1962: a little more hair.
1974, slightly less muscle, far more hair.
007 today has less hair, because it's not the 60s or 70s anymore.
Last edited by W. Rabbit; 11/28/2012 1:10pm at .
Thats easy for you to say...you're living the dream!!!
Originally Posted by Mr. Machette
I'm pretty sure I hate that guy.
Combatives training log.
Gezere: paraphrase from Bas Rutten, Never escalate the level of violence in fight you are losing. :D
kettlebell workouts give you “cardio
without the dishonour of aerobics”.
Originally Posted by It is Fake
That Daniel Craig makes his willy tingle?
50 cent is famous for exemplifying an unfair stereotype. (Black people as simple and brutish) I presented him as a character who is not as possitive a role model as 007. (Despite them both being fit, successful and desireable to many women.)
Originally Posted by Permalost
He's not a character you might say? Well, I'm aware that his stage persona is based upon his real persona, but it is still a dramatized projection of his ego. A detailed caricature of his id, but not the real person. For example; I bet he comes across with far more intelligence in a personal conversation than he does when mubling the lyrics to "In Da Club" while pretending to dry hump an invisible woman.
Though they do both share a perpensity for intoxication and womanizing. ;)
Though to be fair to Mr. "Fitty", here he is looking dapper in a tux:
"Shaken, not sturrrred."
Last edited by Mr. Machette; 11/28/2012 5:39pm at .
I don't want to see what's in his spedo. I just want to have the effect on women that he has when in said spedo.
Originally Posted by ChenPengFi
I kind of agree with you. Certanily, the belief which states that this particular time period is somewhat analogue of the 15th century humanist renaissance is quite widespread, and that belief itself is evidence of a significant similarity between an important part of 15th century humanist's ideology and certain aspects of the "spirit" of our times: 1) the belief that certain ways of the old which pertain to the true essence of man are being reenacted and improved upon by the contemporary, 2) the belief that the latter was actually the case for 15th century humanism, 3) the projection of the modern's ideals onto a distant past's ideals, and the blurring of the intelectual history from which said modern ideals emerged (in other words, the omission of the in-betweens), resulting in the appearence of a "return of the ancient ways".
Originally Posted by Mr. Machette
Oh, and yeah: Even though I believe that Bogart > All, the old fart's a douche. Working out takes such little time when compared to reading a book that his conclussion should be rephrased as: for each ripped muscle there is a passage not re-read for the third time in a wholelottapages tome.
PD: Been lurking the forum for years, i'll be around noob town to check in.
Agreed. A big parralel I draw between the old renaisance and our current times is the Gutenberg printing press and the internet.
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think of it so much as a return to the old ways as much as I see it being the widespread dissemination of knowlege to far flung corners it had never before reached. Creating an unprecedented exchange of ideas and evolution of thought akin to what happened when the written word became accessible to all.
In Guttenbergs time it was the spread of litteracy and the sea change of thought that followed.
In our own time we are already litterate (mostly) but the great societies of the world remained somewhat isolated form each other by geography, language, culture, politics and the simple fact that it would take years of study for people from either side to truly exchange ideas and understand each other. Even then they would only be able to serve as interpretors trying to explain an alien culture to their uninitiates fellows back home.
Now those barriers no longer exist. A human being I might have never had any interaction with, thousands of miles across oceans from my home, of an ethnicity I may have never even heard of, can log onto youtube and instantly call me a ******.
Last edited by Mr. Machette; 11/28/2012 8:27pm at .
Eh, this wasn't the anemic treatise against physical culture I was expecting from the excerpt. All he really says, with some annoying hyperbole meant to be a little inflammatory, is that he was upset that the Bond of Skyfall triumphed physically all the time rather than having to outsmart a much more powerful Oddjob or something like that.
I haven't seen the movie so I don't know if that's true. (I want to see it, life's just gotten in the way.) I will say as someone who does put in his time in the gym and very occasionally the ring, I do find the intellectual triumphs generally more satisfying. I mean, who was the cooler victor in Diggstown, Lou Gosset Jr. or James Woods?
I know the best answer to that is that they both represent one complete person but I just don't find the notion of saying Woods that offensive.
On a Jamesbondian note: isn't asking for a martini "shaken, not stirred" kinda less classy than assuming that a fancy bartender would make a martini in a shaker? To me, it kinda sounds like a guy in a tuxedo requesting "Wine: bottle, not box."
EDIT: wow, been researching; didn't realize there were reasons on both sides.
Last edited by Permalost; 11/29/2012 2:13pm at .
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO