Lakov Bond?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sagan

Active member
While I'm on a roll, I thought I'd take a shot at another actor. He's the actor who now plays James Bond, Daniel Craig.

Now, it's a bit ironic that Craig plays an agent who usually comes into conflict with Russian villains, because the guy has the most Slavic-looking face since Charles Bronson! And I know Bronson isn't really Slavic, being from Lithuania, but he's got the look.

Admittedly, Craig hasn't got the black Slavic hair, (it's almost ginger and that's another non-Bond feature), but he has the little eyes, the tiny chin, and the short, muscular stature of the quintessential Russian peasant. Whatever possessed the Bond producers to pick him for the role of a tall, dark-haired, suave Anglo secret agent is a mystery.

He can fight, and he's got the moves, but when he fights he looks like a stocky Asian karate master in a suit instead of karate uniform. And although Craig tries to make his voice favour the bass notes, it's just not up to it. I can imagine him being quite squeaky if he was agitated.

So, why did they choose Craig, I wonder?
 
Because the stars in the universe aligned for him and they gave him a shot (especially after looking at some of his past work), and continued with him after Casino Royale was a success.

Henry Cavill was supposedly the first choice in 2005/2006, but they decided he was too young to play the character.

(And I do agree about Craig's European appearance.)
 
I think Bond was a tired and worn out vehicle. Craigy boi subverted expectations.
 
I know this may get a couple of Molotov Cocktails lobbed at me, but... Sean Connery will always be known for James Bond, but Craig IS the modern Bond. He took the character into the 21st century. I actually like the slightly edgier, rougher angle.

And I say all of this as growing up watching James Bond on network TV on Sunday nights(Ooo... Special! Sunday Night Movie), with usually either Sean Connery or Roger Moore.
 
Sagan, buddy, you should've quit while you were ahead. The central premise of your post is to put it mildly - insane. You should do two things. First, go to an eye doctor. Second, go grab a book - with photographs - about how human beings look like.

Slavs don't look A THING like what you describe. Not. A. Single. Thing. Example: Slavs don't have "black hair" as you claim. That is pure unadulterated BS. Here is a map of prevalence of blond hair in Europe:

https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/214-the-blonde-map-of-europe

Note where there is most blond hair - Scandinavia, of course, and around the Baltic - especially note Poland, which is a Slavic country. There are more blonds in Poland than in Germany. The distribution of light hair is smaller the further south you go - and look at the map - the blond areas are all firmly Slavic, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Russia - all more than further south in Europe. The largest number of light-haired people in the world is in Europe. And of Europe, the largest is in the north - and that encompasses Slavic countries, in distinction to the darker hair. The exact opposite is true - way to go, Sagan! Anybody who is from Europe, knows that there are huge numbers of blonds in Russia. It's very frequent to see the stereotypical "blond Ivan" (such a cliche, it's this even used in the Rocky movies, blond Russian played by Dolph Lundgren) - heck, look at Putin! You couldn't be more wrong. Slavic with black hair? Just no. Very, very rare. French, Italian, Spanish, Greek with black hair - OK. Slavic - NO. These are facts, not opinions - look at the map - to quote the commentary from that link "Ukraine, which for the largest part is as blonde as most of central and eastern Europe (all the way down to Georgia)." Central and Eastern Europe is firmly Slavic. Another quote: "The blonder area in northern Italy might reflect a larger Germanic, Celtic and/or Slavic component of the local population" - any time you see a blond or lighter haired Italian, it's because they have Slavic or Germanic roots. Black haired Slavs? LOL - you know nothing. Exact opposite.

Btw., I along with tens of thousands of Americans moved for a few years to Prague, the Czech Republic in early 90's when Communism fell, so I know that part of the world quite well... Slavic with black hair - LOL! The typical Slav has mousy blond hair. Black - almost never.

And I don't know why you bring in Charlie Bronson as Slav looking, since he wasn't Slav looking and in fact was not even an ethnic Slav. This again, is not opinion, it is fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bronson#Early_life_and_war_service

He had Lipka Tatar roots. Lipka Tatars are not Slavs. They were Mongols. Yes, they settled in Slavic countries, as well as Lithuania and neighboring areas, but were not Slavs any more than Gypsies who are all over Europe (or Roma, as they are sometimes called). Would you pick a Gypsy/Roma person from Sweden and say that that's an example of Viking ethnic look, because the Gypsy/Roma was from Sweden? That's what you did with Bronson and Lithuania (which is not a Slavic people either, btw.). And Bronson looked Tatar, not Slavic - and btw., even he didn't have black hair, he had medium to light brown hair.

Slavic people short? The exact opposite is true - they belong to the second tallest group of people in Europe:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...t-in-Europe-Source-See-Table-1_fig3_264624478

Your description of the Slavic look is simply the exact opposite of reality:

https://www.quora.com/What-specific-facial-features-are-considered-Slavic

Now that we've established that you know nothing about how Slavic people look, I recommend that you pick up anthropology books, so you can educate yourself.

Let's move on to the serious problem with your eyes. Daniel Craig does not have "little eyes" or "tiny chin". Do you actually know how Daniel Craig looks? Again, as in the case of the Slavs - the exact opposite is true - because Daniel Craig has unusually large eyes. And, as another humiliating fact for you - his eyes are larger than other Bond actors - Connery, Moore, Brosnan, Dalton, Lazenby (Aussie!). Sagan, buddy, ophthalmologist - pronto, emergency services, car with a siren! You are either blind, or going blind. And no, he does not have a tiny chin - again, look. I must recommend a good guide dog for you - no, Sagan, buddy, that's not a pony, that's called an elephant. Eye doctor - quick.

Daniel Craig - little eyes, small chin:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/428404983273713442/

And no, Daniel Craig does NOT look Slavic either. Eye doctor for Sagan - it's an emergency.

It's one thing to have a different subjective opinion - as about Nic Cage's acting and what motivates Mel Gibson, is he to your eye insecure etc., - we can agree to disagree. It's subjective. But facts? Nope. There is only being correct, or not about facts. You are simply incorrect - and wildly so - and that can easily be established, as I did by providing actual links. I recommend that you express your opinions freely, but that you research your facts carefully. You have failed ignominiously at the latter.
 
Last edited:
Run&Gun said:
I know this may get a couple of Molotov Cocktails lobbed at me, but... Sean Connery will always be known for James Bond, but Craig IS the modern Bond. He took the character into the 21st century. I actually like the slightly edgier, rougher angle.

And I say all of this as growing up watching James Bond on network TV on Sunday nights(Ooo... Special! Sunday Night Movie), with usually either Sean Connery or Roger Moore.
Click to expand...

It is a different type of movie for a different type of audience.

I know you are saying the “modern” Bond, but it is also a different bond.

The original SC bond was campy, and there was more objective sexism, but less violence. As time goes on, i don’t think the DC bond will age as well. It is too much of the time. Even if they did try to humanize trhe Bond franchise, it is still just a humanized Bond film, and not a truly human film. That makes it less timeless in my opinion.


The original Bonds were so tired, that satire inevitebly replaced it. I can hardly tell the difference between the old bond films and austin powers.
 
OldCorpse. LOL. What a post...and I don't read long posts!

I don't know why you would think Slavs almost never have black hair.

The author of the Quora article (you linked) himself mentions he has dark hair (which I'm assuming is black).

"I myself is a East European slav with dark, thick hair and brownish eyes which goes with my tan."

_____

I also immediately thought of the Eastern Russians and found another Quora article sharing similar thoughts:

"Black hair color is actually pretty common, especially the further you go East. Russia has assimilated many mongoloid tribes and in Far East of Russia it’s very common for people to have just a dash of Asian features, such as dark hair. Frankly, being a lifelong Russian, I struggle to tell you which is more common, since you see all of the different hair colors equally often, and it’s really hard to say which is more common."

https://www.quora.com/Do-most-Russi...Why-is-black-hair-color-less-common-in-Russia

_____

With that said...

If you examine Sagan's words carefully, I think he's just generalizing a bit (based on his own stereotypical assertions) and it's nothing to get too worked up about.

After his intro - in the first short paragraph - he only mentions his face, which indeed could be very Slavic-looking. I am Polish and although dirty blonde myself, I have over a dozen cousins in Poland who have a similar face. I've lived in the country. And traveled a lot as well.

And then in the next paragraph - although he mentions Slavic hair - he's actually describing (in his opinion) one Russian stereotype, which can/may look like his description. If he said: ...but he has the little eyes, the tiny chin, and the short, muscular stature of all Russians or Slavs then I would beg to differ as well.

I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt...
 
NorBro - I just don't understand this. It's actually bizarre. Straight up bizarre. It's like some kind of mental block or something. Why in the world, do you use one word, claim it is a different word, and then use a quotation to bolster your case, which actually contradicts what you say. It's very, very strange.

There is light hair. There is dark hair. There is white hair and super light blond hair and there is black hair. Sagan said BLACK hair. Do you comprehend that BLACK hair is not the same thing as DARK hair? Dark hair comes in many shades. Black hair is black. You say the Quora author "himself mentions that he has thick black hair". And then you provide a link which proves no such thing, but the opposite. ""I myself is a East European slav with dark, thick hair and brownish eyes which goes with my tan."[my bold, OC]. What is it with you guys? Have you ever worked in makeup? Hair styling? Done photoshop? Travelled any? Do you not understand dark vs black distinction in hair or human phenotypes in anthropology? There is a ton of shades of dark - I would never, nor would a makeup person, or an anthropologist ever, ever say "dark" when I meant "black". It's totally different. Have you travelled through Europe? I see dark-haired Germans, Poles, Russians, etc. but extremely rarely (practically never) black haired ones - although I do see black haired folks in Spain, Italy, Greece, even France. Vast difference. Vast. Also regionally, you'll see Gypsied/Roma in all countries including Slavic countries, and yes, they often have BLACK hair. But the Slavs? Nope. Sagan said BLACK. Words have meaning. If you go to a makeup or hair person, I assure you they too would take it very differently if you said "dark hair" vs "black hair". But regardless of my opinion, based on my experiences, or your opinion, or Sagan's opinion or Joe-Sh|t-The-Ragman's opinion there are facts out there. Anthropological facts. I linked a map for you. That's not anecdote or my opinion, those are scientific surveys. What's there to argue over? Hair shade has a distribution. Slavic nations fall under "light colored" distribution - there is nothing to argue over. To then say that Slavs have black hair, when the opposite is true - mostly light haired - is just straight up 180 degree opposite. Argue opinion, but argue facts? Weird.

And yes, Sagan mentiones Craig's face. But I strongly disagree that Craig's face is "very Slavic-looking" - no it is not. Btw. he also mentions that it's the most Slavic looking face since Charlie Bronson - do you see ANY facial resemblance between Craig and Bronson? It's like some kind of mental distortion. There is no resemblance. And oh, btw., as I DOCUTMENTED (not a matter of opinion) Bronson was not an ethnic Slav. So what are you guys babbling about? Argue opinion, don't argue facts. And the supposed ""stereotype" of a certain Russian type" is recognizable as no such thing - where is this supposed stereotype? He mentions short - which is true for Craig, but "short" does not describe the statistically typical Slav - again, I provide the data a chart with height distribution as showing Slavs falling into the tall range, not short - what, are you going to argue the data? Argue opinion, but don't argue facts. All we got here is a bunch of opinion that happens to be directly contradicted by fact.

I'm sorry, but I guess I don't see the point of throwing around statements that are demonstrably false. If you want to dispense personal opinions, fine, we all know what that's worth and can be evaluated on those grounds. But if you make assertions as to facts, such as what a typical phenotype of an ethnic group looks like, you don't get to do that without being challenged. There are statistical methods anthropologists use for classification purposes - and when distribution of characteristics shows mostly (mostly being statistical0) "light haired", and "tall" you don't get to say "black, short". Words have meaning. Respect that.
 
I actually edited my post while you were replying to add that I'm assuming he meant black hair in that one part. But what about the second comment about the BLACK hair? What are your thoughts?

There is no sense to continue to argue about it, but in my mind, there is no doubt about his face. I wish I could take you to Poland right this second to show you. I think you're very wrong about that and interested more in data.

I never commented about Bronson or height, and don't have anything to say about that...you're just choosing to tell me more about it.
 
LOL, I've lived in Poland for 3 years, and produced an American movie there, so you're not going to tell me anything about Poland's population - we had to cast our movie from local actors and local people and extras. We travelled all over the country and held auditions for extras. I got a very, very good look at a ton of people and how they look. I also lived in Sweden, Czech republic, and France, and travelled extensively. I think I have a pretty good idea of how people look. But again, it's not about MY opinion, or YOUR opinion. It's about science and facts. And science is clear. And if science - anthropology - is too boring for you, and you think there is some kind of "popular opinion" about the stereotype of Slav wrt. f.ex. typical hair color, throw in the terms "hair color typical slav" and see what you get in "images":

https://www.google.com/search?q=hai...AhVjzqYKHbq8C4wQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=2315&bih=1173

Looks like it lines up pretty well with what anthropologists classify. Mostly light-haired and some dark. I don't see any black hair, but be my guest - as I said, very, very rare. So you are wrong on both scientific and popular opinion grounds. Game, set, match.
 
Oh, that's cute how you edited after the fact from baldly stating "black" to "dark (which I'm assuming is black)" - but originally you stated BLACK. So how do you justify it? Sure, you edited after the fact. But you were WRONG originally. And even with the editing - you say "I'm assuming is black" - WTF?? It just goes to show how your mind twists what you see. He said DARK - what reason on earth is there to "assume BLACK" - none, that's what. Bizarre. Why not read what the man wrote himself and used his own word "dark"? Why assume - with ZERO justification - "black". So wrong. Words have meaning. Respect that.
 
Game, set, match...in your opinion.

You don't need data in your life, you need life experience...or more than you claim you have.

A "hair color typical slav" search on Google proves exactly what? Is that part of your data collection?

Nevertheless I was never arguing what the majority of Slavs hair is. I was disputing your classification of 360 millions Slavs to one hair color. If you're interested in Google searches, you can do your own and see some examples of each ethnicity with black hair, and maybe it will be less rare in your life.

Slavs.jpg
 
OldCorpse said:
Oh, that's cute how you edited after the fact from baldly stating "black" to "dark (which I'm assuming is black)" - but originally you stated BLACK. So how do you justify it? Sure, you edited after the fact. But you were WRONG originally. And even with the editing - you say "I'm assuming is black" - WTF?? It just goes to show how your mind twists what you see. He said DARK - what reason on earth is there to "assume BLACK" - none, that's what. Bizarre. Why not read what the man wrote himself and used his own word "dark"? Why assume - with ZERO justification - "black". So wrong. Words have meaning. Respect that.
Click to expand...

It's not cute; it was a simple mistake while I was typing.

And I corrected it before you even finished writing your post. (As you can see I didn't edit it AFTER you posted your reply.)

What's wrong with you?

And if you can have assumptions why can't I?

You're super aggressive. And you jump on this guy (Sagan) for barely anything.
 
And I wasn't twisting anything; I confused myself for a minute because the second quote I shared mentioned black hair, which you've been ignoring but jumping on me for everything else.

You can express yourself in a better way that would be beneficial for everyone.
 
The win goes to Sagan who is nearly silent since 2011 and then trolls the group with two threads about actors.
 
NorBro said:
Game, set, match...in your opinion.

You don't need data in your life, you need life experience...or more than you claim you have.

A "hair color typical slav" search on Google proves exactly what? Is that part of your data collection?

Nevertheless I was never arguing what the majority of Slavs hair is. I was disputing your classification of 360 millions Slavs to one hair color. If you're interested in Google searches, you can do your own and see some examples of each ethnicity with black hair, and maybe it will be less rare in your life.

View attachment 136007
Click to expand...

Pitiful. This is just sad. "You don't need data" - why, because it inconveniently contradicts your claims, and it's much easier for you to throw around opinions with zero data behind it, and data is a threat? I need "exprience" - which I somehow suspect I have more of than you, but whatever. The reason I submitted a google search was because I already gave you the scientific hard data earlier, and the google search was to show you that even unscientific popular opinion (as manifested by a google search) shows your opinion to be isolated and at odds with the majority. Thus, as I explained, wrong on both scientific (previous links) and popular opinion grounds (google link).

Also, I never classified 360 million Slavs to one color - show me where I did that! I disputed that the typical Slav had BLACK hair. For you to claim otherwise is groundless. My claims by contrast, are backed up by evidence in links - and I pick my words carefully.

Weak, weak, weak.

And if you can have assumptions why can't I?

What assumptiond do I have - please show. You are allowed to assume anything you want. But you can't claim it to be true. You are allowed to assume the earth is flat, or that when someone says White you can assume they mean Black, or when they write "dark" they in fact wanted to write "black". Assume away - but don't be surprised if people point out that your assumption is groundless - as in fact it was in this case, since you gave no grounds for why the man supposedly meant "black" when he plainly wrote "dark". So nah, I don't do groundless "assumptions" like you do, no thanks.

You're super aggressive. And you jump on this guy (Sagan) for barely anything.

I correctly pointed out absurdities - a whole stack of them, and it was not "barely anything" as it was practically the whole content of that post. If we aspire to have any reasonable exchange of views on dvxuser, we are obliged to maintain a minimum level of factual correctness. When I see something that greviously departs from that standard, I point it out. You may call that aggressive. I call that reasonable - if we are to have reasonable exchanges. Of course, if someone - such as you - in the face of evidence merely digs in as if their honor depended on it - then it stops being reasonable. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected. I recommend you adopt a similar attitude. Or keep digging, and I'll keep correcting. Best of luck!
 
Dude, OldCorpse, I took a look at your links when I first read your post.

Regarding the hair, it's one piece on BigThink and a Quora article. The rest were about Bronson and height.

Is this the "data" you're talking about? Did I miss anything else? Please tell me if I did.

Or is there anything specifically you'd like to point out?

___

You answer questions with questions and you write a lot without saying much and I really don't even know what I'm arguing about with you anymore.

I don't know if I'm still defending Sagan or if I'm now somehow trying to prove what I think about Slavic hair.

___

Why can't you also just for a second consider that Sagan (I don't know if he did) maybe meant black hair when he said dark hair?

Yeah, I know, I know... Words have meaning. Respect that.

It almost sounds like you're chanting it.

___

But is that justification to get so crazy about it?

In short, my main response was initially to this:

OldCorpse said:
Btw., I along with tens of thousands of Americans moved for a few years to Prague, the Czech Republic in early 90's when Communism fell, so I know that part of the world quite well... Slavic with black hair - LOL! The typical Slav has mousy blond hair. Black - almost never.
Click to expand...

And I answered with this:

NorBro said:
OldCorpse. LOL. What a post...and I don't read long posts!

I don't know why you would think Slavs almost never have black hair.

The author of the Quora article (you linked) himself mentions he has dark hair (which I'm assuming is black).

"I myself is a East European slav with dark, thick hair and brownish eyes which goes with my tan."

_____

I also immediately thought of the Eastern Russians and found another Quora article sharing similar thoughts:

"Black hair color is actually pretty common, especially the further you go East. Russia has assimilated many mongoloid tribes and in Far East of Russia it’s very common for people to have just a dash of Asian features, such as dark hair. Frankly, being a lifelong Russian, I struggle to tell you which is more common, since you see all of the different hair colors equally often, and it’s really hard to say which is more common."

https://www.quora.com/Do-most-Russi...Why-is-black-hair-color-less-common-in-Russia
Click to expand...

Yes, yes - in the first part of my response, for 42 seconds, I said the author said he had black hair and then I quickly edited it when I noticed my mistake while you happened to quickly read it and were responding to it.

I was wrong. And I corrected myself as soon as possible.

But if we move on to the second person, you have someone writing his thoughts about black hair as a lifelong Russian.

You can have the last word and you win and Sagan can choose to reply if he would like.

But in my opinion, you seriously write so much - in circles - without truly saying anything.
 
This is pretty pointless, anyone is welcome to make up their own mind based on these posts, so I’m not going to argue every assertion you throw out. Good luck!
 
James0b57 said:
I think Bond was a tired and worn out vehicle. Craigy boi subverted expectations.
Click to expand...

Yes, granted, but casting a guy who doesn't look a bit like the Bond as Ian Fleming described him isn't subverting expectations, it's just being unfaithful to the source material.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top