LiamNow where was I? Let me see...Posts: 50MI6 Agent
Same basic concept, you can (and do) get more out of the former athlete Connery, even when he's already fairly beyond his best-before date as in DAF. On the other hand the general tone of the series got lighter in the 70's, less violent and Moore did fit that mould perfectly fine for the most part. During his tenure Bond's fights weren't expected to be overly brutal or even realistic.
Same basic concept, you can (and do) get more out of the former athlete Connery, even when he's already fairly beyond his best-before date as in DAF. On the other hand the general tone of the series got lighter in the 70's, less violent and Moore did fit that mould perfectly fine for the most part. During his tenure Bond's fights weren't expected to be overly brutal or even realistic.
Very true, because the changed Bond from a masculine character to an unbelievable fop. Quality was sacrificed to produce garbage.
I'm missing something here. Why did the fighting not have to be convincing from 1970 but did in 1969 ? I also accept that the under-cranked editing of fights in OHMSS over eggs things but I know which one I'd rather not tangle with nopnetheless.
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.
I think I get it. where we disagree is that you feel that the lighter tone of the films meant that physical credibility was not as important as it once was. I started off as saying that physical credibility (not just fisti-cuffs) was a ' non negotiable' component of the essential character of James Bond, and not an optional extra, not even in the happy-go lucky Bond films of the seventies and early eighties. This is at root a 'Flemingist' type position, and from that standpoint I dont know who that guy in the seventies was but for me he bore so little resemblance to the character as created by Fleming, and as had appeared on screen up until that time. The alternative position and the one that I think you are advancing sees the Cinematic Bond as a different entity and as such needs to be judged by different standards. As such we are always likely to disagree over this point, and I respect your opinion without sharing it.
The target audience for the Moore years was kids - I was 7 at the time of TSWLM - and too brutal fights would have been alienating and scary. The shove and kick thing, on the other hand, looked quite cool and stylish at the time.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LiamNow where was I? Let me see...Posts: 50MI6 Agent
In the 70's there were whole series of 'fight' films with Bud Spencer/Terrence Hill that indulged in the shove and Cowboy fighting. It was the flavour of the month and ludicrously successful, so of course others jumped the same train. Take a look at some of Belmondo's films of the time, they show the same indulgence into lighter comedy fighting. And Belmondo really was a hard-as-nails guy.
On the topic of Bond physicality... since we'll never know which Bond would've won in a free-for-all combat between all of them, let's ask ourselves this question: who looked the silliest while running? )
I'm not sure whether to go with Pierce Brosnan's 'perfect upright posture' arm-pump, or Roger Moore slow crouch...
On a more serious note, I think my favorite hand-to-hand combat scene in a Bond film is that between 007 and 006 in Goldeneye.
In the 70's there were whole series of 'fight' films with Bud Spencer/Terrence Hill that indulged in the shove and Cowboy fighting. It was the flavour of the month and ludicrously successful, so of course others jumped the same train. Take a look at some of Belmondo's films of the time, they show the same indulgence into lighter comedy fighting. And Belmondo really was a hard-as-nails guy.
Belonondo could have played it either way, the point is that Moore could not. I think it's non contoversial to assert that the actor influences the tone. The less physical and lighter tone were a 'sign of the times' to a degree, but also in the case of Bond something of a neccessity. Roger himself has stated that he disliked all the physical stuff and the loud bangs, and was more than happy to let the stunt guys do it.
On the topic of Bond physicality... since we'll never know which Bond would've won in a free-for-all combat between all of them, let's ask ourselves this question: who looked the silliest while running? )
I'm not sure whether to go with Pierce Brosnan's 'perfect upright posture' arm-pump, or Roger Moore slow crouch...
On a more serious note, I think my favorite hand-to-hand combat scene in a Bond film is that between 007 and 006 in Goldeneye.
Great point. I have always said that this is about more than combat, it's about physicality including running and jumping and quality of movement in general. I also agree that Pierce is often seen as the 'GQ Bond' but that the scene you mention is a corker and one of the best in the series.
I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. It doesn't matter what Lee Marvin or anyone else had to say. Roger Moore was the least convincing fighter of any actor to portray Bond, and frankly that clip from Shout at the Devil just reinforces that point. It was awful! To blame all of Moore's shortcomings on fight choreography misses the point. All of the fights were choreographed, no matter who was playing Bond. The issue is whether the actor has the physical skills and athleticism to look convincing in the fight scenes, and Roger Moore was at the very bottom of the list. That fact alone, Moore's absolutely inability to convince me that he was a tough and dangerous, completely ruined every one of his Bond films. He was simply the wrong actor for the role, period.
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)
Strangely though that clip showed Roger Moore getting more "down and dirty" than he ever did in Bond lol.
Back to the point, I suppose age didn't really help things either tbh. Remember that when Connery filmed that FRWL train fight he was 33 and younger than Moore was at the time. When Rog did his last proper hand-to-hand Bond fight in AVTAK he was 57. Almost double the age of Connery in FRWL.
Connery apparently also spent time as a boxer in the navy so one can assume he was probably the more natural fighter out of the 2 of them (I think even Sir Rog would admit that).
I think verbally however Moore could play it straight when he wanted to (as the dinner scene in MWTGG and even the bomb difffusing scene in OP showed). He just wasn't built to fight. What I loved about the FRWL and GE fights were that they looked like 2 people just going for it and lundging at eachother (ie. how people normally fight). Moore I don't think could pull fights like that off as convincingly (and I'm a big Sir Rog fan).
Comments
Wilde
Very true, because the changed Bond from a masculine character to an unbelievable fop. Quality was sacrificed to produce garbage.
I think I get it. where we disagree is that you feel that the lighter tone of the films meant that physical credibility was not as important as it once was. I started off as saying that physical credibility (not just fisti-cuffs) was a ' non negotiable' component of the essential character of James Bond, and not an optional extra, not even in the happy-go lucky Bond films of the seventies and early eighties. This is at root a 'Flemingist' type position, and from that standpoint I dont know who that guy in the seventies was but for me he bore so little resemblance to the character as created by Fleming, and as had appeared on screen up until that time. The alternative position and the one that I think you are advancing sees the Cinematic Bond as a different entity and as such needs to be judged by different standards. As such we are always likely to disagree over this point, and I respect your opinion without sharing it.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Wilde
I'm not sure whether to go with Pierce Brosnan's 'perfect upright posture' arm-pump, or Roger Moore slow crouch...
On a more serious note, I think my favorite hand-to-hand combat scene in a Bond film is that between 007 and 006 in Goldeneye.
Belonondo could have played it either way, the point is that Moore could not. I think it's non contoversial to assert that the actor influences the tone. The less physical and lighter tone were a 'sign of the times' to a degree, but also in the case of Bond something of a neccessity. Roger himself has stated that he disliked all the physical stuff and the loud bangs, and was more than happy to let the stunt guys do it.
Great point. I have always said that this is about more than combat, it's about physicality including running and jumping and quality of movement in general. I also agree that Pierce is often seen as the 'GQ Bond' but that the scene you mention is a corker and one of the best in the series.
http://apbateman.com
Back to the point, I suppose age didn't really help things either tbh. Remember that when Connery filmed that FRWL train fight he was 33 and younger than Moore was at the time. When Rog did his last proper hand-to-hand Bond fight in AVTAK he was 57. Almost double the age of Connery in FRWL.
Connery apparently also spent time as a boxer in the navy so one can assume he was probably the more natural fighter out of the 2 of them (I think even Sir Rog would admit that).
I think verbally however Moore could play it straight when he wanted to (as the dinner scene in MWTGG and even the bomb difffusing scene in OP showed). He just wasn't built to fight. What I loved about the FRWL and GE fights were that they looked like 2 people just going for it and lundging at eachother (ie. how people normally fight). Moore I don't think could pull fights like that off as convincingly (and I'm a big Sir Rog fan).