Moore ruthless than you think
Mrs.Bryce
Posts: 139MI6 Agent
Why does everyone think that Roger couldn't fight or be ruthless and cold?
Sorry, I just don't understand why this is a common thought amongst fans. Personally, I think he could fight and be ruthless/cold.
He may not have been extremely graceful whilst fighting, but he came up against henchmen bigger than him, with more means. E.g Metal teeth, a metal hook claw. Sandor, Tee-Hee, Jaws, Erich Kriegler and I'd say Braon Samedi (who remember cannot die) all prove to be bigger physical threats. He could be cold too; such as kicking the car off the cliff, roughing up Ms.Anders, kicking the man in the face whilst bowing (at Hi Phat's Karate School), threatening to kill Rosie Carver after having sex with her, shooting Lazaar or trying too, dropping Sandor off the building, Drax's death was harsh (he would've had his lungs explode as well as posion circulating through his blood stream), as was Stromberg's death (receiving 1 deadly bullet, and 3 just for the heck of it). I could list many more, but I shant preach more than I already have.
) )
I also didn't think these were out of character, as he was consistent with, having atleast something ruthless in each of his films.
But please, comment your own opinion. I'm interested in hearing them.
Sorry, I just don't understand why this is a common thought amongst fans. Personally, I think he could fight and be ruthless/cold.
He may not have been extremely graceful whilst fighting, but he came up against henchmen bigger than him, with more means. E.g Metal teeth, a metal hook claw. Sandor, Tee-Hee, Jaws, Erich Kriegler and I'd say Braon Samedi (who remember cannot die) all prove to be bigger physical threats. He could be cold too; such as kicking the car off the cliff, roughing up Ms.Anders, kicking the man in the face whilst bowing (at Hi Phat's Karate School), threatening to kill Rosie Carver after having sex with her, shooting Lazaar or trying too, dropping Sandor off the building, Drax's death was harsh (he would've had his lungs explode as well as posion circulating through his blood stream), as was Stromberg's death (receiving 1 deadly bullet, and 3 just for the heck of it). I could list many more, but I shant preach more than I already have.
) )I also didn't think these were out of character, as he was consistent with, having atleast something ruthless in each of his films.
But please, comment your own opinion. I'm interested in hearing them.
Comments
I guess his comedy moments tarnished his other attributes.
http://apbateman.com
You see it's all about balancing. Because when Sean Connery was at his best he could balance the coldness, and the ruthlessness, with the humor, very well. Which is why I believe Sean Connery was a better Bond than Roger Moore prior to You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever....Which happens to be when everything went down hill for Sean and tarnished his rep!
Moore somtimes was ruthless. But I felt it was in spite of Moore, not because of him. You see the diference when watching Dalton. The ruthless Bond fits him like a glove.
Great post, Mrs.Bryce.
Critics will always reference the silly humour and may refer to the charm but pretty much prefer to forget the rest. Underneath (when he wanted/had to be) Roger Moore Bond could be really ruthless and devious. This had more of a shock value compared to say Sean Connery or Daniel Craig's Bond. You expect it from them. I can think of two other examples that you did not mention. In Live And Let Die he manipulates the cards to get Solitaire into bed and reveal information. In Octopussy, the great train scene where he confronts General Orlov and shoots the Russian soldier right between the eyes.
Admittedly, some of the humour was too silly and Roger was not the most graceful fighter. However, if you will forgive the pun. There was so much Moore to Roger's Bond than that.
We don't see many ruthless deaths from Dalton do we, nothing springs to mind.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
the blame. Even if Connery had stayed on or Dalton had taken over he'd of gotten the same
scripts with the same comedy moments.
I know with D Craig most fans seem to accept that the Lead of the Movie must have a huge
Input to what appears on screen, When in fact in the old days Neither Connery or Moore had
much input as to what the character would do.
Moore wasn't happy about dressing as a clown for Octopussy, But it was in the script and was
what the director wanted so he did it.
I completely agree, Nap.
I actually don't find him very ruthless, in comparison to the 70's movies, the two Bond's he is in are very different in tone, but as a character I don't think so much ruthless. Just distant. He seems to show little warmth towards people; it comes with time.
And thank-you, Moore Than!
I completely agree with you too
I really do like both those scenes, can't believe I forgot to add them! And what about when he is fiesty with the officer, "Dammit man, this is urgent!". Not so much ruthless or cold, but forceful!
I agree that there needs to be balance, but as Thunderpussy said, the actor didn't get much input. It would be the production team, director, screenwriter etc.
That said, you could argue his 'kills' are less ruthless in a way because they're cartoon deaths. As one scriptwriter said, 'When Roger killed someone, you never quite believed they were dead. With Sean, you believed it.'
And to be fair, Rog has 'fessed up and said that he didn't like to seem too ruthless as Bond because he just didn't quite believe in any of it, it was warm-hearted family viewing. He took a different attitude to his more adult roles in adult films. Still, when required, Moore had more a cool blooded, assassin's approach to his kills as opposed to the fierceness of Connery.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
While I agree the actors didn`t get to give much input at the time, but the scripts were somewhat tailored to the strengths of the actors. Moore was good at humor and charm, Dalton was more athletic and a better dramatic actor. This is reflected in the scripts. I agree that the 70`s would have probably shown a change towards more comedic and family oriented Bond films regardless of the actor playing the role, but the casting of Moore strengthened that trend. If Lazenby had signed the contract for several movies he was offered, I doubt we would have seen so much comedy in those films.
Concerning the ruthlesness of Dalton: I can think of two very brutal kills by Dalton just now. Throwing the suitcase at the DEA agent, making him fall into the shark-infested water. And setting fire to the gasoline-soaked Sanchez. If you look at the weapons used in his movies they are somewhat more direct and brutal: whip, pressure chamber, knife, shotgun and fire. The overall tone of the movies (particularely LTK, the only one written especially for him) is clearly more ruthless, while Moore had plenty of ruth. :v
Dalton had his rutheless moments...
The killing of Killifer into the Shark Pool by chucking the briefcase at him.
Letting Necros fall to his death by cutting through the laces on his boot.
The satisfaction of watching Milton Krest being 'pressurised' by Sanchez after setting him up.
Really ?:)
I never thought that Bond was going to kill Pushkin...he could have killed him from a distance *if* he wanted too...my take was that Bond just wanted to talk to him...to confirm what he thought...that Koskov's story didn't add up...and what they could do about it...he just wanted to scare Pushkin into talking....
"Complement's of Sharkey..."
And how he set up Krest was pretty ruthless...he knew that Sanchez would kill him...that's pretty cold...
He never looked totally relaxed in the role to me but it could be argued that he only starred in two films. At times he could be too serious, overact and or over-react. Having said that, I enjoyed his portrayal overall and would not have been disappointed to see him again after LTK. Pity about the legal problems.
I really liked Dalton's portrayal of his inner conflict between carrying out his duty and doing what's right. The tension was set up earlier with "if it must be done, then I'll do it" when asked to
Carry out the assassination. He was always suspicious and doubtful. The ruthlessness really comes through for me in the " If I believed Koskov we wouldn't still be talking" line.
All in all a standout scene which displays a lot of what was so great about Dalton's Bond.
Pure class.
I too always felt Roger could be convincingly ruthless when he had to be (even if he probably didn't particularly like that aspect of the role) and all the aforementioned scenes (roughing up Andrea, dropping Shandor from the roof, knocking Loque's car off the cliff) are good examples, as is his cold blooded killing of Stromberg (wherein he pumps 5 bullets into his unarmed foe).
Roger's Bond has a respectably large body count, and when he killed he often did so with a smile on his lips. Now what could be more ruthless than that.
Oh, just seen your post Sir Miles. But, well, no, we see him wavering like he's about to kill him and is intent, building up to a cold blooded kill reluctantly and there is a doom laden feel to it. So I think it's badly directed myself. But your explanation holds, just doesn't come across like that as directed.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
This thread is old and my have run it's course, but I'd still like to throw my two shillings in.
Having worked on some independent films in the past myself, I can best come at this topic from the point of view as a filmmaker. The problem I had with Moore's attempt at being ruthless in his films was the way his character was being played to his acting skills. Moore's basic qualifications for getting the Bond role was his stint as The Saint. If you watch the old B&W series, you see how the producers thought him a perfect fit for the role. He was tall, handsome, very fit, looked good in any wardrobe and was used to throwing the occasional punch. He also had the right accent and was at ease throwing out verbal puns. Perfect casting so far right? Here's where the problems arose -
Bond is described as being handsome by Fleming, but not in a model or leading man way, because their seems to be a hint of danger in his looks (the cheek scar added to this). Now Connery fit this in a way, because though he was considered to be handsome, he wasn't "model" handsome. There was a dark, sardonic look about him, which is why when he was supposed to be cruel or cold, he was believable. Lazenby was an odd one. He was more classically "model" handsome like Brosnan and Moore, and could pull off a great fight scene, but could he be cruel or cold? His one film never game him the chance to show this. Dalton was like Connery. He's good looking but there is also something dark and sardonic about him which make him also believable when he played the ruthless card. Brosnan was sort of like Lazenby. He is classically "model"
handsome, yet could do the rough stuff. However, his looks seemed to betray his ability at being cruel. I bought him at being efficient and calculating, but his looks always betrayed his seriousness to me. He just didn't look like he'd gone through years of physical abuse from his missions. Moore suffered from this in the worst way. Not only did his sunny, model good looks and total lack of war torn weariness leave him less convincing as Bond, his preference towards a more lightweight portrayal with the emphasis on more humor (even towards outright slapstick) really put the nail in the coffin. That is why when I watch him attempt to be ruthless in some scenes in his films, I do a double take and wonder, who is this guy and where did he suddenly come from? There was no balance to begin with, and throwing more weight on the ruthless side at times just made the whole effort seem out of kilter. Casting certain characters like Bond or Sherlock Holmes or Superman, etc., is a very tricky business. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes it's almost right, and other times it just does not fit.
Thank you! I'm glad you posted, I understand a bit further as to why he seemed less believably ruthless. I agree with some of your points, particulalry about his good looks
But I don't agree with some of the others.
Didn't Connery do some sort of modelling, just out of curiosity?
The humour may have been tailored to him, but it wasn't really a choice, for him, for the writer yes, but even then you could blame it more on the era. Having dark Bond in the 80's wasn't even that successful, let alone in the 70's. He did lighten it up, but I'm sure he didn't choose outrageous plots, the returning of characters that should have done one films, scripts filled with some stupid lines/puns or double taking pigeons. Can't be all blamed on him!
Thank you again!
Sean Connery did do some modelling work for artists. He was a bodybuilder and competed in the Mr Universe contest in the early 1950's.
Yes, Connery did do some modeling, though as you can see it was for some bodybuilding images. He may have been able to do a bit of modeling, but due to his "look" he would have been limited, whereas Moore, Lazenby and Brosnan could have modeled in almost any ad.
As far as the humor in Moore's films not being his choice, that is true to a certain extent. However if your research the making of the films, you will find that the producers started doing more sillyness with DAF and then just continued it with the Moore films, because the writers found it easier to put in much lighter humor and slapstick because Moore carried it off so well. I don't think this would have happened if they had put in someone like Dalton or Brosnan (though they were too young then). The plots may have still been outrageous and had stupid lines, but I don't think they would have been as lightweighted. All of the actors except Lazenby did have some input as to how to play their characters to a certain extent, no matter how a script is finalized. It's a common thing to change things in a given scene when the actual shooting is being done, which is why when you have a really good actor its a godsend to the director and the writer when there has to be retakes and rewrites.
The lighter tone of the films was set with Diamonds Are Forever. The producers were not going to risk making another OHMSS type Bond film at that time. Roger Moore has said that he had very little input other than changing a few lines. Therefore, I would suggest any changes regarding other actors such as Timothy Dalton, or even Burt Reynolds (who was apparently offered the role by Cubby) would have been minimal at best. After all, if you get silliness such as Japanese disguises and Blofeld in drag with Sean Connery in the role then why would it have been different for any other actor at that time?
What's that supposed to mean? OHMSS was a great film.
I agree with CmdrAtticus, specifically:
I just don't find Roger Moore to be a believable Bond. I doubt very much someone that has seen as much action and has killed as many people as Bond actually has would be quite as jovial as Moore's Bond, nor did his appearance in any way convince me that he was James Bond, the guy that Fleming created, with a "cruel" mouth and looks dangerous. Connery and Dalton pulls off the "professional killer" look a lot better: Dalton, when he described Bond as a "problem eliminator"; and Connery, when Bond shot Professor Dent in the back, just to name two examples. It's not enough to simply go through the motions. Yes, Moore's Bond also kills people, but the way he does it is so vastly different from the way Fleming's Bond did.
Now, you might argue that it's the producers that decided to steer Bond into that direction - and you might be right, but you know what? I do not believe that had Dalton been Bond ahead of Moore, they wouldn't have done so, because being humourous - rightly or wrongly - is not something that Dalton has been particularly good at when he had played Bond. On the other hand, Moore does such a good job of it that it fits his version of the character down to a T. If the producers don't play to the actor's strengths, then the actors would look visibly uncomfortable in those roles and they wouldn't be making the best film possible.
Just to throw something out there, maybe Moore-Bond acts jovial because he's killed so many people? Humour and flippancy could well be his way of coping with the emotional burdens of the job, for all we know. The Hawkeye Pierce of MI6, if you will....
On Her Majesty's Secret Service was seen as something of a disappointment at the time given it's lacklustre box office. United Artists and the producers decided the way forward was to lighten the tone of the films by including more humour and more action set pieces. This view was re-inforced when Diamonds Are Forever took almost twice as much at the box office. You could reasonably argue that a great deal of that extra box office was due to the return of Sean Connery but the dye was cast, the tone was set. There was no going back for the foreseeable future regardless of the actor who succeeded Connery. Any actor who succeeded him would have to adjust to the lighter tone as Connery himself had done in DAF.
That's rather harsh putting so much of the blame on to the ignorant public. After all, it was the ignorant public that created Bondmania and helped make the films so successful in the first place. The buck stopped with Broccoli & Saltzman, they ultimately decided on the tone of the films. The blame (if any) lay mostly with them.
Undoubtedly, the humour went too far on occasion during the Roger Moore era. There's no justification for the silliness of double take pigeons, Tarzan yells, Beach Boys etc. It's often forgotten that there was also a lot of good humour. And often forgotten that the silliness was not confined just to the Moore era.
At this point, I ask myself what would it take for me NOT to see a new Bond movie. I realy can't think of anything that would keep me away.