It’s almost like a generation brought up on alcohol and cigarettes age quicker !
I think the diiference is cigarettes, everywhere, all the time in the 1960s
Cigarettes, and sunlight.
The amount of damage sunlight can do to your skin if you don’t use appropriate protection, is astonishing.
Leaded gasoline, plus a heavy dose of regular drinking.
And never drink water
All my friends and fish are addicted to water. Not for me, thanks. Not even once.
Also air pollution.
While true, our skin’s still pretty tough in our 20s no matter what, plenty of collagen and such. I know this is partly lucky genes, but I was as baby-faced as Holland at 29 and I smoked heavily and had no care for sun protection. At 55, I still have little care for sun protection as I have to spend all day on the water, in the summer, to get even slightly pink.
They were good for you back then!
Ol’ George there looks a healthy 45. Wonder which brand of cigarettes his doctor prescribed
Lucky Strikes, of course.
Teeth aren’t brown enough for filterless cigs
He must have smoked that squeaky clean filtered ones like Viceroy
(Apologies to Steve Martin)
Might also just be extreme dental whitening. The gaps between his teeth do not look good. That could also just be the photo though.
Unexpected Mad Men
Chatterton’s
He looks like a Kent man.
Lazenby only smoked for ads and acting.
Not this crap again.
Dustin Hoffman was 30 years old in The Graduate (1967). Sean Connery looked like he could’ve been 30 in his high school yearbook photo. There have always been baby-faced actors, and actors who look older than their age. We could just as easily compare Dick van Dyke at age 30 in 1955 with Bill Skarsgård at age 30 in 2021, and reach similar conclusions about the effects of, say, highly-processed food and microplastics.
Are you saying that Dick Van Dyke looked abnormally young at 30 while Bill Skarsgård looked abnormally old at 30? Are we seeing the same dudes?
different people are different. how odd.
They should study this. It should be pretty cheap since you only need to study one person from each era to draw conclusions about whole generations. This is how science and reason work. 🙃
Look at old tar teeth.
Another note, Tom Holland looks almost childlike for your average 29 year old. Really not a good sample for that age group.
Tom Holland is playing a college kid, George Lazenby a 40 year old James Bond.
Lighting helps.
That’s not external lighting. Tom just does that…
Found zendayas(sp?) account
Cherrypicking actors helps as well.
Let me guess: George Lazenby died somewhere in the 2020s at the age of 90 something and appeared in multiple movies until his death, being like 60something when you first saw him in a movie.
Quick check: goddamnit the dude is still alive and kicking and retired from acting 2 years ago (link). This fucking generation will be the peak of human longevity.
oh fuck.
given the complete different style of action. one acrobatic twink, other is guns. though a better comparison is with Jon Bernthal… and they look similar. but Jon is 50 years old!!!
I get this is just a shitpost but what is it trying to say? Should I be worried that one guy looks younger than the other? Mad? Sad? Happy?
Fleming’s James Bond character was in his 40s. It’s the character.
Edit: I confused my actors lmao I thought this was Gregory Peck.
Damn the ‘60s were rough on people
Thomas Brodie-Sangster: hold my juice box…I mean beer
