Vincent Vega Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 It wouldn't hurt if they let his hair grow a bit too.Russian KGB operatives must have mandatory, standard crew cut in 21st century, comrade.At least it's his real hair. >Was watching Thunderball last night. Love the intro - Bond decking the "widow", jetpack and good ol' DB5. Quality.Also like the way he chucked the roses over that guy and later on when he stole a grape from the fruit display. Small things but funny. Thunderball's pre-title sequence is one of my favorites in the series. Fast paced and awesome.In Dr. No and From Russia With Love, it's Connery's real hair too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Bond Posted March 26, 2013 Author Share Posted March 26, 2013 Craig has had three films under his belt so far with his real hair, so he wins.Joking aside, I was actually really surprised when I was a kid to find out Connery had had some help in the hair department for nearly every film. I remember seeing some production stills from Diamonds where Connery didn't have a toupee on and couldn't believe how little he had on the top. Even by You Only Live Twice he was quite receded. He looks badass bald though.I do think he might have had a bit of help in Dr. No and From Russia With Love because both Connery biographies I've read claimed he started balding in his twenties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Craig has had three films under his belt so far with his real hair, so he wins.Joking aside, I was actually really surprised when I was a kid to find out Connery had had some help in the hair department for nearly every film. I remember seeing some production stills from Diamonds where Connery didn't have a toupee on and couldn't believe how little he had on the top. Even by You Only Live Twice he was quite receded. He looks badass bald though.I do think he might have had a bit of help in Dr. No and From Russia With Love because both Connery biographies I've read claimed he started balding in his twenties.What I've read is that in No and Russia with Love, that is just 100% his real hair. He slowly thinned out after.You figure this was him in 1965:Dr. No was shot nearly half a decade before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Bond Posted March 26, 2013 Author Share Posted March 26, 2013 (edited) Half a decade? It was only 3 years between the two. Your point still remains though. He probably starting thinning by Goldfinger. You can really see the difference in that picture. Edited March 26, 2013 by James Bond Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 (edited) Half a decade? It was only 3 years between the two. Your point still remains though. He probably starting thinning by Goldfinger. You can really see the difference in that picture.19731977 Edited March 26, 2013 by Vincent Vega Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facekicker Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Connery was only 32 in Dr. No. I'm 30 right now and he looks old enough in that film to be my old man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Bond Posted March 26, 2013 Author Share Posted March 26, 2013 I think that's part of why he aged so well. He already had a mature, older look to him at 30 but didn't really change all that much beyond that minus the hair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I think that's part of why he aged so well. He already had a mature, older look to him at 30 but didn't really change all that much beyond that minus the hair.If you look at a picture of him at say 70, die his hair and put a wig on him, he could easily pass for 50 or even late 40s. It's like he stopped aging around his 40s.On topic, what do you guys feel about Never Say Never Again? Ignoring the fact that it's unofficial for a moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyman Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I think that's part of why he aged so well. He already had a mature, older look to him at 30 but didn't really change all that much beyond that minus the hair.On topic, what do you guys feel about Never Say Never Again? Ignoring the fact that it's unofficial for a moment.I'd be ok with never seeing it again. It's just a poorly made film, imo. I suppose the fact that it's missing some of the "official" Bond stuff doesn't help.Also, that theme song is terrible. Like one of the worst songs I've ever heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 And 1967's Casino Royale? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I am pretty sure Connery wore a hairpiece in every single Bond film.Someday I will finish 1967's Casino Royale. I've only made it about, oh. 20 minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) Edited March 27, 2013 by dalsh327 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) I am pretty sure Connery wore a hairpiece in every single Bond film.Someday I will finish 1967's Casino Royale. I've only made it about, oh. 20 minutes.This is Connery just before the Bond years. Edited March 27, 2013 by Vincent Vega Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Missing George Lazenby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Bond Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 George isn't missing from the first photo dalsh posted though. I think that's part of why he aged so well. He already had a mature, older look to him at 30 but didn't really change all that much beyond that minus the hair.If you look at a picture of him at say 70, die his hair and put a wig on him, he could easily pass for 50 or even late 40s. It's like he stopped aging around his 40s.On topic, what do you guys feel about Never Say Never Again? Ignoring the fact that it's unofficial for a moment.It's just a bad movie in general. Connery is really the only reason to watch it. He turns in a good performance. Otherwise, it's a poorly paced and poorly directed film. The first half is decently watchable, but the climax is awful. As mentioned, the theme song is just a terrible song in general and ruins an otherwise fun opening scene. Edward Fox is a terrible M and from a retrospective view I am reminded of Jim Carrey's Grinch every time I see his performance. Alec McCowen is okay as Q. Klaus is a weak Largo. Max von Sydow is a good Blofeld actually. The Bond girls are forgettable but not horrible. Fatima Blush is almost a precursor to Xenia Onatopp.And 1967's Casino Royale?I've only watched it once and I'm still confused as to what I watched. The 1954 version is enjoyable and the only reason I own the DVD of the '67 one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 It is just a piss poor remake of Thunderball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerage5 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Just bumping because...uh...why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Man, I am so burned out on James Bond. Ever since MGM rained on our parade. Daniel Craig will be older than The Pope by Bond 25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Bond Posted April 4, 2013 Author Share Posted April 4, 2013 Yeah, MGM fucked us on new things to talk about. I was expecting 2014 to be a certainty which would mean soon we'd have confirmation on a script, a director, and so on. EON has even been quiet since the MGM announcement, minus the news about still holding out for Mendes. We might be waiting a while.On a side note, I sold my Ultimate Edition DVDs since I certainly can't see myself watching them when Bond 50 is on the same shelf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 How much did you get out of them?I wouldn't mind the wait if the next film is good. But a Bond every two years is kind of a tradition. Then again, it creates fatigue and that is what lead to the failure of the Dalton films. People were sick of Bond. Four years was enough between QoS and Skyfall. I don't see why they can't just hire another director. MGM isn't use to making so much money so they are playing it safe and hope to get Mendes. Freaking dumb idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Bond Posted April 4, 2013 Author Share Posted April 4, 2013 $60 for the four volumes. I probably could have got a little more out of eBay but it wouldn't have been much. Just traded them in at a local entertainment exchange. Got me a tank of gas. Two can lead to burnout, so I think three is a reasonable number. My worry is just that Craig isn't getting any younger so you'd think they'd want his last two to be as soon as possible.I think you're right - it's probably more MGM than EON. EON would likely be game for a new director and a 2014 release but MGM is probably trying to play it safe by holding out for Mendes and pushing the release date, especially after Skyfall's success. I'm willing to bet there's negotiations going on between both parties right now as to what the best plan of action is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 At the rate their going he'd be over 50 by Bond 25. If he can pull it off, fine. Cruise is 50 and Mission Impossible V is in development. Moore was 57. Sean did fine at 53. Just have to make it believable that Bond is still in his early 40's.I am predicting at 2016 release. It sucks but MGM has final say. They want another Skyfall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerage5 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 2016 is fucking ridiculous. There's no reason for another four year stall without any of the bankruptcy bullshit.It's no wonder this thread fell back to page 3, we're all pissed off about MGM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 It's going to be a matter of when they're able to get it all together. It prob. will be in 2015 depending on how soon they get all the pieces together. Late 2004 if they get the details worked out over the summer. I usually give a big budget film about 2 years (give or take) from the time it's officially announced to the premiere. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/1c359f20-864d-11e2-ad73-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2N1UHrhJ0 When I meet Logan, he is about to be whisked away on a 007 assignment: he is writing the next two films and has to zip off for a meeting.I think doing back to back scripts means Daniel Craig is going to be tied up for a while, but getting a lot of money out of it. He should get the Dragon Tattoo movies out of the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerage5 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 It's going to be a matter of when they're able to get it all together. It prob. will be in 2015 depending on how soon they get all the pieces together. Late 2004 if they get the details worked out over the summer. I usually give a big budget film about 2 years (give or take) from the time it's officially announced to the premiere. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/1c359f20-864d-11e2-ad73-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2N1UHrhJ0 When I meet Logan, he is about to be whisked away on a 007 assignment: he is writing the next two films and has to zip off for a meeting.I think doing back to back scripts means Daniel Craig is going to be tied up for a while, but getting a lot of money out of it. He should get the Dragon Tattoo movies out of the way. are they going forward with the rest of the Dragon Tattoo films? Last I heard it wasn't looking good... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.