Add a Comment1081 comments
Average Guess (110 Votes)
6ft 1.13in (185.7cm)
Mario said on 1/Mar/07
Gotxo, most people now, including editor rob en glenn think now that Moore was pretty close to the 6 ft 2 mark in his youth, so there is nothing strange about it.
Really, a picture in which Moore is leaning or the horrible pictures that you did once post of Connery and Moore aren't going to change my mind on this guy.
186-187 cm peak height, 185cm for the 90s and currently 183-184cm. That's what my conclusion is after looking hundreds of pictures and watching the saint, the persuaders and of course Bond...
tomking said on 1/Mar/07
My friends who have a little house in Gstaad Switzerland said two month ago, they have seen Roger many times and he is still with 80 years 1.83m or 6 ft.
So the peak height is absolut correct and not logical to say this man was never 6`1.5`` in his younger day.
Gotxo said on 1/Mar/07
You must be blind dude, or you simply don't want to accept proofs that point in other directions than your fanactic thoughts. Roger is not at a lower part of the ground and if his legs are a little crossed Peck's head is too way tilted, so the one loosing more height there is Peck. Roger looks 6' there.
tubbs said on 28/Feb/07
Gotxo, it seems as though you are insinuating that myself and Mario are the same person,simply because we have the same opinion on Roger Moore, which doesn't fit yours. If you look closely at the picture from the Sea Wolves, Roger is in a relaxed posture, slouching, with his legs crossed, and is also standing at the lowest point of the dip. Maybe Rob can cast his eye on the picture for reliability, I saw this picture months ago, but didn't think it was good enough to judge height properly. I , like you Gotxo thought Roger Moore was 6ft even until I saw this site,the evidence to suggest he was 6'1+ is too much to ignore, think about it.
Gotxo said on 26/Feb/07
Same condition affect both, and Peck is VISIBLE TALLER.More than one inch for sure. This guy is very dodgy to measure cause he's genuinely tall, but found of big heeled shoes. After all he's a former model.
BTW you can deny an evidence as big as a temple when you have it in front of your eyes. Peck is 6'3 and Moore is nowhere near 6'2" on that pic.
Mario said on 25/Feb/07
Same conditions? Just look at the ground... then again why don't you respect the opinions of other persons Gotxo?
The oscar video (that sadly isn't anymore avaible) proofed that height difference between Connery and Moore was minimal, at least in 88".
tubbs said on 24/Feb/07
Gotxo.....???!?don't understand what you are trying to say?
Gotxo said on 23/Feb/07
You're mad dude, you're not able to recognise that you were wrong when you get sound evidence in front of your eyes. Peck was 190cm, moore was at the topmost 6'1" , IMHO was between 6'-6'1" wich is allready tall.
The ground is Ok, as same conditions affect Peck too, it's simply he's more than one inch bigger.
He was dwarfed by the real 6'2" Julian Glover in For Your Eyes Only, the camera work was very clever at hidding it, nevertheles is noticeable for a guy with a minimum attention.
Mario said on 21/Feb/07
Yeah well, Peck that great actor was 191cm and if Moore was 187cm (or perhaps it's possible Moore had lost a cm by that time), it makes sense.
Gonzalo said on 21/Feb/07
Whatever you want, Mario. Peck is two inches taller. If you prefer, watch The sea wolves and you will see that Peck is more than an inch taller. And Peck was over sixty in that movie.
Mario said on 20/Feb/07
In the first one Peck is much closer to the camera and in the second you should look at Moore's foot's and the uneven ground.
said on 20/Feb/07
Roger Moore looks clearly shorter than Gregory Peck i these two pictures. Peck was well into his sixties.
I don`t think Moore reached 6`2 in his prime
tubbs said on 19/Feb/07
When stood opposite the 6'2" Van Johnson in The Last Time I Saw Paris, Roger was atleast the same height, and in some scenes looked 0.5" taller. The film was made in 1954, so Roger would have been 26 or 27 at the time, this would probably be a good indication of his peak height. When he has mentioned 6'2" as his height in the past, I honestly think he has been telling the truth.
Bob said on 15/Feb/07
Imagine that you will see a picture of Moore and Pete Sampras, and you see that Moore is at least the same height as him.
Would you not laugh?
Anthony said on 15/Feb/07
When did all this talk of Moore being average come about? Moore was clearly at least 6'1 at his peak.
Bob said on 14/Feb/07
I would say that Moore is a guy of average range. He might be closer to the tall class, but I would not consider him as definitely tall.
Glenn said on 11/Feb/07
Thank heavens I know where my Roger Moore pic is.there is tons of old stuff I never posted.will do in time.I also lost at least 50 pics,maybe double that.I have friends that lost that and a couple of hundred as well.ouch.
tubbs said on 10/Feb/07
Good finds Mario....goes to show that Connery and Roger are very close in height, certainly not a 2" difference, and also the picture of Roger with Dalton and Lazenby shows that in 2002 he was very close in height to those two. Recently watched North Sea Hijack, and Moore has a good shot with George Baker near the start of the movie, Baker who is a genuine 6'4" only had a couple of inches at most on him. Moore also looked the nearly same as 6'2.5" Anthony Perkins, and had atleast 3" on James Mason. I think Moore should be put back upto atleast 6'0.5" for his current height, he was up there until Frank2 said he saw him buying a cardigan in the States!?!.....Glenn has met him, and he marked him as 6'1", there is plenty of evidence to suggest he is still near the 6'1". By the way Glenn, do you know what happened to your photo with Sir Roger?
said on 10/Feb/07
Here a some more pics:
Robert said on 9/Feb/07
Sean Conney is taller than Roger Moore.Their height difference is not that much but Connery is still taller.
said on 8/Feb/07Click Here
Looks the same as Connery, and about half inch shorter than Caine....around 6'1.5" still in 1988.
Robert said on 1/Feb/07
There is nothing that someone can say about his height, unless you see him barefeet.
tubbs said on 1/Feb/07
Still hovering around the 6'1" mark these days.....looked 6'2" back in the day opposite the 6'4" Julius Harris in Live & Let Die,opposite the 6'5" Chris Lee, as Anthony already mentioned, opposite the 6'2" Julian Glover in For Your Eyes Only, opposite 6'2" Lee Marvin in Shout at the Devil,opposite the 6'3.5" Kabir Bedi in Octopussy - barefooted, opposite the 6'2.5" Anthony Perkins in North Sea Hijack the list goes on. He can give the illusion i suppose of not being that tall because he is a big guy all round - he was never a bean pole, it is only when he stands next to other stars that it shows how tall he really is.
Anthony said on 31/Jan/07
He was 187 when he played Bond. He looked it next to many, many co-stars, including the 6'5 Christopher Lee. And he's still tall today.
Robert said on 29/Jan/07
Use your brain guys.
Does it sound realistic that Moore was 187 cm, when playing James Bond?
Everyone I know that is 187, looks taller than Moore.
Foget 187 cm for Moore.
5-11 is enough
Anthony said on 27/Jan/07
Thank you, tubbs.
tubbs said on 25/Jan/07
To back up what Anthony is saying, when the producers of Bond were looking for someone to play the roll they advertised for guys who were atleast 6'1"...Connery obviously got the gig, who was near enough 6'3" back then, do you really think he'd have got the role if he was 5'10, the same applies to Roger Moore.
Anthony said on 24/Jan/07
Actually, height is very important to 007. The character of James Bond is supposed to be the ideal male fantasy: handsome, built, charming, intelligent, suave, adventurous and, yes, TALL. Height is essential to the character. One of the reasons people complain about Craig is that he was under the 6' mark (he looks 5'10 even at best to me).
Mike said on 24/Jan/07
Anthony, of course he would be chosen as bond if he would be average height.
Height does not play such a big role.
The best is if you see him barefeet.
George H said on 24/Jan/07
Moore is not even just 5'10" now! In his prime he always looked a legit 6'2" or very close to that. He doesn't strike me as a lifts guy, simply because he's got a realistic and fair view of himself. He was the first one to say he looked to old to continue playing Bond and he also was one of the few stars who always made and makes jokes about him only showing up for close-ups and that the rest of the stuff was all done by super athletic stunt guys and stand-ins. That doesn't sound like a guy who'd wear lifts to look taller. If you saw him in older movies he was always one of the taller guys. In that series he did with Tony Curtis he was mor than half a head taller and much broader build as well. 5'10" is ludicrous.
Anthony said on 23/Jan/07
Mike, Moore was not a lifts guy. He was legit 187 cm in his prime. If he was of average height, would he have been chosen as Bond? It would be known if a Bond actor wore lifts, as Brosnan, Dalton and Craig have all been rumored. Connery, Lazeny and, yes, Moore, are legit 6'1-6'2 guys (though I think Connery looked closer to 6'3 in his prime).
Mike said on 22/Jan/07
This guy certainly wears lifts that make him a couple of inches taller.
I would say that he is a guy of average height.
tubbs said on 18/Jan/07
Mike, the Sampras comparison is pretty random, what about comparisons with co stars, and other celebs. I must admit that I thought he was 6'0 peak, and around 5'11 now. That was until I saw this website, and there seems to be a lot of evidence to suggest 6'1.5/2. Even now he looks near 6'1, catch him whenever he's on the Paul O Grady show, and he's nearly the same as 6'2 O'Grady.
Mike said on 17/Jan/07
If 5'10 is unrealistic, then lets add it to 5'11"
6-2 is unrealistic as well. Compare him for example with tennisplayer Pete Sampras, who is 6-1, and Moore is at least the same height as Sampras is.Does that not sound unrealistic?I mean, Sampras really occurs to be taller.
Glenn said on 16/Jan/07
Near 6-2 in youth.
Anthony said on 16/Jan/07
Mike, I disagree. I definitely think he was 6'1-6'1.5 (probably 6'2-6'2.5 in shoes). In "The Man With The Golden Gun", he looked about 3.5-4 inches smaller than Christopher Lee, who was a solid 6'5 in his prime. So maybe he wasn't quite 6'2 except for in the morning, but in his peak he was at least 6'1. 5'10 and especially 5'9 are unrealistic.
Mike said on 16/Jan/07
No, Moore is not taller than Connery.I would say that connery is taller, but just a little bit on that picture, but this is not true either, because Connery looks to be more than one inch taller.
Moore must certainly have worn lifts, because he really does not look like being a tall man.
Mike said on 15/Jan/07
Anthony,he might not be 5-9, but he could never have been 6-2.That's not realistic.
Anthony said on 15/Jan/07
5'9 is rediculous, 6'2 or close to it at his peak is believable.
Mike said on 14/Jan/07
Moore really does not look like being tall.
I would say he is around 5-9. In case he is taller, then 5-10 at best.
I know friends who are 185, and it is obvious that they are taller.
pianochris123 said on 6/Jan/07
I walked past him with a friend of mine in Charing Cross, London. He is still just about six foot. Not bad considering he's 80 this year. Still the 2nd best Bond ever as well!
tomking said on 6/Jan/07
Friends of us saw him in 2003 in Gstaad (Switzerland) and they said he is 6ft.
He is 79 Years old now!His peak height is correct.
Glenn said on 25/Dec/06
I met him in 1991.he was near 6-2 in his youth.shrunk to 6-1 in 1991,and maybe less now.
Robin said on 24/Dec/06
I think Roger was never more than 6ft, He was in a film with David Niven who claimed to be 6ft and Roger stuggled to be as tall. Rogers claimed height was always 6ft2. His friend, Mr Connery, never claimed to be over 6ft1.
tubbs said on 7/Dec/06
I have watched those two films recently, and Roger is atleast 1 inch taller than Maud when she's in heels, and when they are both barefoot, there is quite a considerable difference in height. My estimate is Maud is around 5'11.5 barefoot, and around the 6'1 region in heels. Roger looks 3 inches shorter than the 6'5" Chris Lee in the dual picture, and is at the most 2.5" shorter than the 6'4" Vijay Armritaj in Octopussy (1983, aged 54, there are plenty of good close ups of the two together in Octopussy. As for his current height, he still looks 6'1", he looked the same as Paul O'Grady on his show a few weeks back, and O'Grady has been listed in various places as 6'2", and certainly looks it.
Anonymous said on 6/Dec/06
In two scenes (one from "The man with the golden gun", and another one in "Octopussy"), when Moore as Bond is supposedly making the love with Maud Adams (Octopussy and the other name of the girl Maud was interpreting at The man with the golden gun, can't remember) both take their shoes off, they are both straight and barefeet. Now, Maud Adams has been described as a tall, 6+ woman, and these secenes seem to corroborate that. Moore seemed to be slightly taller than Maud, perhaps even half an inch, now if Moore is 6'2 tall (1.88) I think that would make Maud a 6'1.5 (1.87) woman (1.85 to say the least though hardly), either Moore is shorter than 6'2 or Maud is definitely that tall. I want to think Moore is 6'2 and Maud is indeed 6'1.5 so that it makes sense.
said on 18/Nov/06
with 6ft 5 christopher lee
Mario said on 20/Sep/06
Gotxo, if your arguments aren't false? Why don't you post hyperlink here on Celebheights to the pictures of 'Young' Connery and 'Young' Moore together? I'm getting curious on those pics which proof according to [b]you[/b], your statement.
Most actors round there height up? Short actors Gotxo, but is Moore a short actor (?)and what would be the point of adding a half inch to his height? This can't be even considered argument Gotxo. Also your arguments get weak, weaker and weaker. Gotxo: Moore is 6 ft 1, because there are two black guy's taller than him in LALD and he wears 70s cowboy boots in a 70s movie... c'mon....
Gotxo said on 19/Sep/06
You've a problem, i've to excuse of nothing, cause my arguments are not false.
I asume i could be wrong or the likes, but i'm not lying.
If i repeat similar things is that because till the date i havent't changed my mind on the subject.
Recheck your statements, if you ask me photos of both being young and next to each other, and you say it's impossible beacause they are scarce, then your argumentes can't have neither no graphical backup.
The only one who insults here is you, me saying that Moore exaggerates is not saying nothing wrong. Most actors do it because their agents say what they are supposed to say..."yeah i'm as tall as people expect me to be", "as successfull as in films", "i do eat that, i do not eat this".
That's part of the game chap, it's simply to understand.
Anonymous said on 18/Sep/06
theres a reasonably good pic of brosnan and moore on the set of goldeneye in the book james bond - the legacy. they look about the same height
Mario said on 17/Sep/06
I'm not insulting Got'x'o. But it annoy's that you say this every time:
" but never looked that compared to connery, even if he was supposedly 187cm and the later 189cm. The difference between them was noticeable."
Come with photos in which both men are young and if you can find them because they don't exist, excuse yourself for your false arguments. Now you are even insulting Roger Moore because he doesn't say the height that you want that he's.
Gotxo said on 16/Sep/06
Insulting again Mario?
Well you're not able to write properly my nick.
That might explain why do you confuse a guess with a certainty, you don't have a basis, you've a guess: Moore's shrunkment during his middle age.
Well there´s no prove at all of the former bigger height, nor of the shrunkment
Again you've same as me ideas, not facts.
The only diff are a lot of insults to expense.
Mario said on 16/Sep/06
Gotzo, don't be that Ignorant. You are always talking about Connery being so much taller than Moore, but you can't even come with photos in which both men are young. I have a basis, you don't.
Gotxo said on 15/Sep/06
Mario, we're on a Dead End, sorry but your reasons aren't better than mines, we're only just gessing, mind that. No not every one's height decreases in same manner but you're taking that Moore's shrunkment for granted with no basis at all.
Mario said on 9/Sep/06
Gotxo, once again you come with the Connery defence which doesn't say nothing. There are only "good" pictures of the two Bond's which come from the end the 80s, 90s and 00s. Tell me because you still haven't tell me Gotxo what that says about there peak height? Do you think that everyone lost the same height Gotxo?
Gotxo said on 8/Sep/06
Rob- To me that 6'2" sounds like an stretch, he can look very tall du to his
slender figure, but never looked that compared to connery, even if he was supposedly 187cm and the later 189cm. The difference between them was noticeable.
He also was a male model in his youth, lying about measures in that profession is common too.
Viper652 said on 8/Sep/06
I dont even buy that 6-2 morning height at all still. I still think hes 6-0 1/2 peak.
Editor Rob said on 8/Sep/06
Indiana Evening Gazette, 1967 Moore says:
6ft 2 "early in the morning...by late after noon I'm 5 feet 3" and 175lbs back then.
half joking, but an actor using their morning height now...can't blame em.
said on 6/Sep/06Click Here
link from Rogers own website, taken from a story in the early 60's.
[Editor Rob: was channel flicking the other week and saw a scene in one bond, where he looked taller than desmond q guy, both were standing beside george baker.
Baker does claim on his resume to have been 6ft 4, don't know though]
piwo81 said on 31/Aug/06
Did anyone see spot that he was a little shorter than Walken (6') in "A View To A Kill" ?? How can he be 187 then???
the man with the golden gun said on 31/Aug/06
People on here are underestimating Roger Moores height. In the height of his fame he was a comfortable 6'2", watch him next to 6'4 Julius Harris (Tee Hee)in Live an Let Die.Even now he looks around the 6'1" mark.
Gotxo said on 24/Aug/06
tubbs said on 15/Aug/06
In Live And Let Die, we don't see the feet I don't think in the scene which Gotxo mentions, so maybe the bouncers are in platform shoes. It fits in with the era, there is also a shot in the car park scene of a platform shoe or two. What i'm trying to say is that they may have put 6'3 or 4 actors in platforms to look even bigger compared to Roger.
Mario said on 12/Aug/06
Why would it be unlikely? because it doesn't favour your theories?
The henchman of the bad-guy's in Bond-movie's are always on the tall side. Jaws, Hans, Tall german of TND, Gobinda, Kaufman, Necros etc... are all from 190 to 220cm.
Gotxo said on 2/Aug/06
He wears them in several scenes trhought the film, so that flic is not a valid way to compare him to supposedly tall co-stars.
Plus when he meets Solitarie for his #1 time in the secreet room of "The fillet of soul" he's taken out from there by two black bouncers.
If he was 6'2" then both bouncers would be like 6'5" or maybe over, possible but unlikely.
tubbs said on 1/Aug/06
I have the DVD of Live and Let Die, and it mentions the crocodile shoes in the special features. It has a close up of thm on Rogers feet, and they are low cut slip on shoes, not boots, as Gotxo mentions.
chris said on 30/Jul/06
I have seen Roger walking near Leicester Square, he looked smaller than I expected but he was not that close to me and he is getting quite old now. Six foot sounds about right though.
Mario said on 26/Jul/06
I haven't sayd that he does only wears them in the Crocodile farm? And what does it matter that he wears crocodile boots in some parts? It are the 70s, part of the mode....For more information about the Crocodile boots watch the LALD documantary. Be realistic.
Gotxo said on 25/Jul/06
Watch again LALD Moore wears boots throughout the film, not only in the croc farm /drug fabric scene.
said on 25/Jul/06
this is the pic i'm talking about:
Roger Moore with 6'5 Christopher Lee Click Here
Anonymous said on 11/Jul/06
viper wow..... i have not seen u once say an actor is taller then hes listed.. always u say atleast 2 inches short.. more looks 6 ft 1.5 too me
Mario said on 29/Jun/06
First. Tubbs isn't my after-ego.
Second. It's the first comment and I don't know which shot I'm refering, certainly not the Kotto and Moore shot, because I have been pretty clear about that in numerious occasion. So your once again trying change the facts.
No, I going to change my defence on Moore height. Did the classic Bond actors Llewelyn (Q) Bernard Lee (M) and Lois Maxwell (monnypenny) all lose 4/5 cm between between 1971 (Connery''s last Bond outing) and 1974 (the first movie with Llewelyn and Moore appear together)?
Llewelyn and Bernard had certainly reach a point there life in which they should start shrunking, but it's unbelievable to lose so much height in three years.
Your defence has been that he's always been shorter than Connery (despite that you have only posted pics in which they are both 60 years +) and the Crocodile Boots, which is an inside joke.
said on 29/Jun/06
Yeah, sorry i messed identities, it was your alter ego Tubbs who posted that promo pic, but you showed the same lack of judgement on the subject as making a comment as this one
Mario Nariano says on 25/Nov/05
That's good shot Tubbs. Wich proofes that Moore was at the age of 45, 6 ft 2.
Tubbs says on 25/Nov/05 Tubbs says on 25/Nov/05
Publicity shot for Live And Let Die, next to 6'3 Kotto, looks 6'2 here, now tell me Roger 5'11/6'0 peak height.Click Here
Maybe Tubbs didn't realized it was a promo, but you, being able to emit a critical valoration on it, did a enthusiastic fan one's.
Not a sin, but i think you're more interested in the image he represents rather than in the real man.
Piwo81: Who cares? The stunt has to wear same clothes as the star he suplants.
piwo81 said on 29/Jun/06
Gotxo, in this scene with crocodiles it was not Moore but a real crocodile keeper who did this unbelievable stunt (and there was no cheating, he really did it on real crocodiles!!!). It was revealed in a documentary film about bond series. You only see his legs ofcourse.
Dave said on 29/Jun/06
There is a scene in M's office in Moonraker where Llewelyn and Moore stand right next to each other.
There is hardly any difference between them. At most, Q is only about half an inch taller. If Moore wasn't 1.88 then he can't be less than 1.87
Mario said on 29/Jun/06
My comment about Kotto and Moore
Mario says on 16/Feb/06
"Kotto looks 6 ft 4 + in Alien and he is an half head taller than Anthony Quinn, ehm.... I think that there aren't good scenes to compare Moore with Kotto."
Mario said on 29/Jun/06
Tubbs, did once post that pic, not I. Use "CTRL F"
"As Moore was not as big as Connery, producers tried to compensate that in first films untill Moor'es position as Bond was consolidated."
Sorry but this pure trash, watch The Live and Let Die documantary for the "Crocodil Boots" Joke. Just like if the Audience could see the few CM difference. Also if Moore was 6 feet, Desmond Llewelyn would have losed hmmm 5/6 cm between 1967 and 1974, kinda unbelievable.
said on 28/Jun/06
Mario on promo pics:
Yes you did, you once posted this as an height indicator:Click Here
Quite clear they all are not at same level (unever floor?)
And dont try to deny it.
As Moore was not as big as Connery, producers tried to compensate that in first films untill Moor'es position as Bond was consolidated.
This shot is from Live and let die, in the moment when Bond's life is endangered
by crocs:Click Here
Wether it was the fashion of the time, i doubt Connery would have wore them in same situation.
said on 28/Jun/06
Ronald Rich and he has starred in one movie.Click Here
But that guy is for sure 205-210 cm
Dave said on 28/Jun/06
Sorry to go slightly off the subject, but someone mentions the actor who plays Hans in YOLT.
Anybody any ideas how tall he must have been. He makes 6'2'' Connery look like a midget.
Mario said on 28/Jun/06
I have never used promo posters to demonstrate his supposed 6 ft 2. And if you scroll down you will see that mention that ypu can't compare Moore with kotto in LALD, because there aren't good shots.
Gotxo said on 27/Jun/06
I do negate the hints you make when they rest upon weak basis, as say the promo posters of LALD, there Moore can look taller than Kotto simple because those kind of pictures are edited. You belive whatever you see because you don't analyze it. Today is much simpler with photoshop, but that technique is not new, models get longer lengs, better proportions or even different eye color.
I don't rule out 6'2" for Moore i just simply think is too much for him, show my point, sometimes accept different opinions, some others i don't.
You perceive any opposed opinion as an attack, and fight back with much less respect than i use to address you.
Stop messing confronted ideas with personal confrontation.
Mario said on 27/Jun/06
Correction they didn't enhaced Moore height because it's useless (or should I say even stupid?) to make him 1 inch taller. It just isn'taken from below so it's doesn't give a false illusion.
"Producers wanted big foes for bond withouth dwarfing him, they casted Lee for his acting skills & image, but compensating the excess in height."
Please stop this obsession, there are a lot villians who make the Bond's of the movie's look short. Let's not begin about Hans (of YOLT) o Jaws (TSWLM) or that German guy of the Brosnan one's
"The beach issue was started by you, and now that it fails in the task of showing a taller Moore, you blame me as if it was my idea using it as a proof."
Roger Moore looks 3/ 3,5 inches shorter than Lee in ther other shots of the movie.
The Funny thing about your arguements of Moore's height, is that you negate every shot/ proofe that he was actually closer to 6 ft 2 and only want to see the one in which he looks shorter (you even go by pictures of the 90s with Connery, which don't say nothing about his peak height).
Gonzalo said on 27/Jun/06
Well, the topic again: a six foot guy in Spain will be considered tall, and taller than the average spanish guy. But that person will not de freaking tall as some people are saying. I see many six foot guys everyday, less than in the Netherlands, Germany, USA or Great Britain, but many anyway.
Gotxo said on 26/Jun/06
The beach issue was started by you, and now that it fails in the task of showing a taller Moore, you blame me as if it was my idea using it as a proof.
They enhaced Moore for more than an ichf for that shot, i said a 4" diff and being conservative.
Producers wanted big foes for bond withouth dwarfing him, they casted Lee for his acting skills & image, but compensating the excess in height.
You mess Spanish with some LatinoAmericanos, Spanish are mediterranean as all latinos, wich truly implies Portuguese, Spanish (from Spain), French, Italian and Romanian.
All of wich are mediterranean and caucasian, what you mean are Latinoamericanos, the ones who share tongue with us but are far related to asiatic live in same side of the atlantic as you, and still small due to lack of wellfare. 6' foot is tall but far away exceptional.
Viper652 said on 26/Jun/06
Mario does have a good point about the sand though.
Mario said on 25/Jun/06
Guy's it's taken on a beach where there is sand! Think a little!
You know the scene in which they come both out of the elevator, right? Well compare or close Lee comes to the top and compare it with Moore.
They didn't "enhaced" Moore height is that shot, because they wanted a villian that was considerable taller than Bond for this movie (and why would they enhaced Moore an inch for one shot?). Also Gotxo your arguement that they always wanted to make Moore taller in the Bond movie's aren't credible. They casted Richard Kiel in Spy for god sake. Yaphet Kotto,Curd Jürgens and Julian Glover are all taller villians than Moore in they look taller than him in the movie's (they don't use trick to make Moore taller).
Larry said on 25/Jun/06
In his prime, Christopher Lee was my height (6'5"). Although slimmer... :-) In Frank's photo of Lee with Moore I DO see 4-5 inches between the two. That's about where my 6'0.5" Dad came on me.
HvK said on 24/Jun/06
I am a spaniard and I have to say that 6' is not that common here. Saying that is simply ridiculous. Of course there are tallish guys, but I am 5'11" and I'm taller than approximately 8 out of 10 guys walking in the spanish streets. A six footer is seen as a huge gay in here, without a doubt.
Gotxo said on 24/Jun/06
Yeah, they "enhaced" Moore's height in that shot as Lee is (or was) 6'5", very normal since Moore is the star, not Lee.
I think Moore was not over 6'1" for sure, i even could buy a lil over 6' but never under that, plus you met him and currently is your height.
People can shrunk a lot, but in this case i think he wasn't as tall as advertised.
said on 24/Jun/06
I have the movie and Lee is almost five inches taller than Moore.Click Here
Here's a B & W shot: Click Here
Mario said on 22/Jun/06
But whe are forgetting something.
The picture has been taken in the Beach of Scarmanga's Island where the ground isn't the same.
I have never think about it to to be honest.
Gotxo said on 21/Jun/06
I still thinks that if both guys are shot from same confussing angle, the distortion gonna distort them same.
In the novel TMWGG Scaramanga is 6'3", not a giant, whilst Bond is 6'.
The difference in your link is that 3", in mine is like 4" or maginaly over, Bond films are commonly loosely adaptations from their respective novels, thought get reasonably near.I think that in this case they wanted both and excellent actor & foe for Bond and Lee was it, as long as they find a way to not diminish Moore too much.
Mario said on 21/Jun/06
It's taken from below, and that can be confusing and Lee looks even Bulky.
The producers dind't even want that Moore looked tall next to Lee. Lee was cast because he was a really tall guy with much presence. A guy who looks on the first side in every aspect better than Bond.
Gotxo said on 20/Jun/06
I've to disagree, your shot is part of the film metrage, showing bond as producers like it: A tall man fighting a superior enemy.
My shot is a one taken by a photographic camera on the set and shows the real difference, a tall man beside a huge one, not part of the filmic narrative, no values conveyed, just a show of the diversity that exist in real world.
And as of judging the quality of the shot, mind this:
Both men are at same distance of the camera & angle, what does matter they are taken from a low position camera? the shown differece is gonna be the same.
That's my point of view, sure you have another one on that pair of pics, and if you show me the reasons why you think i'm wrong, i'll be glad to hear it.
Mario said on 20/Jun/06
It's the same shot but it's taken from below, it's even at lee's favour. Lee even looks bulky there. My shot is much better because it's taken from a better view.
Eyy Gotxo, I'm still waithing for the shots of Connery and Moore taken in the 60s and 70s. I asked them an half-year ago and still haven't seen them.
said on 19/Jun/06
Don't try to kill me for posting this again, but i can rebate your arguments coming to the same source:Click Here
Here Moore doesn't looks more than 6'1" if Lee was 6'5" (wich sounds right).
We are discussing by probably not much more than 1" (If) but the n-th time, he never was as tall as Connery, nearly 2" diff, so if Connery was accurately 189cm then Morre was never over 6'1".
said on 19/Jun/06
I don't see a 12 cm difference Viper!Click Here
There is another shot taken from below, but this one is better. I see 7cm or so. 187cm as Rob list him is his peak height. I Have done enough research and I bet that rob has done the same.[Editor Rob: speaking of Lee,
see Women beside Lee with normal heels, she is, well these days, didn't look shorter than 169cm...we were nearly eye to eye.]
Viper652 said on 18/Jun/06
I reckon Moore was 184cm peak height. That back to back shot with Christopher Lee in Man with the Golden gun pretty much confirms it.
said on 18/Jun/06
Uh he always looked 4-5 inches taller than Tony Curtis in the persuaders. Curtis comes to eyes most of the time, and Moore's head is probably 25 cm long. You should notice that in a lot of scenes they put Curtis closer to the camera, and/or in higher ground.Click HereClick Here
What I'm saying that thinking he's under 6 feet is crazy, I haven't seen a single picture in which he looks shorter than 6 feet nowedays.
Moore did also look a strong 187cm next to Chris Lee (he comes a couple of cms above Lee's eyeline) in The Man With Golden. Gun.
Gotxo said on 17/Jun/06
Why then he didn't look much past 6' compared to 5-9" (tops) Tony Curtis in the persuaders? I think he might be between 5'11" and 6' now, that's my guess as i haven't meet him never, but it doesn't sound crazy to me.
In the Quest he didn't look more than 4" taller Van Dame, wich i don't think is over 5'9" (i rule out 5'10" for the belgian).
And again, i'm guessing 6' or 6'1" for Moore at his peak, is that downgrading?
Don't think so, please avoid using words as hypocrite,whenever you hear an statement that differs yours you feel it like an attack, that's not reasonable.
Mario said on 16/Jun/06
Glenn did met Roger Moore in 1990 when Moore was 63 years old, what has that to do with has this peak height? This being an hyprocrite.
Most witness account estimate him by the way 6 ft 1 and 6 ft 2 (look at mi6, commanderbond etc, those who say 5 ft 11 are ussualy "Downgraders"), he is easy one the tallest guy's at ceromony's, and there are enough pictures in which he can look 2 cm shorter than Connery or exact the same height.
It's crazy to think that he is in the 5 ft 11 range, how tall do you estimante Van Damme then, 5 ft 6? [laugh]
By the way, you say that there are no sightings of that he could have been close to 6 ft 2 in the past. Have you seen him beside 6 ft 3,5 Sutherland in the saint? That Picture with a full straig Roger Moore and full straight 6 ft 6 actor and Desmond Llewelyn did probably lose 3 inches between Diamonds Are Forever (71') and The Man with the Golden Gun (74') according to you.
Gotxo said on 14/Jun/06
Connery was a legit 6'2", he might have lost a bit of height but much of this is due to posture, he's still like 4cm bigger than Moore, who never was as tall as him.
So 181-182cm looks right for him, plus it coincides with most of witness accounts describing him either 5'11" or 6' but never in hell still 6'1".
That 6'2" account comes only from own Roger's mouth, Glenn, wich in my opinion most of times is an accurate guy, described him as 6'1" back 15 years ago, so there are no sightments for him @ 6'2" nor in the past, nor today.
On the contrary they are for Connery, isn't easier to think he really was whilst Moore wasn't quite that tall?
Mario said on 13/Jun/06
Roger Moore's pictures with Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby, Michail Caine and Sean Connery (who are all between 6 ft 1 and 6 ft 2). Still looks 183-185 cm, most probably 184cm for his current height.
In fact I haven't seen a single picture in which he looks 5 ft 11.5
Gotxo said on 13/Jun/06
To me it's clear he's not currently over 6 feet but opposite, maybe still surpases 5'11" wich is quite good for his age. Plus Frank has met him recently and sustains the same point. I think Rob get best when he doesn't pretend to, 184cm is a very good guess for him. I do mantain that he obviously shrunk, prolly about an inch, maybe more. 6'1" in his youth is possible, 6'2" even in his youth is too much. He can look that, but he had rake thin legs, lon limbs (both arms & legs), wide chest and T shaped shoulders, so he looked taller than he was.
178cm is truly belivable for the spanish between 18-23 y.o., they are real tall, the stats for the general is a 176.5cm.
I'm the same height as you Mario, i'm conscious that i don't draw attention by my height, and i meet everyday a lot of guys taller than me in Madrid.
I also did in Durango (The original one in Basque Country) which is a small village.
Mario said on 12/Jun/06
Incorrect, most pictures still suggest that he's over 6 feet.
By the way...
If I dind't know what the avarage height for men was in Spain (which is 178cm), i would say 175cm or so.
Gotxo said on 11/Jun/06
Errm...The same problem again.
I've found pics from 2003 in wich Moore is like 4cm taller than Kenneth Branagh, who's listed accurately at a bit under 5'10" on IMDB, not a trusteable source, but actors tend to be no taller than listed there (to say the least).
So Moore is now a shade over 5'11", that make of him a big fella when young since it's obvious he shrunk, i correct myself a sound 6'1" feasible, was he taller than that?
Gotxo said on 9/Jun/06
This Roger Moore forum, but i've to respond.
you've ni puta idea also. :D
My guess for Moore over six foot when young, dont think he got a sound 6'1", but i can accept otherwise, the problem here is that we lack reliable witness that met him in his youth.
Picture said on 9/Jun/06
The avarage height in Spain is like 170 cm, they are midgets!
Gotxo said on 8/Jun/06
You have ni puta idea (hope your time in spain allows to understand that comment).
I'm a solid 5'11", my 187cm friend doesn't consider himself very tall, my tall friends think i'm medium, my small friends think i'm medium-tall, but not tall.
6' very tall in Spain LMAO!! 6' is no longer very tall in Europe, though is tall.
One of my neighbours in Madrid is over 6'6" one of my work mates too (of course exceptions, is they who attract atention).
Walking by uninportant streets i feel towered everyday by not an small number of guys (can swear you). I do not detach in the crowd, most of guys are near my height (under or over by a few cms).
Or you not have been to here or you are a too high concept of yourself.
Almost 40 and no girlfriend said on 7/Jun/06
Gotxo, quita diciendo esos comentarios estupidos. If you are 5-11, you are tall in Spain, and you are tall in USA, just you don't tower over as many people. I have been there, I have walked through Madrid, I have been to bars, clubs, and believe me, a 6 footer will attract attention. Many chicas espanolas will comment on your height. Doesn't mean there aren't tall people. I saw a guy close to 7 feet when I was there. He was stopping traffic. But overall, if you are 6 feet in Spain, you are a tall guy, not a giant, just a very tall guy, and no girl will say you are "bajito". Viva Espana!!!!
sam2 said on 5/Jun/06
Roger Moore was never over 6' 1"
Gotxo said on 3/Jun/06
This is Moore devoted page, bad actor, superb star and tall guy over 6'.
Other than that, thank you a lot for your comments, wich show a lot of knowledge
on Spanish famosetes ;)
Enrique is Spanish born from an spanish father and a filipino mother.
I never feel tall in Madrid (nor sort) being as tall as you, walk trough "Gran Via" and "Francisco Silvela" you always meet tall guys, some well past 6'3".
As for Connery's sightments at 6', i don't think he shrunk 2", maybe he is an horrible sloucher at his old age. One of my friends is a solid 6'2", but uses to hunch a lot,when the guy does that his eyes are only 2 cm taller than mines.
I guess that wen our time for assylum comes we'll be the same height LOL.
Mario said on 3/Jun/06
Isn't Enrique Iglesias half-spanish?
Still Bertin osborne, Coto Matamoros, Kiko Matamoros, Poty, Fernando Romay, The prince, The King of Spain, Mariano Rajoy and Jose Luis Zapatero are more than 6 ft for sure.
At 5 ft 11, I can feel myself tall sometimes when I walk in the streets of Madrid.
Gotxo said on 2/Jun/06
The point is not Enrique Iglesias height, the point is that when you make a statement based on reflection, logic and experience wether is right or wrong, some people do not discuss it rebating arguments but simply discard it using rancid topics.
The point is that when someone do not like what we say simply attack our icons,
well, i do not even like Enrique's music, but he's sucessfull and that's a sin.
The point is that being 5'11" that's a rather common height in Spain and to pretend that some guy being a single inch taller is a giant among us is a joke, as is not in any civilisez +wellfare enjoying country.
I would like to hear senseful counteropinions, not attacks to my nationality.
If i do cite facts is to lead to people to think, i can not transmit the my experience as it's imposible, nor my point of view as it wouldn't be ethical nor objective. But i can show them plain data and my reading on them so they are able to agree with it or boldly, reject it. I think that's fair.
Gonzalo said on 2/Jun/06
A six feet guy in Spain will be above average height but will not tower over everybody. We are still among the shortest people in Europe but we are not midgets anymore. And Connery towered over Ronaldinho who is listed 1`80 cm.
All in all: Connery was 6`2 at his prime and is 6`1 nowadays and Moore was 6`1 and is now between 5`11 and 6 feet.
Gotxo said on 1/Jun/06
Almost 40 (or Whoever you are):
I don't belive you, i'm a strong 5'11" and that's not short but i do not tower over anybody. Various stats from official sources gives 176.5cm for the general mean, but when it comes the time to talk of teenager a survey of year 2000 gave 178cm for the ones who where 18-21 y old(then). I can belive that.
If you think mean in USA is 175cm you're nuts, that's below average even in Spain, a Survey of 1998 rendered 177cm for whites, but i guess even that is under the mean now. 175cm was the mark since '50s to '70s-'80s Update yourself!
A final data 174cm was the mean in england in the '50s, now is 178cm (and they were pretty tall for that decade standards).Doesn't that tell you something?
You feed on topics to write nosense, and it's boring rather than amusing.
Well maybe Connery is not much over 6' now but he was near 6'2" when young (wether over or under) but Moore was never under 6' in his youth.
Almost 40 and loves pro wrestling said on 1/Jun/06
well I have been to Spain and I can tell you if you are legit 6 feet you pretty much tower over most Spanish men. Even the spaniard girls say Spanish men are "bajitos", which mean short compared to American men. If you are 6 feet in USA you are still tall since the average height is 5-9 for american men, but just not very tall.
I would say, barefooted, no shoes, Moore is about 5-10+ and Connery about 6 feet even. With shoes, Moore is about 6 feet and Connery close to 6-2 since shoes often add at least 1" if not more to height, especially hard soled dress shoes, which these guys wear.
Gotxo said on 31/May/06
I think Connery was 6'2", half an inch up, or down.
Taking in consideration the last pic and supossing Moore is 182cm nowadays i guess Connery is 6'1.25" or a shade above. And for Caine, maybe he was a bit over 6'1" and rounded up an inch.
Since you've met Connery you've have to get a rough or accurate idea of his height in the present. Wich one is yours?
Gonzalo said on 31/May/06
It´s hard for me to believe that Connery is just six feet tall nowadays. He came to Spain recently and he was taller than everybody else. And six feet tall isn´t very tall, not even in Spain. He always looks tall and big.
Frank2 said on 29/May/06
Both Connery and Caine are no longer as tall as they were as younger men. When I saw Connery he wasn't that much taller than me and I'm a solid 5'11". Neither was Moore.
Gotxo said on 29/May/06
That's a good pic, i see not quite 2cm difference i Caine's favour (<2cm, >1cm)
but for Connery i must say that's more than one inch. The advantage seem to have diminished since the set of Connery-Moore photos in wich Moore plays the violin. But i can say it's still of 4cm (wheter most of it comes from the head.
Maybe an better eye than us can help:
Rob, concerning this last photo of the trio, how much would you put the difference in cm for Connery-Moore?
said on 29/May/06
A picture of the same event as what Piwo posted
Mario said on 29/May/06
Look at pic 2.
Look at Connery's shoulder (it's higher situated than Moore's shoulder) and look at the size of there heads. Those pics are at Moore favour, but there isn't much difference.
Gotxo said on 29/May/06
I still see Roger shorter than both but i admit the difference is minimal not quite an inch in the case of Caine, near that on Connery's.
Good point on that of photos, now i'm more confused that ever, but still have Glenn and Frank givin him 6'1" and near (a lil over i suppose) 5'11" at different ages.
Gotxo said on 25/May/06
Yes, EON publicited every actor as 6'2" wether donwgrading or upgrading them,
it's upt to the audience to belive they are wer clones made after the same cast.
No, i've never said Moore was 5'11", i've said that he can be now near that range,(my words "can't resist to see him under 182cm"), since Frank2 has met him recently and said he was pretty similar to him in height, in the past Gleen met him and said he looked 6'1".
But i can buy also a shade over 6' when young, Connery was the huge guy, Moore was fairly tall for his generation, and the good looking one.
They played the same role, but that makes not them equal.
Mario said on 25/May/06
EON has promoted every Bond at 6 ft 2, even George Lazenby who could have been 6 ft 3! 6 ft 2 is for some the perfect height.
Some here think that Moore is 5 ft 11 now, wich he doesn't look in pictures. This doesn't make sense unless Brosnan is in the 5 ft 11 range and Timothy Dalton 6 foot, and you Gotxo also think that Dalton is still in the 6 ft 2 range isn't it? And don't forget that a 180cm range for Moore would mean that Van Damme is 167-168 cm.
I agree on the 1/2 cm thing, it's impossible to know. But Connery has been measured at 6 ft 2.4, he has sayd that he is 6 ft 2, he has said that he is 189cm tall, he has looked it. And I still don't know why some keep saying that he is 187cm wich comes from nowhere. Some poeple is just obsesionated (not you Gotxo) with downgrading stars, just to feel themself better or so.
Viper652 said on 24/May/06
From what Ive seen Id say Moore was 184cm at his peak, and Connery was 187cm at his peak.
Gotxo said on 24/May/06
I don't think Connery has ever wore lifts, it's quite clear he's both tall and huge (oversized hands, feet, chest for his height whateveris the size for it)
He has looked easily a lot of times the 189cm you claim for him , but that's only 2 cm from 187cm. What i mean is that this is a diff hard to judge even if you meet the guy personally. We can't assure this, that's my point, even being that very feasible to me (indeed i'm inclined to think he was it when young).
To discuss for 1 or 2cm is pointless, unless you need it to fix cabalistic math acrobacies in order to backup a guess.
You should first have a guess and later try to match facts one with another, not feeling someone deserves a certain height and afterwards concoct math jugglings to make it work.
6' is not short by any means, and a lanky long limbed one can look much taller being this. Fernando Torres is "only" 184cm and looks 6'2" in pictures and even in the field from long distance.
My opinion on this is that when the Bond replacement had to come, EON staff advertised Moore as being a Connery's pair to prevent the audience felt cheated. Not only in height, but in various means (on firts films Moore even beated gals, to appear as though and feelings-spare as Connery), so to get a continuity in bondian features.
Mario said on 24/May/06
I personally think that Van Damme is 5 ft 8 and the top of his head comes to Moore's eyes. Let's Assume (this is impossible to know exactly) that Moore's head is 25cm long, so Moore would be easy 12/13 cm on Van Damme. Moore was 68 years old when he apparead with Van Damme.
I will never discart 6 ft 1 (as peak height for Roger Moore), but 6 feet is way to low for Roger. This is purely based on what I have seen of Roger..
Note: The 189cm his what Connery looked in my opinion in his early movies. I'm 99% sure about this and unless someone proofes that Connery did wear lifts I will not change my opinion.
Gotxo said on 23/May/06
Sorry for arrogating to myself the use of word "we", but you have only found info saying that Connery was this height, not a trusteable sightment by a guys that can prove they meet celebrities with regularity.
Therefore yours is a suspicion or a guess no more valid than mine, another thing is that you sometimes get confused between very strong guesses (that you could bid your hose on) and corroborated facts.
Yeah Van Damme was a midget compared to Moore, but yet Van Damme's height is subjected to due. He can be near 5'10" or just a shade over 5'8" so that statement of Moore towering over him serves to prove no point (nor mine, nor yours).
The main difference between your line and my own one is that i'm open to consider your point if get coherent/senseful hints showing the posibility. I've changed my mind more than once is those were good, or at least considered de posibility.
You belive in things on a more fan point of view, you get the advertised data without criticising it. That's not good, what media say can coincide with your thoughts but the opposite shows a concerning lack of judgement.
Mario said on 23/May/06
Stop that friend, we are not even sure if Connery was 189 or 187cm, but the fact is he had 3-4cm on Moore, making him 6'1" at best.[/B]
- I have done my own research and Connery did look in my opinion 189cm at his peak. So don't say 'we' please.
-It's not a fact that Moore always been 3/4 cm shorter than Connery. In some Pictures of the 90s, Moore looks 3 cm shorter, but there are also pics of the 90s wich Moore looks a cm shorter, this has nothing to do with there peak height due the fact that they are old and have lost height. You have said this many times and you don't have any proofe.
In 96' Moore was at least as tall as Brosnan
in 96' Moore was an half-head taller Jean Claude Van damme
in 02' Moore was an inch shorter than Timothy Dalton and Lazenby. Both men are in 188cm range.
Picture said on 23/May/06
Where can I find old pictures of Roger Moore and Sean Connery? Those pictures must be when both were young.
I have never seen them and I want to know of Gotxo is right because he begins to sound like a banned guy ones which his name i can't remember but, very know around here for his wild guesses & explanations.
Viper652 said on 22/May/06
I think Moore was 184cm peak height, and Connery 187cm.
Glenn said on 22/May/06
I SPEAK the TRUTH.I never said 5-10 on CHAN.5-9 max.your words and guesses are worthless over 40 and no life.Moore was at least 6ft.5 when I saw him in early 1991.
Gotxo said on 22/May/06
Don't speak nonsense nobody walks in the street barefooted, nor Glenn or Frank are perfect, but day make darn good guesses most of times, Glenn tends to round up a bit and Frank's trend is to round down. But they are sincere and say what they saw and lifts normally cause suspicion.
5'11" is not small, neither tall, that's my height and is not tall even in Spain.
Your comments start to sound like a banned guy ones which his name i can't remember but, very know around here for his wild guesses & explanations.
Stop that friend, we are not even sure if Connery was 189 or 187cm, but the fact is he had 3-4cm on Moore, making him 6'1" at best.
Almost 40 and still watching wrestling said on 22/May/06
Glenn thinks everybody is tall. He thinks Jackie chan is 5-10 for crying out loud. Moore is a tall guy, 5-10 or 5-11 is not short considering the average height for western male is 5-9. He's probably a tad over 6 feet with shoes and certainly over 6-1 with lifts. When Glenn met him and thought he was 185, which is about 6-1, was Moore walking around barefooted?? I certainly hope that James Bond will have more class than that. Take away shoes (and lifts?), and Moore is a tall man at 5-10, 5-11ish.
Mario said on 21/May/06
Glenn did met him in 1990 when Moore was 63 years old and he did think that he was 185cm, wich makes sense because I think that he did look it in his last two Bond-movies: A view to a Kill (85')and Octopussy (83').
Still 5 ft 11 sounds unbelievable. And I think that he never looked 183 at his peak.
And yes Connery has always been taller. I personaly think that Connery was 189cm and Moore 187cm a there peaks.
Gotxo said on 21/May/06
I respect your ideas, but i won't agree on 6'2" for him, is too much.
I recognize he can look easily that, but not in reality be it.
Our most productive sighters are Glenn and Frank2, Glenn has the best eye of the two, but Frank is a honest man, he can be wrong of course, but if he says he has meet him and was near his height (well i still resist to see him under 182cm) i take it as reference (as a range, not as fact).
And yeah he is a big guy, but he was always shorter than Connery i can belive for him 184cm to six one tops as peak height. I allready know i could be wrong, but otherwise would sincerly surprise me.
Some people think i'm downgrading him, downgrading when i say he was 6'to6'1" LMAO. Some people is starting to loss sense of reality.
My best guess is that he was never as tall as Connery, and the later has a 3-4cm on him. That's all.
Mario said on 21/May/06
A couple of months ago I saw him on TV at the Chronicles or narnia premiere and He was easy one the tallest guy's. A 5 ft 11 would be in most cases a little taller than the avarage person. When I see Moore in recent Pictures, movies etc. he is just much taller than the avarage person.
Gotxo, you have said numerious times that he is considerable shorter than Connery, but the only 'good' pics that I have seen of those two legends are of 90s, wich don't say nothing about there peak height. There is picture of Moore and Caine of the 70s in wich Moore is an half-inch shorter. We don't see there footwear but let's assume that they similiar footwear.
Also Tubbs showed a picture of Moore (in his 20s) with a 6 ft 6 actor sometime ago, in which moore looks easy 6 ft 2.
Tubbs said on 21/May/06
Rog has been on tv a couple of times recently, and he still looks a big guy, he was just sligthly shorter than Paul O Grady a couple of weeks ago on his show, and O grady was wearing 2.5 inch dance shoes, and he looked only an inch shorter than Richard E Grant in comparison to others on the Prince's trust show yesterday. This talk of 5'10, 5'11 is surely a joke. I always thought he was down in the 5'11 range until I saw these 6'2" comments, and then I notice he really does look a big guy, still atleast 184cm today, maybe even 185.
Mario said on 21/May/06
The 5 ft 10/ 11 comments have come back....
To me he looks at least 184cm now. He is taller than 180cm guys and he looks a bit shorter than 6 ft 2 and sometimes 6 ft 1 guys.
Or is Dalton 183 cm . XD
Gotxo said on 19/May/06
I'm with Piwo, he was on the 6' mark maybe a bit over, 6'1" tops, never in hell 6'2".
Again, a 176cm described him as tall, my ex-gf is 175cm and never described me as tall being 5'11", don't buy your arguments. He's a large man (not as much as Connery but large) Not incredible tall but oversized, remembers to me a friend who being 6'1" has a 6'7" armspan (mine is 6'2" and still big for mi size, so compare).He has large hands y bones.
And as for the spying aptitude, yes, both Connery and Moore are tall enough to pass inadverted, thus making a tail on a suspect difficult. But as an article explained some of the best Mi5 agents are over 6', but over that feature is his appearance wich would detach they from the crowd.
Anyway it's just fiction, not reality, it only had to work on the screen, wich one cares for verosimilitude in a Bond film?
He's a tall man, i think you're clueless with this one.
Almost 40 and no girlfriend said on 19/May/06
I can give Moore 5-11, but not 6 feet or over. He's just not a tall man, but a slightly above average sized man, which is how James Bond is supposed to be. Even Sean Connery is a little bit oversized for Bond. At 6-1 he will attract too much attention and his agility/mobility is probably compromised at that height.
Gotxo said on 18/May/06
Sorry, i mean *boost instead boots, "2 cm taller" instead "2 taller".
I must ask perdon for the worst typping in world, won't give feeble excuses.
Gotxo said on 18/May/06
Almost 40 and no girlfriend:
Frank2 has spotted Moore recently, and he's still on the 5'11" mark or so, but in his youth he was never smaller than 6', probably 6'1" but no more.
In 1990 an not yet miss spain (who is 176cm) met him and remarked 2 things in his appearance:very good looking and tall. I don't see a very tall woman describing a 2 taller than her man as tall. He also is a man with big shoulders and hands for his size, that normally reveals a height boots during teens years.
Not a very common feature among, medium or small people.
piwo81 said on 18/May/06
He was the same height as Christopher Walken (or maybe even 1cm shorter) in "A View to a Kill" from 1985. Moore was then 58 years old and Walken,42 then, is said to be 184cm. Although I am a big fan of sir Roger, I can't believe he has ever been 6'2". He was 184cm in prime in my opinion. However, in "the Saint" he really looks taller than in other movies.
Almost 40 and no girlfriend said on 18/May/06
Moore is 5-10, about 6 feet with dress shoes on. He's not 6 feet barefooted. He's a slighted above average sized man. Connery is taller, about 6-1 legit.
Gotxo said on 15/May/06
the 187cm listing for him when young is too much. He could look that, but is pure image, he was never as tall as Connery.
I think he was 6'1" and that's pretty tall for a man born in 1927.
[Editor Rob: I've seen some Saint repeats recently...I think he could look a strong 6ft 1er]
Gonzalo said on 4/May/06
I think he was 6`1 at his peak. He was a couple of inches shorter than Gregory Peck in Sea Wolves.
Tim said on 3/May/06
When I met Roger Moore in Quebec City (Canada) on Feb. 25, he told us that as a young actor he stood 6 ft 1. I stood next to him and we both had flat shoes and he was about an inch shorter than me who stands 6 ft 0.5.
Frank2 said on 26/Apr/06
In fairness to Moore, I believe he could have been close to 6'1" when he was young, but dropped down by at least two inches by the time I saw him.
Lone said on 26/Apr/06
thanks frank, your photos, particularly of moore and garner, show that he's 5-10, barefooted, max. perhaps close to or right at 6 feet with shoes on.
said on 26/Apr/06
Next time I'll publish a negative. In fact here's one: Click Here
Picture said on 26/Apr/06
Why haven't you taken a good picture of macnee and Moore? You always take pictures who are negative. Looks for good pictures for god sake.
This guy was at least 6 ft 1 at his peak and he looks it currently.
Moore looks by the way three inches taller than Niven most of the film.
said on 25/Apr/06
I found this shot of Moore looking only an inch taller than 5'11" David Niven: Click Here
Roger and 5'11" Patrick MacNee: Click Here
The uniformed IMDb lists him at 5'10". MacNee was 5'11" back in 1982 when I met him. He might have shrunk to 5'10" by now, but back when that photo was atken he was 5'11". Moore doesn't look much taller.
MacNee with 5'9" Linda Thorson: Click Here
Hubba! Hubba! Mmmmmmmmm......I just loved Linda Thorson!
Roger and 5'9" Tony Curtis: Click Here
Hmmmmmm.....I'm now wondering if Harvey could be correct about Curtis being only 5'8"....I just wonder.....compare him to how tall Linda looked.
6' Jack Kelly, Roger and 6'1"? perhaps 6'2" back then James Garner: Click Here
And here: Click Here
Garner and Kelly: Click Here
Viper652 said on 25/Apr/06
Most of the picture evidence suggests that Moore was at the very least 6-0, and possibly 6-1. I find it hard to beleive he actually wore lifts to get up to that height, since they only hired actors 6-0 or up barefoot to play Bond.
Glenn said on 25/Apr/06
Moore was 6-1 minimum in his prime.
Gotxo said on 24/Apr/06
Nope, he isn't, read my previos post, Esther Arroyou (miss Spain 1990) was measured at 176cm and ran into Moore when she was a shop asistant various years before. She described him as tall and very good looking.
Could a woman describe a man as tall being only 2cm than her? I doubt it.
Anyway he was tall, pay atention to his comparatively larger hands (not as big as Connery's ones for his size, thought Connery was both tall & huge), he's a large guy.
To end with Frank meet him recently and he still is at least 5'11", i give him a very minimum of 6ft (or a shade more) when young, and if over not much more than 6'1".
Lone said on 24/Apr/06
what did i tell you? moore is 5-10, maybe 6 feet at his prime with lifts, barefooted, next to a wall, 5-10, no mmore.
said on 22/Apr/06
Here's a somewhat recent shot of Moore with Tony Cutis: Click Here
Curtis is now about 5'8".
Anonymous said on 22/Apr/06
he was taller than patrick macnee in a view to a kill by a couple of inches. frank 2, you mentioned on the tyrone power page that john carradine was 5'11 1/2", he was in the howling with macnee and they looked similar in height in a few scenes. going by this would put moore at about 6'1"
Gotxo said on 22/Apr/06
True viper, no less than 6' for him, he was described as tall by a 176cm spanish woman who ran into him in the first '90s (i know her size because later she became miss spain).
Though the argument of the cut height for bond being valid in the past it is no loner, as EON has hired a guy under 6'.
Viper652 said on 21/Apr/06
No way is Roger Moore only 5-10. Hes at the very least 6-0 in all of the Bond movies. Hell If Roger Moore was only 5-10 he would have never been hired to play Bond. They all had to be at least 6-0.
Lone said on 20/Apr/06
I think roger moore is only 5-10, as is evident in the bond movie mooraker. there was a scene where he was on the spaceship with dr. goodhead looking out and Jaws (richard kiel) came and stood behind them. moore came up to Jaw's chest, if he were taller than 6 feet, he would be at Jaw's shoulder level, and richard kiel is legit 7 feet tall.
connery is probably a legit 6-1. moore is shorter, 5-10 or 5-11 at best.
Picture said on 20/Apr/06
It seems that it's normal that people begin losing height in there 30s, that's at least what my doctor says.
Frank2 said on 13/Apr/06
Somehow I doubt McNee had lost an inch by the time I met him since in 1982 he was only 62, but I suppose it's possible.
said on 13/Apr/06
Macnee did look very tall avengers. 6 ft 1 range, but yes he could of the lifts club. Moore was at least 6 ft 1 at his peak.[Editor Rob: could he have been 5ft11 in his prime? In the second avengers, the Gareth Hunt guy is 6ft (well, lists himself on his resume at that height), so maybe he started to shrink as per Frank2's encounter...scroll down to see him with diana princess
actually, here is McNee with the 6ft Gareth Hunt - you can see there he appears shorter, they probably got lumley to taker shoes off...5ft 6 Twiggy without shoes]
Frank2 said on 12/Apr/06
For what it's worth I'm currently watching Sherlock Holms in New York (1976 TV movie) courtesy of the Fox Movie Channel and noticing that 5'10" Patrick Macnee is about two inches shorter than Roger Moore and Macnee is purposely slumped a bit relying on a cane in order to walk. I know Macnee is 5'10" since I met him. That was back when he worked for TV producer Glenn Larson at Fox. In Mcnee's case, the IMDb has someone's height accurately reported.
[Editor Rob: when did you meet him? Is it possible McNee shrunk a bit, or wore lifts in Avengers...just 5ft 10, I know the Gareth Hunt fellow lists himself as 6ft, can't remember how he compared to MacNee]
Tubbs said on 5/Apr/06
I have evidence that Roger was atleast 6'1.5" when he made the Wild Geese, I just cant find a way of explaining it properly, when I can I will, it takes a bit of mathematical working out, so I will come back when i've done it, all I can say is theat it has something to do with doorways.
said on 22/Mar/06
Moore with 5'9" Tony Curtis: Click Here
Gotxo said on 1/Mar/06
The problem with moore is that in addition that he was tall, he was skinny, thin framed (in spite of broad shoulders) and had long limbs (specially the neck) which remarked his height (a powerfull image). In spite of this my guess for his peak height was no more than 185cm.
Mario said on 1/Mar/06
I say that his peak height was 187cm or 6 ft 1.5. I really is the height that he has looked most his carrer
When he said 6 ft 2 he rounded a little up en when he said 6 ft 1 he rounded a little down.
Gotxo said on 28/Feb/06
Nice try Rob, byt that guys height is an unsure one too. If we belive Tim's report he's nowadays below 184cm plus the guy stated himself being 6'1" when young (being the inch and feet so an inaccurate measures, that could mean either 184 or 186cm, appart from 185cm of course).
said on 28/Feb/06
What do you reckon he is from that picture with Jackie Rob? Roger is tilting slightly, but Jackie is standing tall, and still comes below Roger's nose, Rog looks taller than a guy who is 5'11, there's atleast 7 inches between the two of them, he still looks 6'1. Any ideas when Glenns' picture with Roger is likely to turn up Rob?[Editor Rob: no, no idea, we were taking a break with pics...
there's a few other shots on getty of jackie and roger
but knowing exactly what Stewart is now...I have seen him described 5ft 5 in Scottish press, but 5ft 6.5 was bandied about in his prime...but he doesn't look that now, if he ever was that height.]
Tim said on 27/Feb/06
I met Roger Moore this past weekend in Quebec City (Canada) and he was about an inch shorter than me who stands 6 ft 0.5. So he stands about 5 ft 11.5. He stated his height as 6 ft 1 but that must have been in his prime.
Gotxo said on 21/Feb/06
I think that Glenn's picture/testimony is a way better source.
What you've posted is a promo pic and there a lot of considerations are taken to make the star appear in the best way. I don't rule out 6'2" for him, but to me he never looked that tall (though he was tall) more like 6"+ to 6'1", if hes with anohter stars he can look 6'2", but to me he never looked that compared to Connery (wich is also guy who can look taller than his 6'2").
Tubbs said on 18/Feb/06
I've already posted this, but this backs up Daves' suggestion that there is only an inch between Roger and Yaphett. Goes to show that he was 6'2 at the age of 45. He still can't be much below that now, just waiting for Glenns'picture with him, and Glenn has said himself that Rog was 6'1. http://cache.eonline.com/Features/Features/Bond/Dossier/Images/letdie.pic.jpg
Mario said on 16/Feb/06
Kotto looks 6 ft 4 + in Alien he is an half head taller than Anthony Quinn, ehm.... I that there aren't good scenes to compare Moore with Kotto.
Dave said on 15/Feb/06
Compare Moore next to the 6'3'' Yaphet Kotto in Live and Let Die. Moore is no more than an inch shorter.
Gotxo said on 12/Feb/06
Your dad should get his height checked, maybe Roger was that height when young (i should give him less, though) But since a long time he looked smaller than Connery (who's 6'2"), so either your father got a wrong estimation of Roger height or his own one.
Fenny said on 11/Feb/06
My dad and i went to a charity evening recently and Roger was the guest speaker, my father is 6ft 3 and roger was a shade smaller, but not a great deal shorter, somewhere in the region of 1"-1.5". I think your estimation of this acting legend is too short he's comfortably 6ft 1.5" - 6ft 2"
Dave said on 5/Feb/06
Moore appears 6'2'' in his early Bond films but appears to be down to 6'1'' by the time of A View To a Kill. Nowadys I guess he is between 6' and 6'1''.
Gotxo said on 2/Feb/06
Yeah, i knew that pic tubbs. I've said that i could be wrong, just telling my perception on him. In some films he looks like 6'2" and such, in others 6' to 6'1". Undeniable a tall guy, even for today standards and a guy hard to measure too. I just want to be precise, i bought some dvd's of this guy's films so it shouldn't be a problem at all him proving to be 6'2".
Tubbs said on 2/Feb/06
Roger here with 6'6" Clint Walker from a movie from the late 50's, he looks 6'2 to me here, anyone else think so too?
Mario said on 2/Feb/06
Rob gives Moore's current height, not his peak height. He says in the intro that Moore was in his Saint days 6 ft 2.
There is a Picture somewhere taken in the mid 70s in wich Moore looks an half-inch shorter than Sir Caine.
Gotxo said on 2/Feb/06
The rounding ups are very common, and if a man is near a height plus due to his body frame tend to looks taller than he is, it's all said.
Yes, i cuold give him a bit over 6'1" but not quite a full inch.
Anyway i know i could be wrong, and if proven otherwise i'll have no problem in accepting it. I'll be the #1 to post here that he's over that.
But to be sincere, not deniying the possibility you point out, i still think the 184cm Rob gave him was a extremely cool guessing (give or take a cm).
It's only my opinion, it changes nothing, and we haven't to chip away our brains
as Glenn is close to submit a photo (and to descibe the height thought he had, i hope).
Mario said on 1/Feb/06
Hey Gotxo don't you think that he could have been between those two heights (6 ft 1 and 6 ft 2)? The most man round there height to an inch and maybe Moore rounded his height. He could have been very well 6 ft 1.5 186/ 187 cm.
We are all talking about 1/2 cm of difference between Moore and other guy's and it's pretty difficult to see that. Because maybe is shoes are a little more heeled or maybe his posture. Poeple always seems to forget how important posture is (sometimes thanks to my posture I look in poeple eyes 2 inches shorter!). Moore has a good posture, but he just like every normal person isn't always full straight
The picture of Caine, Connery and Moore wich you mean McFly is from the early 90s, I dunno where that 1983 comes from.
The list wich I posted isn't my opinion, it's the list of some magazine and it's a joke. Your list is also a joke.
Here you can found something simeliar.
Gotxo said on 1/Feb/06
Tubbs & Mario: You've given very good reasons to support your guess at 6'2".
They sound totally logical to me, i don't discard that height for Moore. Anyway, i still give him 6'1". He has been quoted describing his height at both values, so anything is possilbe. Plus he has longer limbs and neck in proportion to his height than average, and bigger hands too. If you add to that the fact of a slightly T shaped body and slim frame, you've a guy that looks taller than really is, wathever his height is (this doesn't rule out 6'2").
Anyway Glenn is close to give us the answer as he has met him and sounds to be a sincere guy. So we can sit down and wait for it.
Mario said on 1/Feb/06
There in one pic in wich Moore looks 2 inches shorter than Connery and Michael Caine, in the other pics he looks 1/2 to 1 inch shorter (and it are pics of the 80s and 90s when those aren't at there full height). You seem also to forget that posture is very important, and if he is slighty humping down he can lose easy 2 inches. Maybe it's time to accept that the man was a legitimate 6 ft 2. He said it by himself, poeple who have met him estimated him as 6 ft 2, he looked 6 ft 2, His CV says 6 ft 2, he comes close to the top of the doors (wich probably 2 meter) and he is tall at 6 ft 1.
The only reason why this man has been listed as 6 ft 1 by some places is because there was article or rumor wich says that every Bond was shorter than is predecessor.
Connery - 6 ft 3
Lazenby - 6 ft 2
Moore - 6 ft 1
Dalton - 6 ft
Brosnan - 5 ft 11.
I don't know were I read this, but it's famous and is probably wroten for a laugh.
Tubbs said on 1/Feb/06
There are many pictures on the net where there is at most half an inch between Sean and Roger when both are standing properly. I'm waiting for a mention of the 'photograph from 1983 with Connery and Caine' where the 6'2 Connery and 6'2 Caine are two inches taller than Rog. That is not a good picture at all as they are not standing straight, and in a pretty relaxed mood. There is plenty of evidence to suggest he is still 6'1".
http://jamesbondfilme.de/maniemals_3.JPG There ain't two inches between them here.
Picture said on 1/Feb/06
Hey Gotxo you are always talking that Moore is 2 inches shorter than Connery, do hate this man or so? Moore was slighty shorter than Connery from what I know man,
Gotxo said on 1/Feb/06
Brett, apart from Jeremy Clarkson there are two more introducers, one of them is terrrible small and the other seems in the small side of average. Moore doesn't seem to have shrunk very much, but he always been a near 2" smaller than connery and being still 6'0" implies no shrunkment at all, wich being possible is still very odd.
Brett said on 29/Jan/06
good to see Vipers gone too, no more small man syndrome based comments. I saw Moore on top gear ( english car show) and he towered the presenter who wasnt all that small, so I do think the guy is still 6'0" plus , anything under 6ft is laughable
Tubbs said on 28/Jan/06
I see that McFly's comments are being removed - no surprise really, i think the comment that Michael Caine was the same height as the 5'7.5" Elton John may have lost him any small amount of credibility that he had.
Gotxo said on 19/Jan/06
The guy himself stated that he was 6'1" when he started on the filmaking bussiness
To me he never looked over that (wiht minor exceptions). What's the problem with it? He was huge for his generation and even still today that mark is the one of a tall guy. People has not to be perfect as film depict. I should never have better opion on Roger would he be an inch taller than i'd imagined.
Tubbs said on 17/Jan/06
Roger looks around the 6'1 mark here, he is the same as 6'1.5 Brosnan, and looks about 1 inch shorter than 6'2" dalton, who is nearer the camera, making him look even taller than Rog and Pierce
Recently saw Octopussy, and Moore looked no more than 2.5 inches shorter than Vijay Amritraj, who is officially listed as 6'4", so i'm still going for the 6'1 for Roger these days, and in the past, being 6'2".
Mario said on 16/Jan/06
Well back to business. I found this picture of Cary Grant and Roger Moore.
Cary Grant was 6 ft 1.5 at his peak, but he had probably lost 2 inches or more when this pic was taken.
Mario said on 16/Jan/06
It's funny that a lot of the current stars are so short (Farrel, Cruise, Phoenix etc) and that the stars of the 60s and 70s (Moore, Connery, Hackman, Beatty etc)were tall. A 6 ft 2 guy at that time is the same as a 6 ft 4 guy today.
andrew said on 15/Jan/06
Yeah, I think exactly the same, but nowadays he has shrunk to my 5'11". By the way my father was born in 1945.
Gotxo said on 14/Jan/06
Andrew: Then both your father and Moore were quite tall for their generations, and it's still tall.
andrew said on 14/Jan/06
My father moved to Paris in 1967 and he saw Moore those days. My father was 6'1" that time and he says Moore was exactly the same height. That's not a bad height for Moore at the age of 40.
tomking said on 12/Jan/06
Correct Rob. Roger Moore was often in Switzerland and today he is 183cm without shoes not more.
Brett said on 9/Jan/06
viper Im hardly embarassing myself, the only person who is not taken seriously is yourself, you downgrade the world. Everyone argued with glenn that keanu reeves was not 6'1" until he put up a photo proving his point, and as he said most people here are completely full of it and are simply jealous of these celebs. Why bother arguing with those who have met celebrities viper, Ive met brosnan, what a stubborn person you must be to still be arguing over it, the only person embarassing themselves is you. Only an idiot argues a case they really know nothing about, 5'11" is laughable, and if you had met him you would see why, please god you one day do so can see how wrong you are.
Mario said on 6/Jan/06
I have Connery's peak height at 6 ft 2.5. ;)
In the most pictures that he has with Caine and Connery he looks 1 inch smaller, but it are mostly pictures of the end of the 80s and 90s, when Moore and the others probably also wheren't at there peak height.
Gotxo said on 5/Jan/06
Mario, i don't understand your comment, i like Moore, his films & personality, and he has a great heart too, but c'mon he's far away from being humble.
I never gave him less than 6' and belived him to be around 6'1" when young (read my latest comments before rob's last comment) not 6'2" as you. A thing i can't explain to myself since you've Connery as 6'2" (as me) but Moore always looked near 2" smaller.
Mario said on 5/Jan/06
I think that Brosnan's posture isn't good in that picture.
@Gotxo, Moore is an honest guy, trust him.
Tubbs said on 4/Jan/06
Is it just me, or is Roger taller than the 6'1.5 Pierce Brosnan? What d'ya reckon guys?
Gramps said on 1/Jan/06
I saw Roger Moore alongside the 6'5" Christopher Lee in a James Bond flick over the weekend (one of those 007 marathons). Although Moore looked all of 6'2" throughout most of the movie (I was especially watching for this), he looked at LEAST five inches shorter than Lee. I actually thought Lee looked 6'6" in this movie, so who knows. I suspect 6'1" may be right for Moore. As I said, throughout the movie he did indeed look about 6'2".
CelebHeights Editor said on 26/Dec/05
His daughter Deborah Moore is 5ft 10. She was in a film with Rob Lowe and was just about his height.
Viper652 said on 25/Dec/05
Roger was always 6-0 even. Case closed
Gotxo said on 25/Dec/05
What in the hell is 6ft lins? Does it mean 6ft and change? Can any Britt translate it in a more standard english?
[Editor Rob: It is Six foot one inch)]
CelebHeights Editor said on 25/Dec/05
From Moore's own website, there's a transcription of a 2004 Daily Mail article with this quote: "I have mainly played heroes, which is a talent in itself as I am anything but a hero. But I do look like one. When I started out, I was 6ft lins tall with a straight nose and blue eyes".
Gotxo said on 20/Dec/05
Klaus most of people lie in their CVs,why it should be an exception for the stars.
I belive him 6'1" when young, but he could look anything from 6' to 6'2". Anyway he always looked smaller than Connery, who was indeed 6'2"
Mr. Klaus said on 20/Dec/05
Moore doesn't wear lifts, he appears at least barefoot in some of his movies next to villians and the lady's Brett. His CV says 6 ft 2, so why is there still poeple discussing about his height?
Viper652 said on 18/Dec/05
Brett, why do you find it impossible??? Come on man, give it up. Your just emberrassing yourself
Viper652 said on 18/Dec/05
Mr. Klaus, I dont downgrade every celeb. But a lot of them should be. Most of the picture evidence shows that Brosnan is in the 6-0 range.
Brett said on 16/Dec/05
5'11" (180cm) is an impossibility, you would understand this if you had ever seen the man, as for listings of 5'11", I find that impossible to believe. As Ive said I have met solid 6'2-3" actors like Hugh Jackman and Eric Bana, and I did not notice a difference between Brosnan and them. I suppose you guys can believe what you like, but I can say one thing, I havent seen Rob comment on here or the Brosnan page in a while, probably due to the fact that there is so much factless nonsense posted in here of late.
Tubbs said on 16/Dec/05
Roger is taller than Lee Marvin in the picture below, Marvin is listed 6'2 here, and 6'3 on imdb?!! I reckon he was 6'0 - 6'1, so Roger at 6'2 in 1976 seems feasible.He's said it himself on many occasions, and I dont think he's the type of guy who would lie. He also recently said that he was up for the main role in the Day of the Jackal, but didn't get it in the end because he was too tall. If he was only 6'0 peak, I don't think that would be classed as too tall for a role.
Mr. Klaus said on 15/Dec/05
Of course there are a lot of Celebs inflated, the most celebs are little less shorter listed on celebheights than what they are ussualy listed, and the funny thing is that Viper tries to downgrade every celeb, to feel himself better.
Gotxo said on 13/Dec/05
Brosnan was for a time listed at 182cm at IMDB. He being 6 feet at thirteen doesn't implies a further growth in older ages. Some people do like that, some huge spurt and then stop growing. 6 feet coincides roughly with 182cm (6'=182,88cm). That being said, it's hard to me to belive him under 6'1".
Don't think either that Moore has been ever over that too.
Viper652 said on 13/Dec/05
Damn Mr. KLaus, your a real man of genius. I bet you didnt know that most celebs are inflated!!!!
John said on 13/Dec/05
The picture with Moore in 1996 proves Brosnan is 6'0.5 maximum. 5'11 is what he was listed as when he started out, we know he knocked two years off his age and was actually born in 1951, so why wouldn't he wear lifts and lie about his height as well? Definitely 5'11 max.
Tubbs said on 12/Dec/05
Pictures here to suggest Rog was 6'2", first one is with 6'3" Kotto,about 1 inch in it.
Second one with 6'2 Lee Marvin
third picture Roger towers over his co-star,
He may not be 6'2 these days, but the pictures suggest he was in the past. I reckon he is probably 6'1, as he has kept great posture, and believe it or not, despite being 78 he still keep himself fit my working out, and not letting his body seize up. As for Brosnan, he is probably 6'2 himself, there is too much evidence to suggest otherwise.
Mr. Klaus said on 12/Dec/05
What does it matter that some idiots say that he is 5 ft 11? Does he look that? the answer is no. Everyones IQ who is above 80 know that he is at least 6 ft 1, probably 6 ft 2. There are poeple who say that he suddenly grown when he becomed Bond, those poeple really don't know noting. Pierce looked 4 inches taller than Patrick Swayze, he was slighty taller than Caine, 2 inches shorter than Christopher Lee in his pre-Bond carreer. Viper, the only thing that you do on this site is downgrading celebs(Stallone 5 ft 7, hahaha).
Viper652 said on 11/Dec/05
Brett, some people on here have said Brosnan was listed at 5-11 when he first started out. There is a slight possibility that its his real barefoot height. You sound arrogant and condescending whenever somebody brings up a valid opinion. Get a grip dude
Brett said on 11/Dec/05
John your clearly a sad little man, trying to fire me up, I wonder how your pointless comments get in here, I really do. John is another person with a clear case of Small Man Syndrome. Dont you have better things to do then come on here, and showcase your lack of knowledge. If your going to say a retarded thing like that, then back it up with facts, no doubt your just another poster whoes changed his name, and is just out to stir the pot again. Why dont you go on the Danny Devito page and say how you think hes actually 6'2", as there would be as much truth to that comment, as the one you just made.
Mario Nariano said on 10/Dec/05
John, show me a picture in wich Brosnan looks 5 ft 11?
John said on 10/Dec/05
He's still taller than the 5'11" Brosnan.
Brett said on 10/Dec/05
If Moore claimed to be 6'2" in his youth, then theres no reason to doubt that,and I personally wouldnt rule it out. When I mean youth I mean in his 20's-30's, but as of right now, I dont think he is this tall. I suppose you couldnt rule out the idea of him being near 6'1" now though.
Brett said on 8/Dec/05
I dont think Brosnans 4 inches taller haha, although he may look it in that photo, but he is with out a doubt taller. Im just saying the gap is way too big for anyone to think Moore could be as tall as him. Mcfly, seriously the infatuation idea is old and sad, I wont suggest you have a thing going for sexy old Elton.
said on 8/Dec/05
Of course Moore is the shortest Bond at this moment but back then in 95' he was as tall or taller than Brosnan I think. Brosnan and Moore
. Watch the picture good, and you will notice that Moore isn't full straight.
I think that he looks an inch shorter than Dalton? What do you think guys?
Tubbs said on 8/Dec/05
To be honest, it's hard to tell, I do think that Dalton is the tallest, but it is a shot from below, so makes it hard to judge differences in height.
Mario Nariano said on 8/Dec/05
I found the picture!
Tubbs said on 8/Dec/05
Maybe Brett, when you met Brosnan he was taller than you by an inch, or it seemed as though he was, my bet is that if you were to ever meet him again, you would probably be the same, or feel taller than him. This happens a lot with me and the people I know, due to posture and slouching etc. Also that picture of all the Bonds minus Connery, its hard to tell if they are all the same distance from the camera, as they are all in black, but to think that Brosnan is like 4 inches taller the Rog, come on.
Mario Nariano said on 8/Dec/05
Brett, Brosnan and Dalton are closer to the camera, this why they look taller than the others. There is a better picture of Dalton, Lazenby and Moore in wich Moore looks an inch shorter than the two others and Lazenby and Dalton look the same height, i can't find the picture but I think that Rob knows wich pic i mean.
Then again we have pictures in wich Moore looks about the same height as Pierce or taller than Brosnan. This indicates that Moore and Brosnan are 6 ft 1 and Dalton and Lazenby where 6 ft 2 in those pictures.
Gotxo said on 7/Dec/05
Very good pic Mario, as Brosnan is closer to the camera he looks the same height as Moore or depicably taller. But it seems to look as if was not that but the opposite in reality. I'm messed, the pic Brett posted of Bronsan with caine was interesting too. By saying Moore is under 6' i'm stating my humble opinion i asume i could be wrong. Keep your job with posts like these is better than insulting people as is getting as a trend here. ;)
Brett said on 7/Dec/05
Michael Cane is taller then Christian Bale Mcfly, explain that, hes an old man too, in his peak, he was unquestionably 6'2". Mario , you keep showing that photo of Brosnan and Moore, and saying Moore was taller, you are so pathetically biased its funny, the line above Moores hair ( obviously above his head) is not even above brosnans hair, that is the most stupid thing I have ever seen. That photo is a shocking form of evidence. Hey mario , explain this photo then, you always choose to just ignore it.
From that alone you can see Moore is not even close to brosnans, Lazenby, or Daltons height.
As for that photo you can see with Caine and Penny lancaster, for one the women would be in high heels, as its a fancy dress party, and even then she doesnt look taller then Caine, there is no way the mans less then 6'1" now, I mean all you should get real. Mario Im waiting for an explanation as to why Moore looks like a midget next to Brosnan in that photo, its because hes shorter then Brosnan, dont give me the whole " hes behind him spiele", because hes clearly right next to him, and that hes 10cm forward of him makes stuff all difference. That is the only photo Ive seen of the four bonds where they are on level ground ( as its in a studio) and the shot is taken just about straight on. Mcfly, you are the nuisance, I just want you to leave, so please do so mr " I think caine is no more then 5'11". Go pull the Other leg, you have no credibility. If this site is not a "temple of truth", then why does it exist? There is a right and wrong answer when it comes to height, and this site should not be used to bring actors down because you dislike them, or you want to feel better, if this were the case Id say Russel Crowe is 4'11", because I cant stand the guy.
Mario Nariano said on 7/Dec/05
Gotxo You think that Moore under 6 ft nowedays?
I can't find any picture on the net i wich Moore looks under 6 ft nowedays.
I think that Rob is right about Moore current height.
BTW: in 1995 Moore was slighty taller than Brosnan.
Gotxo said on 7/Dec/05
This is not the temple of truth Brett. Everyone has the right to post his opinions, even if they are as clearly slanted and absurd as McFly's ones.
The biggest fun here are the guessings people do and to decide why they sound right or wrong. I take a lot of fun of it. Let's avoid the insult.
BTW to me moore looked 6'1 at best, don't think he's a full 6'0" nowadays.
Brett said on 7/Dec/05
Mcfly would Argue that Caine is hardly taller then Danny Devito, hes just a sad little man who can't see over the steering wheel, and is commonly mistaken by women in bars for an arm rest, you should just wear a cushion on your head and charge a fee for such a service, you could make some money out it . I have no doubt that caine is 6'1" plus, as he had an inch plus on Chris Bale in Batman, and Bale is 6'0", so by saying hes hardly taller then Elton John, you clearly have no clue, and should be banned from this site, along with the other idiots who are simply out to downgrade everyone. According to McFly, Michael Caine is 5'8" or 5'9", which Makes Roger Moore roughly the same? do you feel better now Mcfly?, do you feel bigger?, or more manly? ( you should just feel stupid) , what you really should be doing is going to a psychologist so you can work through your inferiority complex. Mcfly, please go away.
Tubbs said on 6/Dec/05
Were you there McFly? You seem to have no evidence to back up whatever you say.
Anonymous said on 5/Dec/05
I can not speak about Roger Moore's height but I saw Michael Caine having dinner at a restraunt while I was in London and hes GOT TO be right around 6'1!
said on 5/Dec/05
Rog looks the same height as Caine here, the photo is only a couple of years old. If Caine has shrunk down from 6'2 to 6'1.25, Rog has got to be 6'1. There aren't any pictures that I could find of Connery and Moore from the last 15 years from what I can see, so we'll just have to use Caine as a judge for Roger's height.
http://www.geocities.com/myfashionmag/michealcain.jpg[Editor Rob: I think Caine has lost a little bit, but not that much...there's another pic from 2004 and there's not much. There's some other pics from that event but harder to judge]
Gotxo said on 3/Dec/05
Maybe Moore was taller than i'd imagine. But 6'2" seems excessive, especially compared to Connery. I could be wrong though and i'll hear gladly opposing opinions. Nevertheless many pics can be deceptive, the german uniform he wears might add some height due to boots.And as i stated before close shots are the moment used to even heights. Check this one, the height gap between both has been leveled in Niven's favour (never trust that kind of shots):
1104683792_escape_to_athena-03.jpg (JPEG Irudia, 720x405 pixel)
Anonymous said on 2/Dec/05
Ok, he can look closer to 6'2" here. But it's nearer to the camera and Niven is very aged (thoug he always looked tall)
Hmm who knows, what do you think guys?
Brett said on 2/Dec/05
Its funny how in some photos Moore is larger then Caine, and in others, Caine is larger then moore. Here are a few examples....
these two show Caine to be larger then Moore
While this one shows the reverse
I think this shows how unreliable photos can be.
Glenn said on 1/Dec/05
I met him.he's 6-1.