Re: Seamaster and Iago's endless rehashing Bond thread

**Seamaster** Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:42 pm

And I can also appreciate seeing the film in Imax. Had I have known the preview was only in Imax, I might have made the effort, but by default I wanted to stay away from the congestion.

**Iago** Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:13 pm

Understandable.

That was the same thing that they did with the prologue to The Dark Knight. Originally it only showed on true Imax screens (I cannot remember what movie it was attached to.) Eventually I am sure that it will be released online legitimately, or maybe they will do new special edition of the other two Nolan Batman movies and include it, like how The Dark Knight prologue was included on the Blu-Ray for Batman Begins. But if you get a chance to see the full feature on a true Imax screen, I would take it -- the prologue alone will be less than half as effective on any other kind of screen.

**Seamaster** Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:03 pm

Understood.

I have been careful not to search too much for it on the net, as I don't want anything to be spoiled.

**Iago** Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:08 pm

Let us just say that it ups the ante considerably from the heist that opened The Dark Knight. If you have any kind of vertigo, it may make you queasy -- we took my parents with us and my mother had to close her eyes!

**Seamaster** Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:06 am

One must assume a tall building or an airplane . . .

**Iago** Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:43 pm

One may assume many things. Time will tell.

Speaking of Imax and vertigo, the scenes at the building in Dubai really, really did my mother in!

**Seamaster** Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:44 am

It is a beautiful building.

**Iago** Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:34 pm

Pics!

http://news.moviefone.com/2012/02/01/james-bond-skyfall-first-image-daniel-craig_n_1246390.html

O.K., pic, but I will take what I can get.

**Seamaster** Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:43 am

I like that the new Bond is menacing, rather than suave.

**Iago** Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:07 pm

Well, that is the thing: all those who are complaining that he is not as suave or debonair as other Bonds are missing the fact that we have seen suave and debonair over and over and over again. It is high time to try something different. Did any of the suave ones have triceps like this?

http://news.moviefone.com/mike-ryan/skyfall-photo-james-bonds_b_1205618.html

**Seamaster** Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:16 am

Connery did, but that was in another life before he took the role of Bond.

**Iago** Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:57 am

Connery had mass in his youth, but I doubt that he ever had that kind of definition. Different era. Unfortunately, by the time he became Bond he had added bulk of a different kind!

**Seamaster** Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:25 pm

He was still in decent shape in Dr. No, though certainly not bulked up. He also had some decent definition when he competed in Mr. Universe, though you are right that it was a different era:

Seamaster and Iago's endless rehashing Bond thread - Page 7 319b3-Connery_universe_3rd

Seamaster and Iago's endless rehashing Bond thread - Page 7 319b3-Connery_universe_3rd

**Iago** Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:41 pm

That got me Google image searching, but there really are not any higher resolution versions, are there? It would be interesting to see his build at that time side-by-side with Craig's build in Casino Royale. I really do not think that Craig was much smaller, if at all. It really does show how body building has changed!

**Seamaster** Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:46 pm

Height will also play into it. Craig is 5' 10", Connery is 6' 2". Taller frames are more difficult to bulk up.

That said, I think Craig takes it for overall bulk, at least in the shoulders and arms, which will give Craig the illusion of being the bigger person.

And, no, I couldn't find anything higher res.

**Iago** Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:11 pm

Yes, it is as much about where as it is about how much. Craig put the bulk just where he needed it to look really massive. Same thing with Hardy. On the featurette on the Bronson Blu-Ray, the trainers talk about the fact that they would have needed years to add the mass of the real Bronson to Hardy's frame, so they concentrated on putting it where it look the most massive.

**Seamaster** Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:55 pm

Yeah, I'm not very smart about that. I think I tend to look smaller and weaker than I really am. For example, I tend to have a thick back, but not an overly wide back. Hmmm. Now you're going to make me rethink my approach to training . . .

**Iago** Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:59 pm

Unfortunately I have narrow shoulders, which creates some difficulties with looking powerful.

**Seamaster** Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:25 am

Genetics are a bitch.

**Iago** Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:33 am

Indeed. A large chest with narrow shoulders just does not look as good.

**Seamaster** Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:03 am

Mind you, narrow hips and a large . . .

Never mind.

**Iago** Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:58 am

Just as well. I might disappoint you.

**Seamaster** Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:30 pm

It's not me you have to worry about.

**Iago** Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:19 pm

Speaking of builds, did you ever get around to Warrior?

**Seamaster** Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:09 pm

Sadly, not yet. The cover alone is great inspiration for doing shrugs though.

Sponsored content