/fa/ - Fashion

looks 42 at least. he wasn't particularly good looking either just had the status of being Bond.

He looks like a grown man and not a boy.

Notice the 5’oclock shadow and developed facial features, broad shoulders, and v-shaped chest.

Very awesome guy and handsome!

Can be forgiven for that horrible 50s era high waist suited pants in the hotel scene.

He’s a product of his time and culture as are we of today.

>>14043407
>Can be forgiven for that horrible 50s era high waist suited pants in the hotel scene.
Fuck you he looks good

>>14043407
>He looks like a grown man and not a boy.
29 in 6 months here and I know for a fact I have a baby face. I can't grow a beard to save my life either.
I appreciate how Connery looked even if he did look 10 years older than he really was.

He did age pretty quickly, his onscreen presence makes up for it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64m3hS0yOSU

>>14043397
>>14043418
I'm 29, and look more like 19, come to think of it. I also don't think I have impressive facial hair, which I normally shave clean every other day. As for how Sean Connery looked, men of his generation were probably more likely to look more robust and aged, contrasted against current standards in the West. Smoking and alcoholism were much more frequent during the early and middle years of the 20th century, and on an individual basis, genetics, diets, and lifestyle choices have their affects, whether slight or significant for certain kinds of people, then or now. Men looking as mature as more movie lead actors looked, around that time, is pretty infrequent, or even rare nowadays in Hollywood. I don't know enough about British cinema, but they probably go for actors with looks about the same as American Hollywood does. Here, in my post's picture, is George Lazenby in 1969 or 1970, not depicted in Bondian fashion, but rather Peacock Revolution late 1960s, early '70s fashion, an outgrowth of the earlier Mod and British Rock inspired fashions, more flashy and mainstream by 1968 and 1969. Lazenby also looked rather aged for the age of 29, by today's standards. Even if they may look decidedly above their numerical ages, by current fashion and health standards, they were handsome and talented enough during their younger and middle adult years to portray James Bond.

>>14043578
Here is George Lazenby in a screen still of On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

>>14043407
That's how pants are supposed to fit. Men got tricked into accepting shitty low-rise after that and they think it's being conservative to hate on high-rise today.

>>14043578
They also had good diets, exercise, healthy endocrine systems.
I once met an African who was in his 30s and literally looked like a boy because he was subjected to starvation as a child.
Not "boyish" he could absolutely have passed for 11.

>>14043416
Those are nice trousers. I don't regularly wear high-rise trousers, but my suits have them, just without pleats. I don't think they look quite as strange as some of the earlier fashions in trousers, compared with the late 1950s and early 1960s aesthetic that Sean Connery wears, in that scene. Trousers used to be wider during the late 1920s through the late 1950s, on average. Then, prior to around some point in the mid-1920s, probably descending from fashions of the late 19th century, they were often narrow, similar to many suit trousers popular this decade, although not as skinny as more extreme examples.

>>14043584
Interesting point. I don't know very much about diet standards of the West, during the times of the early James Bond films, but I have seen examples of both older and younger looking people for their ages, just as we see now, yet there appear to have been higher incidences of more robust and older features, to most people today. I think Africans tend to look younger than Europeans, in terms of their age number to appearance ratio, but that's a strange account of somebody who looked very young.