointing and laughable.

I'm only asking him to bulk up to the weight of Sean Connery in his early films, not a baby oiled, ripped body builder. I just thought compared to all of the previous Bonds, when he took his top off in QOS, he looked far less imposing or threatening than even Roger Moore.
Bond shouldn't be an incredible hulk, around - he should be 170-190 lbs like the previous actors, not the mere 150 in QOS.

That's my reasoning for you, and no I don't necessary want him to regain the ripped physique in CR, just the weight.

Edited by The Shark, 17 August 2009 - 07:45 PM.

[karligula]

I think he was more than 150lbs in QoS, I'm 5'10 and 150lbs and I'm skinny compared to him!

[Judo chop]

when he took his top off in QOS, he looked far less imposing or threatening than even Roger Moore

That was Roger Moore stuck between Craig's pecs. Didn't you see him?

[jaguar007]

I never really felt Moore, Dalton or Brosnan were fit enough to realistically pull off the physical aspects of what Bond is supposed to be able to do.

Those who think Craig looks like a "Hulked up Bodybuilder", have never spent any time in a gym. Craig in CR was really not THAT big. He is big, yes, but in proportion. He shows definition which gives the illusion of being bigger than you really are. Look at the scenes of him in clothes - he does not hulk hulking in them, in fact he looks to have a similar build to a young Connery. Connery is a big man, and bigger than Craig, but he did not have the definition Craig has in in Bond movies.

[The Shark]

when he took his top off in QOS, he looked far less imposing or threatening than even Roger Moore

That was Roger Moore stuck between Craig's pecs. Didn't you see him?

Where was Pierce Brosnan stuck then?

I'm simply asking for CRAIG to regain the SIZE he gained in Casino Royale, not the DEFINITION or bodybuilder-ness - to be physically comparable to CONNERY, a relatively large man.

Edited by The Shark, 17 August 2009 - 08:05 PM.

[Judo chop]

Where was Pierce Brosnan stuck then?

In all of his films, somewhere between Moore and Dalton.

[Odd Jobbies]

DC should definitely stay lean, as in QoS.

The thuggish musclebound-bricky look was ok for CR - bond's just left the SAS after all, a less refined department than the Secret Service. But now he should stay lean - even leaner and more wirey than QoS. Bond supposed to be trained to kill in the subtlest, cleverest, quickest ways (as in the cold climax of QoS' balcony fight). He's not trained to crush skulls between his glistening biceps.

As a spy, Bond's danger is in disguise after all. When does a hard working spy have the time or inclination to be so vein as to be obsessed with the gym and his healthy diet. Doesn't sound like Bond at all - he loves his carcinogenic indulgences.

If he bulks up again it'll disappointing and laughable.

I'm only asking him to bulk up to the weight of Sean Connery in his early films, not a baby oiled, ripped body builder. I just thought compared to all of the previous Bonds, when he took his top off in QOS, he looked far less imposing or threatening than even Roger Moore.
Bond shouldn't be an incredible hulk, around - he should be 170-190 lbs like the previous actors, not the mere 150 in QOS.

That's my reasoning for you, and no I don't necessary want him to regain the ripped physique in CR, just the weight.

Fair enough. IMO i think he looked pukka in QoS - still pretty ripped, far more so than Connery. I thought he had a poser's body in CR - not far off Lou Ferrigno.

[Germanlady]

Please - in all fairness - can anybody tell me, why they place SC so high in the body department? He is taller than DC, yes, but apart from that - a LOT less muscular IMO

[JimmyBond]

when he took his top off in QOS, he looked far less imposing or threatening than even Roger Moore

That was Roger Moore stuck between Craig's pecs. Didn't you see him?

Where was Pierce Brosnan stuck then?

I'm simply asking for CRAIG to regain the SIZE he gained in Casino Royale, not the DEFINITION or bodybuilder-ness - to be physically comparable to CONNERY, a relatively large man.

I'm still not sure what you're asking. I thought Craig looked fine in QoS, much more physically imposing than Roger Moore.

[The Shark]

Moore was about 190 lbs, Craig in QOS was apparently 152. Big difference.



= Craig in CR?

"You musht be joking!".

Edited by The Shark, 17 August 2009 - 09:12 PM.

[Germanlady]

So a fat man with more weight is better than a ripped man who weights less I am not saying Roger was fat - just to make the point.

[Bucky]

i feel like the way craig was in quantum of solace made him better prepared for the demanding shoot since he was more agile. so in addition to him appearing more realistic it also should reduce the chances of him suffering an injury during filming and i want his knees to stay good for a long time.

[The Shark]

No a muscular but less defined Bond is better than a more defined Bond who weighs less, for believability's sake. Especially considering Bond's unhealthy diet, smoking and drinking habits.

He wouldn't have time to spend ages on the treadmill like QOS Bond.

[The Shark]

No a muscular but less defined Bond is better than a more defined Bond who weighs less, for believability's sake. Especially considering Bond's unhealthy diet, smoking and drinking habits.

He wouldn't have time to spend ages on the treadmill like QOS Bond.

[The Shark]

No a muscular but less defined Bond is better than a more defined Bond who weighs less, for believability's sake. Especially considering Bond's unhealthy diet, smoking and drinking habits.

He wouldn't have time to spend ages on the treadmill like QOS Bond.

[JimmyBond]

But he was muscular in QoS. He certainly had more muscle mass than Brosnan (and I'm not tring to put him down, he got in great shape for his four films).

[Tybre]

Moore was about 190 lbs, Craig in QOS was apparently 152. Big difference.

Roger Moore is also 6'1". Daniel Craig is 5'10". If Roger Moore is to be healthy he should way more than Daniel Craig regardless.

[The Shark]

Still, the weight difference may be largely down to height, therefore Craig should work harder to make up for that difference by gaining weight.

[danslittlefinger]

No. I think he looked better in QoS and I think Craig felt he did too.
Much more of a fluid mover when he is a more lithe. Visually better too. Not so much of the Michelin Man thing.

[Germanlady]

Please - in all fairness - can anybody tell me, why they place SC so high in the body department? He is taller than DC, yes, but apart from that - a LOT less muscular IMO

Why is this, that nobody answers my post and states the obvious - that SC isn´t very muscular or well defined compared to many actors these days. He was fine for his days, but still comparing him and making him out to be a role model is ridiculous IMO.

Even more so, when asking DC to build up more, when his body is so much better as it is already.

Edited by Germanlady, 18 August 2009 - 06:00 AM.

[The Shark]

Please - in all fairness - can anybody tell me, why they place SC so high in the body department? He is taller than DC, yes, but apart from that - a LOT less muscular IMO

Why is this, that nobody answers my post and states the obvious - that SC isn´t very muscular or well defined compared to many actors these days. He was fine for his days, but still comparing him and making him out to be a role model is ridiculous IMO.

Even more so, when asking DC to build up more, when his body is so much better as it is already.

Why Sean Connery? For one he was a big and muscular man, and ultimate the James Bond. Particularly more muscular in Thunderball where you can how incredibly wide his shoulders and upper body were.
All I'm asking is for Craig to regain his physical and Bond prowess that he lost with QOSs.

[Germanlady]

Why Sean Connery? For one he was a big and muscular man, and ultimate the James Bond. Particularly more muscular in Thunderball where you can how incredibly wide his shoulders and upper body were.
All I'm asking is for Craig to regain his physical and Bond prowess that he lost with QOSs.

He was tall and had wide shoulders, but was NOT muscular and definitely not his chest and his arms are just thin - maybe use some glasses.

Edited by Germanlady, 18 August 2009 - 07:39 AM.

[Germanlady]

So - here is a pic from Thunderball. And this is what excites you so much? You are easily satisfied then.