Prepare To Be Shocked, Roger-Haters!
bigzilcho
Toronto, ONPosts: 245MI6 Agent
I do not want to over-state this post by any means, but I believe that I have read something which will radically alter some fan's opinions of Roger as Bond, especially those Roger-haters that have forever stated that Roger is not a physical threat as 007.
In 1976 Roger co-starred with Lee Marvin in Shout at The Devil, directed by old Bond hand Peter Hunt.
I have not yet seen the film but I was always aware that it contained a lengthy punch-up between Roger and Marvin.
Now to the shocking...positively shocking bit of information.
Apparently, during the filming...real punches were accidently landed...with Roger belting Marvin...and hurting him!
Marvin said later:"This guy is built like granite. No one will ever underestimate him again."
That is Lee Marvin, folks. Does anyone realize how much this means?
Lee Marvin...without question, one of the toughest men, both on and off-screen, in the history of movies, telling the world that good ol' Rog is as tough as they come. Well, all I can say is this is a gauntlet thrown down to all the Roger-as-wimp fans that have plagued the man since 1973.
Don't get me wrong, Roger is, IMO, the least graceful and agile of all the Bonds, but never have I wondered about his toughness. His good looks imply that he cannot be as tough as the others but THAT'S the simplicity of labels.
I am reminded of the dinner scene in OP. Check out Roger's attitude when says:"Suppose, for the sake of argument, I don't feel like talking" For a moment, one can sense the steely resolve that was forged in places like LeChiffre's hide-out or the centrifuge in MR (universally acknowledged as one the finest during Roger's tenure).
I know some fans will never change their minds. Of course, Roger is not as tough as Sean or Dalton, nor as agile as the Laz or Craig but can we cut Roger's Bond some serious slack?
Compared to the others, Roger cannot compete in terms of moves.
But...when it comes to toughness...he holds his own. Period.
Who says so?
Lee Marvin. And that's good enough for me.
"All those feathers and he still can't fly."
In 1976 Roger co-starred with Lee Marvin in Shout at The Devil, directed by old Bond hand Peter Hunt.
I have not yet seen the film but I was always aware that it contained a lengthy punch-up between Roger and Marvin.
Now to the shocking...positively shocking bit of information.
Apparently, during the filming...real punches were accidently landed...with Roger belting Marvin...and hurting him!
Marvin said later:"This guy is built like granite. No one will ever underestimate him again."
That is Lee Marvin, folks. Does anyone realize how much this means?
Lee Marvin...without question, one of the toughest men, both on and off-screen, in the history of movies, telling the world that good ol' Rog is as tough as they come. Well, all I can say is this is a gauntlet thrown down to all the Roger-as-wimp fans that have plagued the man since 1973.
Don't get me wrong, Roger is, IMO, the least graceful and agile of all the Bonds, but never have I wondered about his toughness. His good looks imply that he cannot be as tough as the others but THAT'S the simplicity of labels.
I am reminded of the dinner scene in OP. Check out Roger's attitude when says:"Suppose, for the sake of argument, I don't feel like talking" For a moment, one can sense the steely resolve that was forged in places like LeChiffre's hide-out or the centrifuge in MR (universally acknowledged as one the finest during Roger's tenure).
I know some fans will never change their minds. Of course, Roger is not as tough as Sean or Dalton, nor as agile as the Laz or Craig but can we cut Roger's Bond some serious slack?
Compared to the others, Roger cannot compete in terms of moves.
But...when it comes to toughness...he holds his own. Period.
Who says so?
Lee Marvin. And that's good enough for me.
"All those feathers and he still can't fly."
Comments
http://apbateman.com
Perhaps Lazenby? He was trained by Bruce Lee and was a martial arts teacher for the australian commandoes.
Moore could take his booze too, as was observed by Richard Harris on the set of The Wild Geese. He'd be up all merry and bright after a night's hard living, while the others would be shattered.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I think Sean would have won the hypothetical fight - he was (or seemed) the biggest, and in his earlier films, the fittest looking. Although I agree Lazenby could probably have handled himself well. Craig wins the choreographed fighting hands down, but real fights are far from choreographed. He's very well toned and fit looking, but has no size to him at all.
http://apbateman.com
I think with his very modern and organised training, Craig would have an advantage over the others and would win. However, if they all had the same preparation, I would assume Dalton or Lazenby would wipe the floor with any of the others, even Connery. I never thought of Moore as a physical Bond but I now have the impression that he could throw a decent punch.
Still and all, I enjoyed many of his tussles, including the one in the Lebanese belly-dancer's dressing room in TMWTGG.
P.S. ...And I'm reasonably certain that actual Roger "Haters" are quite few and far between on these boards...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I liked Roger in that film. He was pretty tough and cruel - for example the scene where he force-feeds heroine to the gangsters is especially good.
I doubt height would be important. none of them are very short, so their reach would be about the same. i think stenght, fighting skill and agressivness would be far more important.
I agree as the old saying goes "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog"
www.scottacademymartialarts.co.uk
Force fed heroine? What, got Miss Goodnight to sit on his face until he chokes?
Oh, if I could go in such a way....
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Oh dear... that one didn't come out right! Still, it turns out to be innuendo worthy of a Roger Moore film...
Connery looked pretty strong to me in the earlier films. Although, I wasn't aware that Lazenby had the history you described. And you're right, height isn't so important as strength. Incidently, I read somewhere that Brosnan was both the lightest and heaviest Bond to date (Pre-Craig) at 160lbs for Goldeneye and 210lbs for DAD. So if it were down to bulk...
http://apbateman.com
He can hold his own, but the filmmakers would often pass off the fights to some gizmo or quick exit. Lazenby would probably win, but Connery had that "always two steps ahead" sardonic streak.
I have to agree. My money is on the Laze.
http://apbateman.com
and as luck would have it Shout at the Devil is on this saturday on the Reelz chanel on Direct tv. i havent seen it and after this thread i really want to.
Don't forget his relentless woman-hating in North Sea Hijack?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgEWSuajBCs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aABT-FjR4_M
Yes. That was a class piece of acting. Trying to shake off a womanising Bond persona? I think so.
http://apbateman.com
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Agreed. all the excuses in the world cannot change the fact that Moore was a pathetic fighter. The clip makes clear that he cannnot make a proper fist, or throw a decent punch. We can (and have) debated/argued re what are minimum requirements to play Bond. For me this one is non-negotiable, he just has to be physically credible. All of the Bonds apart from Roger met the minimum requirement. For example Pierce was not a physically convincing as Connerry, Lazenby, Dalton, or Craig for that matter but he was able to deliver enough to be beliveable in my view (he got better as his tenure progressed)
But I think we're judging this from a point where we're used to a much more stylised and physical approach to depict film violence today. An approach that, by use of technique, cutting and cinematography, is viewed as somehow more convincing although it's still far from a real fight. In Moore's day and age his fighting style was adequate enough to audiences. Only in hindsight now the fighting is below par.
Wilde
I understand what you were saying, but both prior Bonds looked, and still look credible when viewed today. it's not a comparison between today, and the seventies that reveals Roger's shortcomings, as OHMSS for example still stands up, and Lazenby still looks credible physically and convincing in terms of combat/action.
But that's exactly what I mean. Lazenby and Connery both are the more athletic types in comparison to Moore, bring further developed physical capabilities to the part as former sports types. But, big but, Moore was able to compete in the 70's/80's because the stage fighting didn't have to convince so much on an athletic level. Audiences bought both Connery's/Lazenby's powerful approach and Moore's less impressive fighting. Only today Moore's TV fighting depiction comes across as forced and contrived in comparison.
On the other hand one might argue that Lazenby indeed overacted his fighting, often using downright haymakers and overly emphasised hooks. The difference here of course is that it's stage fighting, designed for visual impact and with a routined sportsman this looks of course much more impressive.
Wilde
That's not what I meant. The fighting had to be convincing by the standards of the day, of course it had to. But from Lazenby you could of course gain an entirely different performance than you could from Moore. Eon and Hunt naturally decided to make the most of their powerhorse. But, as history has proven, Bond could also be successfully depicted by a less physical actor. For a certain period, that is. Today you'd be hard pressed to cast the role with an actor who isn't at least physically believable.
Wilde