Roger Moore's Height
6ft 1 ¼ (186.1 cm)
English actor, best remembered for playing James Bond and for films such as The Wild Geese, The Cannonball Run, Escape to Athena, The Last Time I Saw Paris, The Man Who Haunted Himself and The Sea Wolves. On TV he made a name for himself playing Simon Templar in TV series The Saint. His CV lists him as standing 6ft 2 inches tall.
Six Foot Two...in the morning.
- Indiana Evening Gazette, 1967
I always played heroes because I'm Six Foot One and a Half.
- James Bond Bafta Tribute, 2002
Sir Roger told me that when he first went to acting school he had a teacher who asked him, "How tall are you?".
"Six foot one," he replied.
"So now stand as though you are 6ft 1in," the teacher said.
Roger did - and from that day started getting more work.
- Paul McKenna
You May Be Interested
Add a Comment1074 comments
Average Guess (120 Votes)
6ft 1.13in (185.8cm)
Arch Stanton said on 28/Sep/20
Same height as Arnie peak IMO.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 24/Sep/20
Roger manages to pull off 6ft2 with Clint
said on 24/Sep/20Click Here
Here's a nice pick of Roger.
Rory said on 21/Sep/20
Lol well Roger looks 6ft3 there with Walker which he obviously wasn't anywhere near so somethings amiss.
said on 17/Sep/20Click Here
Here's Roger with Clint Walker.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 13/Aug/20
186-187cm fits both I think
Rory said on 11/Aug/20
Too difficult to say who would have been taller out of peak Brosnan and peak Moore. Brosnan obviously edged out a 1990s Roger in his late sixties, but to separate Saint era Roger and Remington Steele era Brosnan you would have needed to measure them. I'm sure they'd appear extremely close in person.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 8/Aug/20
Sinclair, I think Pierce might have had the edge
Sinclair said on 8/Aug/20
I’d give Roger more than just a flat 6’1” at peak, the 6’1.25” listing seems perfect to me. He did look very tall during the run of The Saint and The Persuaders!. He looked about the same height as Michael Lonsdale in Moonraker and was probably a flat 6’1” or even less by the time of A View to a Kill. Rob, who do you think was taller at peak, Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan? I would say Roger Moore was a hair taller than Brosnan when comparing their peak heights, but Brosnan eventually became the taller man, perhaps around the late 1970s or early 1980s.
QM6'1QM said on 13/Jul/20
Rory said on 8/Jul/20
Absolutely "good looking comment" bro 100%!
Rory said on 8/Jul/20
There were occasions though where he did look no more than 6ft1. I'm thinking with guys like Steven Berkoff,James Cosmo and Joss Ackland. Did look more 185 than 186 or 187 with those guys and that was during his peak years. Admittedly though there are several incidents of him looking a good 186 too. I think 6ft1.25 is perfect for Moore but if I had to say what was more likely 6ft1 or 6ft1.5 for him I'd opt for 6ft1 flat, he was too often comfortably edged out by genuine 6ft2ers to have been 6ft1.5 Imo. The 6ft2 out of bed and 6ft1 at night e,g strong 6ft1 has always sounded right for him.
I could see him measuring 6ft1.5 at say 10am and then rounding to 6ft2 quite often.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Jul/20
Yeah I think a 6ft1 flat is a disservice for Moore and Brosnan peak. Anywhere 186-187cm range in the Saint/Persuader/early Bond years is possible. An easy round up to 6ft2 from there
said on 26/Jun/20
Rob, is 6ft1½ still a possibility?
That was always the most I'd give him, I'm not sure I would go with a flat 6ft 1 for him in his 20's and 30's, hence between 6ft 1 and 1.5 was a figure to settle on.
Jam Cherry said on 18/Jun/20
Roger Moore was 186 cm atleast he was little over 6’1”
movieguy12 said on 15/May/20
Rory, I agree that most people aren't as obsessed with height as regular visitors to this site. Although at the end of the day I consider this site to be harmless fun no more, no less.
However I do think that in films or TV shows the image of the leading man is protected. They don't use actors in supporting parts who are better looking than the star or make the leading man look like a midget. The same way a band or their manager doesn't choose a support act that are better than they are.
Rory said on 11/May/20
I'd say Sutherland looked 2.5 inches taller than him at most in that episode, I feel the difference between Mike Tyson and Rob is similar to how Sutherland looked with Moore, I think 2.25 range. So 6ft3.5 and 6ft1.25 looks very close. I just don't buy arguments about people especially casting actors because of their height with them needing to be shorter or w,e. Most people aren't obsessed with height and it doesn't enter their head as much as it would a visitor to this site. Plus as I say a 186cm guy in the 1960s would look tall regardless.
movieguy12 said on 11/May/20
To add to my earlier comments about Roger Moore in the Saint. I've just watched the episode Escape Route in which Donald Sutherland appears. Sutherland is about 2 or 3 inches taller I'd say which would put Moore between 6'1'' and 6'2'' if Sutherland is 6'4'' or thereabouts. My guess is that Moore was at the lower end of this range roughly in line with the official celebheights estimate. I think that given that Moore was the leading man they did perhaps avoid casting him alongside tall actors on too many occasions. The episode with Sutherland was the exception I guess there was one other actor also taller than Moore in this show.
Rory said on 10/May/20
I disagree with that, there were actually quite a lot of actors over six foot in The Saint. A solid/strong 6ft1 man in the 1960s would be the equivalent of like a 6ft3 guy today too so he would look pretty tall on and off screen.
movieguy12 said on 8/May/20
Watching the colour episodes of the Saint at the moment. Roger Moore is closing in on 40 at this point but looks surprisingly youthful. He also looks a genuinely big man but given that he was the star of the show maybe they avoided casting him alongside too many tall actors.
QM6'1QM said on 8/Apr/20
TheoJ said on 5/Apr/20
I think he looks easily 5cms taller than Moore, i mean take a look on their shoulders or size difference of heads. Generally Moore did his posture better on this photo.
But yeah i don't see 6-7 cm if 007 Bond still be solid 186 cm there.
So 191 cm is a high possible for Christopher.
said on 5/Apr/20
Moore on the set of Octopussy being visited by Christopher Reeve who was filming Superman 3 next door (both at Pinewood Studios)!
But Reeve doesn’t look 6 or 7cm taller than Moore!
movieguy12 said on 4/Apr/20
In the last of his published books Moore mentions finding the metric system confusing in some respects having grown up with imperial measures. He mentions when people ask him his height he says he thinks he is 1.83 m and gives his weight as 12.5 stone. I'm not sure how accurate these figures are. 1.83 m equates to 6ft I think this may be accurate for an older Roger Moore he was probably taller in his youth.
QM6'1QM said on 29/Mar/20
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 24/Feb/20
Moore - 186 cm at his peak (185.4 cm/ Octopussy and A View to a Kill).
Brosnan - 186 cm.
Dalton - 187 cm.
Connery - 188 cm.
Craig - 178 cm.
movieyguy12 said on 29/Mar/20
I don't think Roger wore lifts as he was a tall guy anyway. At least 6ft probably a bit more if you forgive the pun. Roger does mention on the DVD commentary of the Wild Geese of how Richard Harris appeared on set one day taller than he was having previously appeared shorter. He quickly worked out that Harris was wearing boots with lifts. So yeah it does happen.
I watched Live and Let Die yesterday for the first time in a while and was surprised how youthful Moore looked. I know there are some who say that Roger at 46 yrs of age was too old to be cast as Bond but in the early films at least he did still look young enough for the role of the superspy. The later films although entertaining probably in these Moore did look a little past it for part.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 24/Feb/20
Moore - strong 186cm
Brosnan - weak 187cm
Dalton - weak 188cm
Connery - strong 188cm
Rory said on 17/Dec/19
Certainly not under 6ft1 in the 1960s. Looked what I'd call a solid 6ft1 guy back then. Never looked under it and could often seem a fraction taller, occasionally pulling off 6ft1.5. Generally though roughly 6ft1.25 seems bang on really, I'd struggle to see him under 6ft1 but also struggle to envisage him being a legit 6ft1.5 so somewhere in between looks nailed on.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 21/Nov/19
Not under 6ft1
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/Oct/19
I think he said 6ft2 a couple of other times when asked
Importer said on 22/Sep/19
Brosnan gave me taller impression than Moore.
Importer said on 22/Sep/19
@Rory “innocent until proven guilty policy”. The only word I agree on in that sentence is “policy”.
Importer said on 26/Jul/19
HAHAHAHA I like that story told by Paul McKenna. Roger Moore simply improved his posture and got the credibility he deserved! rather inspirational if you ask me.
said on 17/Jul/19
I think when it comes to lifts and anything really you have to have an innocent until proven guilty policy and I've never seen a shred of evidence to say he was a lift wearer as his height always looked consistent to me. It's not like in one episode he looked 6ft2 and in the next 6ft flat which would arouse suspicions, no he always looked 6ft0.75 lowest up to 6ft1.5 maximum when stood impeccably. Somewhere Inbetween that range the truth lies I think. My guess is Roger woke up out of bed at 6ft2 and maybe shrunk an inch to 6ft1 flat after a long day on set. I think Connery would have had close to but no more than an inch on Moore.
It would seem unlikely a man like Roger would wear them.
Importer said on 16/Jul/19
@avi I disagree, Connery was a solid 6'2
avi said on 12/Jul/19
@Rory said on 15/Jun/19
Yes I always thought he looked a good 6'1.
I also noticed he looked taller in the Saint.
His hair is different (it's pushed back ) and his posture is very solid. Plus cameras can easily make 5'10 actors look 6'0 if done right.
Looking next to a 6'4 -6'4.5 guy like Christopher Lee he looked 3-3.5 inches shorter.
I guess my thought was he may have worn a small lift. Not saying he did but you never you know. In his memoir he mentioned he was told to "walk like he's 6'1 not 5'10" in his early acting days maybe this made him more cognizant of his height.
I'm perfectly fine with 6'1 though. Over that like 6'1.5 is pushing it.
Next to Connery later on he looked closer to 6'0 flat considering Connery was never a solid 6'2.
Rory said on 15/Jun/19
I couldn't really agree he looked 6ft0.5, for example in the last saint episodes I watched he looked not much more than 2 inches shorter than Donald Sutherland (6ft3.5) and in another one looked a good 2 inches taller than Oliver Reed (5ft11). As I say he was a guy who when compared to everyone always looked in the sturdy 6ft1 zone in the 60s and 70s so for me a little over 6ft1 is more likely than say 6ft0.5. But generally 6ft1 or 1.25 he had to have been there or there abouts.
avi said on 12/Jun/19
@Rory said on 11/Jun/19
Yes he appeared 6'1 throughout most of his career.
In the Saint he can look over it.
I think it's possible Moore was 6'0.5 because with his slim , proportioned body he can be one of those who can look an inch taller on screen.
But 6'1 is a fair listing.
Rory said on 11/Jun/19
I've watched most of Moores stuff from the 60s and 70s and he always looked a good 6ft1. 6ft1 flat would be the least I'd argue and 6ft1.5 would be the most I'd argue. I think personally he was either 6ft1 1/8th or the current 6ft1.25 but he wasn't under 6ft1 that's for sure I think the average guess here of 185.8 is probably very close for an evening measurement for Roger he was always clearly taller than 6fters and when standing with good posture could look not far off 6ft2 guys. I actually think he would have measured 6ft2 out of bed.
Visitor said on 2/Jun/19
@avi Yes, "looked on screen". Was not necessarily in reality. 6'0.75 wouldn't be absurd, but neither would 6'0". What the "looks 6 ft on screen" basically means "is actually 5'10" ". Across the board, on this site absolutely everyone who is in a picture with Rob turns out to be way shorter than people tend to think.
I don't really like arguing about this as I really like Moore as Bond, he just simply was not as tall as someone else. He was nowhere near 6 ft 2 except maybe in shoes.
avi said on 20/May/19
I think next to Lee Moore looked around 3 to 3.5 inches shorter.
Lee wasn't 6'5 but was a strong 6'4. This would make Roger Moore 6'1. I'm not against 6'0.5 to 6'0.75 but these 6'0 flat calls are a bit absurd.
Timothy Dalton did look a good inch taller. To me Moore looked 6'1 almost all the time on screen. Did he wear lifts? I don't think so but you never know!
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 7/Apr/19
Moore still looked around 6ft1 in A View To A Kill if Walken was a fraction over 6ft. In Live And Let Die/Man With The Golden Gun could look 6ft1½ to 6ft2.
Rory said on 16/Mar/19
Walken wasn't in Live and let die but in View to a kill I'd say Moore had half inch on Walken who I think was a 6ft0 1/8th guy. So you're looking at a 57 year old Moore at around 6ft0.75 imo, about 1cm down from his peak which I believe was 6ft1.25.
62B said on 7/Mar/19
I was watching Live and Let Die last night. To me he looked about the same height as Christopher Walken.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Feb/19
Canson said on 9/Jan/19
Definitely not as tall as Connery
Michael 5'10", 178 cm said on 31/Dec/18
He was 6'1", looked it in The Spy who Loved Me and Moonraker. He was roughly a foot shorter than Richard Kiel who made him look short. Gave a similar impression in height to Brosnan. Roger was 6'1" at his peak.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Dec/18
6ft2 straight out of bed
movieguy12 said on 20/Nov/18
Looked at Sherlock Holmes in New York last night. An entertaining romp. Moore was a pretty big guy. He's taller than co-star Patrick Macnee by a couple of inches and Mcnee was close to 6ft I understand. Maybe he wasn't a full 6'2'' which he sometimes claimed but was probably about 6'1'' or so.
Polar Bear said on 21/Oct/18
There are pictures of Roger Moore and Arnold Schwarzenegger at a party in 1988 (frailes Club Stag Asado). In each picture Arnold’s shoulders and waistline are approx. the same level as Roger Moore’s, however he has a solid height advantage and Roger Moore is looking up at him. Does this mean that Roger was only 5ft 10? Or was Arnold 6ft 2 and has since shrunk in later life?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 16/Sep/18
I agree Rory. Anything under 6ft1 is a joke
Rory said on 11/Sep/18
Moore in The saint and Persuaders always had a good inch or so on 6 foot actors (Terrence Alexander,Terry Thomas,Donald Pickering,Garfield Morgan). In that era he always looked 6ft1-1.5. 188 out of bed, 185.5-186 lowest. He probably did measure 6ft1.5 at around 11am. He clearly wasn't 4.5 inches shorter than Lee, it looked 3-3.5 inches which makes perfect sense with 194 and 186 listings.
There's an actor in Diamonds are forever called Joe Robinson who looked identical in height to Connery in their scene in the elevator, that actor in The Saint looked 2cm taller than Moore. Connery was a decent 6ft2 and Moore a strong 6ft1 imo.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 9/Sep/18
Out of bed: 188.3cm
Before bed: 186.4cm
diavolo said on 9/Sep/18
In a 1985 interview for Good Morning America, Moore described himself as 6'2".
Neelasish Sen Roy
said on 5/Sep/18
Rob, Roger Moore was 3.5 inches or 4.5 inches shorter than Sir Christopher Lee?
I wouldn't say 4.5, but arguably 3.5 range.
bugsy185 said on 28/May/18
If you guys have all the while been talking about a early/mid day height and/or height in shoes, then 186.0 cm for Roger Moore in the 70's makes sense.
I have always estimated celebs at their VERY LOWEST and no shoes height. My bad, I guess. This also explains many others on this site.
After a long day, I myself am 183+ even in just converse sneakers and 185+ in regular dress shoes. I'm not especially thin either, pretty normal but I look tall in photos.
186 cm is a good guess for low fat, in shape Roger Moore in 70's style 3+ cm heel dress shoes or cowboy boots, I agree
Jordan87 said on 9/May/18
Connery was a little more than an Inch on Roger Moore.
said on 3/May/18Click Here
: look at this picture and this movie moonrarker. roger and lonsdale are absoloutly same size and lonsdale is listed as 6ft. i think roger was 6 ft also and sean connery 6ft 1
Jordan87 said on 4/Apr/18
Agreed On Moore being taller than 6 foot. I still do not see how Mr. Eastwood is as high as you guess but I will admit Sir Roger was right around the 6'1 mark ( When he did Bond).
Rory said on 4/Apr/18
Anyone who says he was 6ft peak clearly hasn't ever watched an episode of The Saint or The Persuaders where he consistently looked a solid 6ft1 guy next to anyone he shared the screen with. From Donald Sutherland,to James Cosmo or Oliver Reed or Ed Bishop, you name it. Always minimum 6ft1. The lowest you could argue is 185cm the most being 187cm, anything above or below those parameters is garbage.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 4/Apr/18
Berta, I think anywhere from 6ft1-1½ is arguable for Moore and he did claim that and also 6ft2 as a morning height. Costner could look that as well but has always stuck to 6ft1.
Personally I'd leave Roger at this and possibly maybe give Costner 6ft1⅛ peak. Probably were very close in height.
joeblowXXIV said on 24/Mar/18
I'll bet he may have been a solid six foot, but probably not more.
Rory said on 24/Mar/18
@The tall guy, just a word of advice, don't ever start up a rival celebheight site as you are abysmally bad at guessing the height of pretty much everyone.
Berta said on 2/Mar/18
I think 187,5 out of bed and before bed 185,8 maybe. A very strong 6 foot 1 guy that was barely 186. Like peak costner
Ian C. said on 5/Feb/18
Moore said, "I always played heroes because I am six foot one and a half?" Well no, Roger. You always played heroes because you had a beautiful, masculine face. Lee Marvin was the same height as you, and he often played heavies. Tony Curtis was a lot shorter than you, and he mostly played heroes.
What is it with this ridiculous taboo that handsome men can't just admit it? The story Moore tells is, when he was inducted into the British Army he was immediately assigned to Officers Candidate school because he "looked the part." And how did you look the part, Rog? Did you have an enormous nose, like the Duke of Wellington? Well, no. It was something else.
An ideal Simon Templar but a lousy James Bond.
said on 6/Jan/18
Lee WAS a LOT taller than Moore, indeed you could say "towering". They stood back to back in the movie, and there was definitely a 4" difference. Also he was definitely not TALLER than Michael Lonsdale, who is still listed at 6'1 flat. Possibly the same height.
Simply by looking at pictures, films, it simply makes zero sense to list Moore as being only a quarter inch shorter than Timothy Dalton, and half an inch taller than Pierce Brosnan. Dalton was a LOT taller than either of them. If you have to INSIST that Moore was 6'1"+ , then Dalton MUST have been more than 6'2". I find it much more believable that Moore was perhaps Brosnan's height. Somewhere between 6' and 6'1".
Here: Click Here
. Note: Dalton as well was already over 50 years old at the time of that picture. You can find more pics from the same event(s) using Google image search or whatever you prefer.
somerandomguy said on 2/Jan/18
Probably 185 cm. when younger.
Mister lennon said on 2/Jan/18
Christopher lee could be a weak 6'5 peak. He looked it many times.
6'1 for peak moore.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Jan/18
185cm by his last Bond outing but looked 186-187cm in Live And Let Die. Didn't get dwarfed by Yaphett Kotto or Geoffrey Holder...
This height is fine for him and you could still argue 6ft1½. His 6ft2 in the morning claim seems too precise. He was obviously aware of the body shrinking during the day
Rory said on 31/Dec/17
6 foot is a puzzling guess. I've watched many old episodes of The Saint and The Persuaders and with literally every known actor who appeared in those series he looked 6ft1 minimum. I even have scrutinised his footwear because I know James will throw "he wore lifts" back at me and no never once did i see him wearing any footwear which looked remotely suspicious. 6ft1.25 is absolutely perfect for Moore back then.
Richard said on 30/Dec/17
Moore was six foot at his peak, and 5'10" in old age.
avi said on 30/Dec/17
James B states that Lee was a lot taller than Moore. But what is a lot? Like towering? Because then he says there is 3.5 inches between them. Which is a solid difference but it's not a huge amount. Not like Moore was 6'0 and Lee was 6'5.
I think Moore at 6'1 and Lee at 6'4 to 6'4.5ish is fair.
Lee was never a full 6'5.
I do think Moore could look a touch under 6'1 at times though. However strangely in the saint he can look 6'2.
Rory said on 20/Dec/17
He would have been 186cm in Live and let die and 185cm by View to a Kill.
fisherman said on 17/Dec/17
Mister lennon: could be possible, since he never was over 6'1 he could have been at least close to that in 74. He wasn't even 50 at that point so he wouldn't have had lost any height
James B said on 17/Dec/17
Lee defnintly was a lot taller than Moore.
Mister lennon said on 17/Dec/17
Lee was a strong 6'4-weak 6'5 guy. Moore was still 6'1 when he made the man with the golden gun with lee.
Rory said on 15/Dec/17
Not really I thought Moore aesthetically looked great as Bond up until Moonraker which should have been his last Bond outing. He certainly looked the part in live and let die. 6ft1.25 is perfect for Moore it explains all three of his claims, 6ft2 in the morning which he would be at strong 6'1 range..6ft1 a slight round down and 6ft1.5 a tiny round up from 6ft1.25. It also happens to be the kind of range be always looked so I think Roger Moore at 186 is one of the Most reliable listings. I found though often he was acting with other taller actors so the perception was he wasn't that tall when actually a 186 guy in other films with a different cast etc could have been made to look solid tall range especially in the 60s and 70s.
James said on 14/Dec/17
Christopher Lee was 6'4" in 1974 so Moore wasn't even 6'1". It's a real mystery why they cast someone that old as James Bond.
said on 13/Dec/17
Rob do you think he could have been just 6'1 flat peak?
There wasn't any less than 3.5 between him and Christopher Lee
Editor Rob: I think the chance of shrinking a full inch at his height is very possible, I wouldn't say Moore was lying about being near 6ft 2 first thing in the morning...maybe he did shrink to a flat 6ft 1.
said on 13/Dec/17
Rob, who do you think would have measured taller peak Roger Moore or Kevin Costner?
Editor Rob: at the moment I still give an edge to Moore, though it may well be the case both are within a tiny fraction of each other if you measured them at age 25.
James said on 19/Nov/17
He was 182 at his peak. Like Craig he wore lifts as Bond.
Anonymous said on 15/Nov/17
Bugsy said on 12/Nov/17
Scoobydoo: yeah, 185 cm when he was young is reasonable. That's a refreshing comment on this page. A SANE assessment :)
I believe some commenters are taking things the wrong way. Not even that troll here has said Moore was SHORT, he said he was shortER than the other Bond's. Also some seem to forget. We're talking barefoot, afternoon heights here. What someone "could look" on an old TV show wearing cowboy boots is not a good reference point. It actually seems like many people give the elsewhere typical "with shoes" estimate, in which case the listings make better sense.
Scoobydoo said on 4/Nov/17
Genuine 185 cm in peak, barefoot. 186 cm in the morning.
183 cm when he was old in his sixty /seventy years old
James said on 26/Oct/17
Moore was the shortest Bond, clearly below Brosnan and Dalton.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Oct/17
6ft1½ is arguable for him I think. Looked 6ft2ish on The Saint and The Persuaders.
said on 19/Oct/17
@rob Do you have picture of Moore's spotlight like you do for Brosnan & Dalton ?
Editor Rob: I don't, but I have seen it in a mid 1960's edition, he removed it after that.
Mister lennon said on 15/Oct/17
He looked 6'2 at times in the saint. Not less than a strong 6"1 at that time.
James said on 14/Oct/17
He looked six foot in "The Saint".
Mister lennon said on 13/Oct/17
Lifts here, lifts there, over and over again. So boring.
Moore was 6'1 at his peak. In his younger days could look 6'2 at times. In the saint, for example.
James said on 12/Oct/17
Moore was six foots without lifts.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Oct/17
I've seen a lot of 6ft2 reports for Moore and Brosnan, just as many as there are 6ft1. Really anywhere between those two marks is arguable if you go back an look at their bodies of work. An 80's Remington Steele Brosnan and a 60's Saint Moore I thought looked closer to 6ft2...
Ben said on 11/Oct/17
Arch, my father died the exact same morning. September 11 2017 at 1:00 am. I performed cpr on him. Sadly it was too late. He wasn't my biological dad, but for me he was my real father and he have been taking care of me since I was not even 2 years old (I'm now 17). I don't have any contact with my biological dad, I only know he's 52 years old and he's 6'0".
He died at 65 years old and he was 6'2.5".
said on 11/Oct/17
Rob, what do you think of Roger Moore's satetment that James Bond can never be feminine, gay or a female? Personally I agree because it's a part of the character so be a very masculine handsome man who drinks his dry martini's shaken and fakes laugh when someone hits him in the nuts. But I do believe he can be black but I would want someone like Idris Elba to play him in that case.
Editor Rob: I honestly haven't given it much thought, but I appreciate it's an interesting debate for many!
I like the idea of James McAvoy as Bond, an even shorter spy!
James said on 10/Oct/17
Moore was the shortest bond until Craig.
Bugsy said on 3/Oct/17
I don't give a crap about anyone's hairpiece or being "too old" (and I personally would prefer to NOT see that stupid trolling here). Moore was my favorite Bond, it is just crystal clear that he WAS shorter than the other (60's-80's) actors.
I suggested this already (well, hinted at it): do a Google image search for "dalton brosnan moore". Dalton is supposed to be 6'1.5 or 6'2" (and taller than Connery, as Dalton is said to have been the tallest actor to play Bond). Look at those pictures and be serious. Which one do you think is ACTUALLY 6'2"? It is reasonable to think Moore could have been close to 6ft1 when he was younger, but not more than that.
X185 said on 1/Oct/17
Like that Rory
movieguy said on 1/Oct/17
Richard/James comes on here and only ever says so and so wore lifts/ hairpiece was too old etc. Such and such a film was awful. Why bother? Guess I'm feeding the trolls by posting this though.
Rory said on 27/Sep/17
Richard wore lifts when he posted that comment.
Richard said on 26/Sep/17
He wore lifts in "The Persuaders".
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Sep/17
He does look near 6ft2 in The Persuaders...
Rory said on 24/Sep/17
The lowest you could argue for Moore is 6ft1, the most you could argue is 6ft1.5. That's why 6ft1.25 is a great fit. Talk of him being 6ft flat and wearing lifts is just an out and out lie.
James said on 23/Sep/17
No he wasn't. Moore always wore LIFTS in films and on TV. He was the shortest Bond until Craig, and far too old to play a secret agent.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/Sep/17
Moore was taller than 6ft guys
said on 11/Sep/17
My aunt died this morning, my dad's eldest sister. She was a similar age to Roger Moore, 90. This really isn't a good year is it!
Editor Rob: sorry to hear.
Bugsy said on 8/Sep/17
Arch Stanton: I was mainly comparing Dalton and Moore (hence the "kind of"). All around a bigger and 'bulkier' guy for the lack of a better word. It is much more notable in The Living Daylights, he seemed to have lost some weight for Licence To Kill.
On the subject of height, you can find many pictures of Dalton, Moore and Brosnan together (probably in 95). Dalton is consistently and very clearly taller than the other two in every single photo. If the estimates are based on Dalton having been 187-188 cm, that places both Brosnan and Moore somewhere in the 180-184 range. We know Moore was the oldest of them and probably had lost height, but if you want to go there, don't forget Dalton is also notably older than Brosnan and was still 5 cm taller than him.
There is no way Moore or Brosnan were EVER near Dalton's height, at any age, peak height or not. I still say my initial guess of 6'0.25" for Moore (as a young man) stands its ground.
James said on 5/Sep/17
Connery was 52 in "Never Say Never Again" and had put on quite a bit of weight since the 1960s.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 4/Sep/17
Connery struggled with 6ft2 next to Pat Roach
James B said on 30/Aug/17
Pat Roach made Connery look small
movieguy said on 27/Aug/17
Yeah looking at the early Connery films he is surprisingly lean. People in those days were generally thinner than today though. There were no steroids and far fewer overweight people in general. Desmond Llewellyn was obviously a lot older by the point of the Dalton/Brosnan films and much frailer looking and smaller all round than he'd been at the time of the earlier Bond films.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 24/Aug/17
Connery was the burliest of the Bonds especially in Diamonds Are Forever...
Arch Stanton said on 24/Aug/17
Dalton big?? Don't agree, he was always slender build. Connery was more muscular and bigger of frame but still relatively slender in the 60s.
Bugsy said on 23/Aug/17
One more odd thing is that BOTH Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan looked clearly (meaning more than an inch) taller than Desmond Llewellyn, but Moore looked to be around the same height or just barely taller. The significance of this is that Dalton is supposed to have been close or equal to 6'2" and Brosnan some measure shorter than Dalton. The comparison with Dalton being slightly more relevant I suppose, since not that much time had passed between his and Moore's Bonds.
Also compare the build of Dalton vs. Moore. Dalton looked like a BIG guy, not just a tall guy. Kind of like Connery. That is actually what I meant earlier when I referred to Moore as being 'slim' or 'slender'. I did NOT mean he looked starved or underweight. I'll also repeat that being slim is very 'ordinary'. If your natural build is slim, there's no way out of it except to build a LOT of muscle (which Moore did not have) or appear to be overweight (which Moore did not do). I think the producers requirement for him to lose weight for Live and let die was precisely designed so that he would appear tall, not stubby, on screen. They succeeded.
James said on 19/Aug/17
Moore was six foot without the lifts he wore on TV and in films. He was the shortest Bond until Craig.
Rising - 174 cm said on 16/Aug/17
This is probably most likely and explains why Burt Reynolds(obviously in elevator boots) looked a bit taller than Roger at the end of Cannonball Run. Roger must have not lost much height by his late 60s, though, because he still looked almost as tall as Pierce Brosnan and was still looking like a tall guy near 6'1" next to Jean-Claude Van Damme and James Remar in The Quest.
Arch Stanton said on 15/Aug/17
Finally, spot on now I think.
movieguy said on 14/Aug/17
The 6'1.5'' quote is made when he stands next to Michael Parkinson who is given as 5'10'' on this site. The funny thing is if you take a look at it they look more or less the same height. Pierce Brosnan looks clearly taller than Parkinson at the same event. To contradict this there is the clip where Moore presents at the Oscars with 6'2'' Michael Caine and 6'2'' Sean Connery. Moore is perhaps slightly shorter but only just, does look 6'1'' in this clip. Maybe Moore had lost height by the time of the later clip. I do think Moore was a genuine 6ft plus in his prime but did lose an inch or two with age.
said on 13/Aug/17
Rob, what do you think is the best option for Roger Moore at his peak?
A) 185.5-187.5 cm
B) 186-188 cm
C) 186.5-188.5 cm
Editor Rob: I think he was quite honest in saying first thing in the morning he was near 6ft 2...it's just, maybe he shrank to 6ft 1 flat evening range.
berta said on 12/Aug/17
good update this may well have been closer to his real height probably was somewhere in the 186 range
movieguy said on 11/Aug/17
Gyles Brandreth who knew him well describes Moore as 6'1'' in an obituary column in the Telegraph.
Bugsy said on 9/Aug/17
Rory: I did not concede anything, since I did not at any point claim anything like that. A direct quote from my earlier comment is "perhaps an inch, maybe a little less". Please learn some reading comprehension.
By your logic, the footwear and camera angles could just as well have been favoring Moore, not Lonsdale. And then there's the question of Lonsdale's height, him being 6'1" is in itself only an assumption here. Anyway, I guess I'm going to leave this pointless discussion here, because you seem to have some sort of fixation with Moore being a certain height and you're not even open to looking at it objectively.
Prayer said on 9/Aug/17
Actually Moore could have been "only" 5'11 or 180 cm. Look at him with Geoffrey Keen who was listed as 5'5 or 165 cm. Moore looks barely 6 inches taller than Keen and Keen was a old man by that far. 6'1 and 6'2 is ridiculous.
Jug said on 8/Aug/17
Moore was 6'1 at peak. A guy who is 6'1 will say that he is 6'2. He was 4 inches shorter than Christopher Lee in The Man With the Golden Gun. He had broad shoulders and a big chest and sometimes looked quite big. Note that he and Connery look the same amount taller than Lois Maxwell. Also compare with Bernard Lee and Desmond Llewelyn. At 58 he was still taller than Christopher Walken.
Rory said on 7/Aug/17
@Bugsy : Well that's funny because you've gone from saying he was an inch shorter than Lonsdale to now conceding they were practically the same and also retracting that he was "slender" to now saying he was ordinary. There was no visible difference between them, but it's silly to say he looked 6ft1 there and not 6ft1.25 because a quarter inch can be accounted for by anything from a difference in footwear,camera angle etc even an inch difference could be distorted by such variables. Age too, Moore was 51 during filming, Lonsdale was 47 during filming..Rob has said men on average lose their first mm at age 47-48 so it's possible in the film Lonsdale had lost nothing and Moore had been losing a tiny bit for the last 4 years. I still think Moores build made him look shorter than he was, quite short legs and a long torso.
Bugsy said on 6/Aug/17
Indeed, an ORDINARY build. Not a big guy, nor especially thin. Not especially tall either.
Rory, even after I clarified it you seemed to miss one point I was making. EVEN IF he was the same height as Lonsdale, that would only have made him 6'1" (Lonsdale's listing), not 6'1.25" as he's currently listed.
I don't know how recently you saw Moonraker but I saw it less than a week ago. They were indeed "eye to eye" (standing face to face close to each other), and Moore was the shorter one out of the two. Not by much, but Moore having been taller is out of the question.
Rory said on 5/Aug/17
@Bugsy : Having narrow shoulders though is nothing to do with muscle, its to do with the width of your shoulders which is made from bone. I repeat, he wasn't narrow shouldered. Someone like Damian Lewis I'd say was narrow shouldered, not Roger Moore. I wouldn't even say he was particularly thin really, I'd say he had quite an ordinary build. No but the point is he wasn't shorter than Lonsdale at all ! I watched Moonraker recently and thought both men were eye to eye, not once did I detect Lonsdale was taller, I've no idea how you you concluded that he was..in every scene they were in together they were inseparable in height. Big heeled shoes for men were all the rage in the 1970s, a good chunk of men would have been wearing them.
Bugsy said on 5/Aug/17
Rory: I said "comparatively" narrow shoulders. He did not have a broad chest, he was not very muscular in general (not a bodybuilder). Even that b&w photo above on this site shows that. Does that look like a big, bulky guy to you? He just simply had a smaller (thinner) frame. That's what some people have. I know a guy who is 2 inches taller than me but weighs 40 lbs less. I also know a guy who is exactly my height and weighs 65 lbs less. People are built different.
Maybe he wasn't exactly "an inch" shorter than Michael Lonsdale, who cares. What I said was that Moore was VISIBLY shorter, definitely not the taller one out of the two. Lonsdale btw is listed as 6'1.0".
One more thing I noticed the other day was that (again, in the 70's Bonds) Moore's dress shoes tended to have quite a large looking heel. Large enough for me to clearly notice it and think "hmm, those shoes look bigger than regular". Maybe it was to make sure he would look tall next to the leading women in heels.
Richard said on 3/Aug/17
Moore was far too old to play Bond. He never even looked six foot, let alone 6'1".
Rory said on 2/Aug/17
@Bugsy In my view you're wrong on all accounts. He wasn't narrow shouldered,he didn't have long legs,he wasn't an inch shorter than Lonsdale they were about the same and he wasn't as low as 6'0.25.
Ali said on 1/Aug/17
Rob, Roger Moore was clearly shorter than Connery and Lazenby by about 2 inches or so. Roger Moore
is overall a smaller guy compared to Connery and Lazenby.
Bugsy said on 1/Aug/17
Just to be clear about this on my part: I don't have any kind of an agenda against Moore. In fact, he was always my favorite Bond actor regardless of his age or whatever.
About his build, I read the Bond producers told him to lose weight (presumably in the early 70's). He was definitely not a BIG guy, he just wasn't. He was slender with comparatively narrow shoulders (and long legs). So again, the perfect example of someone who appears on screen to be taller than in reality.
I just saw Moonraker, Moore was visibly shorter than Michael Lonsdale by perhaps an inch, maybe a little less.
I can definitely believe Moore WAS genuinely (didn't drop under the mark even after a full day on his feet) 6 ft and again, a genuinely 6 ft guy is TALL so I don't even see a problem here. The heights listed here are low/afternoon heights so my guess is still at 6'0.25".
Mister lennon said on 1/Aug/17
He was 6'1 when he played bond in the 70s.
Prayer said on 31/Jul/17
6'2 is ridiculous. He wasn't no more than 6 ft when played Bond. Yes he was very slim and looked taller than he was.
James said on 31/Jul/17
Moore never even looked 6'1", let alone 6'2".
They would never cast an old man as Bond today.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 30/Jul/17
In The Saint could pass for 6ft2
Rory said on 29/Jul/17
The thing is 6ft 2 in the morning can be quite an ambiguous claim. It could mean he meant 6ft 2 straight out of bed meaning he'd be a 6ft1.25 guy, or it could mean he measured 6ft2 in the morning 3 hrs out of bed meaning he'd be a 6ft1.75 guy, it could mean he measured around 6ft2(like 6'1.75 or 6'2.25) at some point in the morning. It's very unclear.
Mister lennon said on 28/Jul/17
Moore always looked 6'1 exept in his 60s, when he looked a strong 6.
Mario said on 28/Jul/17
If Roger Moore says he's 6 ft 2 in the morning or 6 ft 1.5, I believe he's. I mean, he seemed like an humble guy, he even did make fun of his acting. It doesn't make sense to me why he would add an extra 0.25 inch to him.
James said on 27/Jul/17
Moore only weighed 160 lbs so he was quite thin.
Rory said on 27/Jul/17
I actually think his build made him look shorter than he was. He had a big,long torso and quite short skinny legs. Quite unusual actually. At times because of his build I thought he could seem much shorter than 186cm but then when stood next to others you'd see he clearly was that range.
James said on 27/Jul/17
Moore never looked 6'1" in anything. His thin build made him appear taller. Since he wore a hairpiece in "The Saint" and as Bond he probably wore lifts as well.
My grandfather once met Moore and Dorothy Squires at a racetrack and he said Moore was no taller than six foot.
Bugsy said on 26/Jul/17
Moore had the build that made him appear taller on screen. He was quite slim. I don't think he was over 6'1". Never looked THAT tall.
If you're genuinely 6 ft, you are TALL. Doubly so in the old days because the average height was lower.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Jul/17
188.4cm out of bed
Mister lennon said on 26/Jul/17
He was 6'1 peak. He always looked it.
He was only 6 in his late 50s and 60s.
James said on 25/Jul/17
Moore never looked any taller than six foot. I don't know why they cast a 50-year-old as Bond.
Mark(5'9.5") said on 24/Jul/17
Okay, I think the downgrade to 6'1" is extreme.
This listing is fine, but I would have kept the original listing.
even said on 24/Jul/17
a strong legitimate 6 foot 1 .
James said on 20/Jul/17
He should be downgraded to 6'1". Moore was the shortest Bond until Craig.
Mark(5'9.5 said on 19/Jul/17
Still shock of the downgrade.
Richard said on 15/Jul/17
Moore never looked his stated height. I'm surprised they cast him as Bond when he was already well into middle age.
James said on 12/Jul/17
Actually there were many women who did not find Moore attractive. Don't forget he was a very heavy cigarette smoker until he was 45, and overused the sun which led to his long battle with skin cancer.
MJKoP said on 11/Jul/17
James said on 3/Jul/17
He famously wore lifts and a hairpiece as James Bond.
So did Connery...and Brosnan(at least in his last two Bond films, as he himself admitted). Not sure about Lazenby or Dalton.
Mark(5'9.5") said on 11/Jul/17
Interesting, i still wouldn't go lower than 186 cm.
Rob, if Roger Moore is downgraded to 6'1.25", where would that leave a Peak Christopher Lee?
James said on 3/Jul/17
He famously wore lifts and a hairpiece as James Bond.
Rory said on 3/Jul/17
Yh I think a strong 6ft 1 in his Saint days looks very fair. A weak 6ft 1 by his last Bond outing.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Jul/17
Interesting one Rob. At his low maybe
Richard said on 30/Jun/17
At six foot Moore was the shortest Bond until Craig. He was also far too old to play 007.
RichardSpain said on 27/Jun/17
Moore was a perfect 185cm in peak, barefoot.
Moore 185cm peak
Brosnan 186cm in peak
Connery 188/189cm in peak.
Craig 178 cm
James said on 7/Jun/17
Roger Waters was 6'1" at his peak so he was an inch taller than Moore.
lak said on 7/Jun/17
@MJKoP i know that , but some guys here say arnold was just 183 or less
Arch Stanton said on 7/Jun/17
It's hard to see Moore as the same height as Roger Waters and James Garner...
James said on 6/Jun/17
Moore might have been 6'1" when he was 20, but as James Bond he never looked any more than six foot.
Christian-196.5cm (6ft5 3/8) said on 4/Jun/17
James said on 1/Jun/17
Schwarzenegger is 5'11".
I agree, 5'11" nowadays.
Canson said on 3/Jun/17
6'1.5 looks good.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Jun/17
Moore might've lost a fraction by then...but peak they may have been similar.
Both could look from 6ft1 up to 6ft2
James said on 1/Jun/17
Schwarzenegger is 5'11".
MJKoP said on 30/May/17
Houss said on 24/May/17
He was shorter than Arnold swharzenegger
Because Arnie was taller than 6'1.5"
Mark(5'9.25") said on 30/May/17
Rest In Peace, Sir Moore.
Also, 6'1.5" in his glory days.
RichardSpain said on 29/May/17
Rest in peace Mr Moore! and thanks for your movies. Everybody all countries love you.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 28/May/17
Nah Brosnan's meant to be a gent aswell. Connery and Lazenby have reputations for being bullies though
Willes188 said on 27/May/17
Definitely the most polite and down to earth Bond actor, i have respect for all of them, but both Connery and Brosnan is said by many to have quite a temperament
said on 26/May/17
How did he die Rob? i only heard aboutin his death a few days ago, was it old age or cancer or something? i cant believe it thats so sad and devastating to hear, he was a great person, kind, funny and full of charisma and one of the best bonds
R.I.P Sir Roger Moore
Editor Rob: he did battle cancer in last few months, late 80's is a long life, he entertained a lot of people and also with humanitarian work, contributed a lot.
Houss said on 24/May/17
He was shorter than Arnold swharzenegger
Sandy Cowell said on 24/May/17
Another of our golden greats gone, but never to be forgotten. He was a true English gent and a credit to the acting industry. Can't believe it... 😭
RIP Roger xxx
Johnny said on 24/May/17
Rest in peace Sir Roger. One of the best actors of all time.
Bazza said on 24/May/17
Best Bond for me, and the one i enjoyed watching growing up.amazing to think he was already 45 when he took on the role and 58 by the time of his last Bond film!
Phantasm Tall Man said on 24/May/17
Rest in peace, always the coolest bond!
shiva 181 cms said on 23/May/17
I just commented yesterday about sir Roger's height
came to know he passed away at 89, one of the best James bond ever , also a good person
Glad he made it to 89. Rip sir Roger Moore
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/May/17
I do think that Moore was taller than most people give him credit for and I'm not saying that because he's now passed (still hasn't sunk in with me yet). He shared the screen with some big men like Yaphett Kotto, Christopher Lee, Curt Jurgens and Jeffrey Holder. Richard Kiel wasn't a great person to compare height against because he'd make anyone look average or short. But when you see him next to guys a bit closer to his range like Julian Glover (6ft2), Michael Lonsdale (6ft1) or Christopher Walken (6ft0½) the listed height isn't unreasonable.
Nik said on 23/May/17
@ Arch Stanton
I agree with everything you said, R.I.P Sir Roger Moore.
Willes188 said on 23/May/17
Rest In Peace sir Roger Moore.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/May/17
Another giant of cinema gone...
Scarlett Rose said on 23/May/17
Currently watching reruns of "The Persuaders!" on True Entertainment at 9.00pm. The brilliant theme tune is by the equally brilliant John Barry. RIP Sir Roger Moore. 😞
Mario said on 23/May/17
Rip, 6 ft 1.5.
James B said on 23/May/17
Will never see an actor quite like you ever again
MJKoP said on 23/May/17
Back to 6'1.5". RIP
Arch Stanton said on 23/May/17
If you see him with Prince Phillip who was nearer 6 ft prime Roger was MUCH taller, didn't look under 6 ft with him even in his last years.
said on 23/May/17
Best remembered.... Rob. Another great one passes away, he had a good innings at 89 though. RIP Sir Roger. Your light hearted appariach to acting and suave demeanor will always be remembered, a true gentleman.
Editor Rob: 89 is a very good age, may he rest in peace...
HeightMan said on 15/May/17
I think Roger Moore was taller than most people think. He's probably the most unpopular Bond so people underestimate them. Popularity always makes people taller; e.g. the Rock is loved but it is hard to argue the dude was ever over 1.88. Connery wasn't over 1.88 either. Craig is lower than 1.78. Moore faced tall opponents in his movies. The bad guys in "live and let die" were over 6'3''(!), Richard Kiel is self-explanatory, Drax in Moonraker was also 6'1''...
1.87 for Moore, most of the day!
Arch Stanton said on 14/May/17
In Gold (1974) Roger Moore had about 1.5 inches on Milland who was 186 peak but had lost height. I do think Moore looked a legit 187 in that film.
said on 7/May/17
Compare for yourself, here is an old-ish Roger Moore (1996) with Harald Schmidt who is a solid 194cm guy...
berta said on 5/May/17
6foot 1 or 186 at peak either of them would be good listings and today i dont think for a second he oculd still be 6 feet. 180is probably his current height
James said on 5/May/17
He's 5'10" now.
Rory said on 3/May/17
I dont think he ever really looked 6ft 2 even in the Saint days. He certainly didn't give as tall an impression on screen as someone like Connery. I reckon peak he fell to 186cm at night. No idea what he'd be today but I'd guess 5'11 range.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Apr/17
187cm peak is believable. Go back to before Bond. Could look 6ft2 at times
berta said on 12/Apr/17
there is a few guys on this site that say everyone is 4 cm shorter than their listing and always say " he is wearing lifts" this is very bad backtalking. If you dont know personally that a guy wears lifts dont say it . tell rumours is a bad thing. this guy is clear as day he didnt wear lifts and he was atleast 6 foot 1. not shorter could have been taller but if he was i dont think he was over 186. cant see this guy taller than costner.
James said on 3/Apr/17
"The Man Who Haunted Himself" had the usual hilarious Hollywood view of London.
Sandy Cowell said on 2/Apr/17
I'm currently watching an enormously entertaining little film called, 'The Man Who Haunted Himself'! If I'd known just how entertaining it would be, I wouldn't have gone downstairs for an extended tea break, thus missing a large chunk of it!
It was made in 1970, when the naughtiest word used in film was 'bloody', (and there's a lot of that!), and an insult is being called an 'old croc, ha ha yah' and if someone's cross, it's like, 'what the Devil do you think you're doing?'
I've been laughing my butt off!
Roger is getting in all sorts of trouble with his wife, his pretty girlfriend who he barely knows and being shown the way to the psychiatrist's waiting room! That's because there are two of him!
He died on an operating table and that resulted in the creation of another one, exactly the same - how very scientific!!!
I was expecting Roger to be tall and he is! 6ft1-2 was my estimate, and he is bang in the middle at 6ft1.5! I am pleased with that!
I also find myself liking him beyond all expectations, as I am NOT a Bond fan! He is quite a gent in this yarn instead of the conceited, self-serving Bond! Of course, with the year being 1970, Roger is at his peak height.
said on 31/Mar/17
He's no shorter than Michael Caine, maybe a tad taller if anything... Click Here
mister_lennon said on 31/Mar/17
He was 6'1.
James said on 30/Mar/17
He's 5'10" today, so he was clearly never 6'2".
Mark(5'9.25") said on 29/Mar/17
Big six one peak. 187 cm is right.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 20/Mar/17
I think both Brosnan and Moore were 187cm peak
Adijos said on 19/Mar/17
Stalin said on 16/Mar/17
Rob, Farell is least 272 at his heaviest
Stalin said on 14/Mar/17
Rob, is Farrell 272 One now
Johnny said on 11/Mar/17
@Rob do you think Sir Roger could have edged out Cary Grant?
said on 11/Mar/17
I posted this photo earlier but I post now again.
We don't know, how many height lost Patrick Duffy now but I don't think that so many because he was way taller than 6'0" Brenda Strong and Strong wore high heels in the 2012 Dallas series promo photos. So what do you think Rob about this photo?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 10/Mar/17
He's probably lost 2in by now
AlexMahone said on 10/Mar/17
Uhhhh....Rob....the James guy again! Well, Arch has right. You gave him a warning, I hope this is a FINAL warning before the ban, and seemed to me that his tone was a little bit more endurable but now....this. He tell us the same old crap again and again and again. Moore wore wig, Moore wore lifts and all the tall man in this board are lift wearers according to James.
This is really ridiculous now.
And mister-lennon has right as well. The lift thing is just crap.
mister_lennon said on 8/Mar/17
He was 6'1 peak. 6 is too low for him.
and proof that he said that lifts him???
this lifts things is getting so old an annoying.
said on 7/Mar/17
Rob, why is James still permitted to post on celebheights? Every comment he makes just looks like trolling. He knows that people will react to his claims about lifts.
Editor Rob: he's been given a warning to tone it down a bit...
James said on 7/Mar/17
No he wasn't. He admitted wearing lifts and a hairpiece. He was never above six foot. He even had plastic surgery while he was playing Bond.
mister_lennon said on 6/Mar/17
the lifts thing is just crap.
moore was 6'1 peak. maybe 6 in his last bond films. but a true 6'1 guy at peak.
James said on 4/Mar/17
He admitted wearing lifts and a hairpiece in "The Saint" and as James Bond. He was never more than six foot.
talker said on 2/Mar/17
i stood next to Roger Moore in Switzerland in the late 1970s when he was in his fifties,and the peak height is right on,he was still 1.87 at the time,no shorter and no taller.
mister_lennon said on 2/Mar/17
6'1 peak. Less than 6'1 peak for him is just absurd trolling.
James said on 28/Feb/17
He was six foot.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Feb/17
He was definitely close to 6ft2 in The Persuaders
said on 22/Feb/17Click Here
. Although I've gone for the 6'1'' to 6'2'' range previously. In this clip he is the same height as 5'10'' to 5'11'' Michael Parkinson. Maybe Moore had already lost height though.
berta said on 21/Feb/17
rob what about lower his peak to 186?
James said on 17/Jan/17
Terry-Thomas was 5'11" in 1971.
AlexMahone said on 17/Jan/17
In The Persuaders Moore looked tall at least 6'2 or very-very close to it. He was couple of centimeters taller than Terry Thomas so the 6'2 claim is right or this 187cm peak height what Rob gave him.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Jan/17
187cm peak is fair for both Moore and Brosnan
Rory said on 18/Dec/16
I never really got a solid 6ft 2 impression from Moore in anything he starred in, that's why I'm slightly sceptical of this 6'1.5 listing as I feel a 187cm leading man would pull off 6ft 2 most of the time, but to me he always looked under it. 6'1.5 at midday is probable which makes this current listing reasonable but after a day on set probably 186cm flat.
AlexMahone said on 8/Dec/16
Mike Read was shamed into doing this statment. He was fired as Roger Moore's underwater stunt double in The Saint after drawing attention to Moore's thinning hair. That's the story and nothing more. If you can prove the opposite please write to Sir Roger's Facebook page. This is celebheights and not your personal vendetta's page against Moore.
Wait...Timothy Dalton said to me that you wore lifts because you are only 4'11". Actually, this is not the actor Timothy Dalton. My proofs is axiomatical, right? Or not. This is a rumour. Same as your's.
James said on 26/Nov/16
Mike Read said Moore wore lifts an "The Saint" and was already losing his hair.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Nov/16
And it's not as if it's just the odd claim, James claims multiple times every day that tall actors wore lifts, to the point that it's verging on trolling at times. Evidence?
AlexMahone said on 26/Nov/16
Rory, great post, you are absolutely right.
Rory said on 25/Nov/16
Because you've absolutely nothing to back up the claims they wore lifts. In which case I can only guess you're accusing them of lift wearing as youre jealous of their height and keen to downgrade them. If you can provide even one piece of evidence to support that Roger, or any of the other millions of celebrity lift wearers in your opinion wore lifts I'd salute you and apologise.
James said on 25/Nov/16
How is a "loser" to point out that some actors wore lifts in films?
carl198cm said on 24/Nov/16
james is such a loser, he must be 170cm
James said on 22/Nov/16
He could look 6'2" in "The Saint" because he wore lifts.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 19/Nov/16
In The Saint he could pass for a 6ft2 guy at times. He'd had very good posture.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 19/Nov/16
Rory said on 11/Nov/16
If he was a solid 187 then Michael Caine was a solid 188.5 which few people have ever tried to argue. Most judge him to have been 187-8. I think nearer 186 at night is more feasible for Moore.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 10/Nov/16
Solid 187cm guy in the 60's-70's. By his last Bond movie 185-186cm
mister_lennon said on 7/Nov/16
Moore was 6'1 peak. In the 80s, maybe he had lost some heigth and was about a strong 6 footer.
And he never wore lifts.
Josh Jeffords said on 6/Nov/16
Always looked and stood 6 foot plus even into his forties.
Doubt he regularly wore much footwear had many barefoot shots still tall.
Greg still has him beat into the 80s so he was not over 6 2.
As for his bond he was average height and ability lazy eye was bad Dalton was ok but Connery did it first.
Craig is hit or miss obviously short for role also too intense.
Brosnan was good not any taller than Moore better actor.
James said on 6/Nov/16
Moore was six foot. He always wore lifts.
People only liked Bond films because they wanted to pretend that Britain still mattered after World War II.
mister_lennon said on 6/Nov/16
This james/tom guy has an obsession with lifts.
again, moore was about 185 or 186 at peak. He didnt need lifts.
James said on 6/Nov/16
45 is well into middle age. Connery was 31 when he played Bond and Lazenby was 29.
Moore was shorter than Brosnan, and two inches shorter than Connery.
Bruno said on 5/Nov/16
Taller than Brosnan, very little between him and Connery and as he said himself any man over 5'10" could play Bond.
Bruno said on 5/Nov/16
Well James you seem to have some major axe to grind with this man. BTW too old at 45 get a grip man.
Rory said on 5/Nov/16
James the things you're saying are hardly big revelations are they. We know he was the oldest Bond, as for the shortest till Craig it's debatable. I thought Brosnan gave off a taller impression on screen than Moore did, but then if Brosnan rly was taller than Moore it's hard to explain why a peak Brosnan only looks half an inch taller than a 67 yr old Moore.
James said on 4/Nov/16
No Bruno, I wasn't alive in 1973. I've no idea why they replaced 29-year-old Lazenby with somebody who was close to retirement age. Moore was the oldest Bond by far, and the shortest until Craig.
jessman said on 3/Nov/16
I stood about 5 yards from Ryan Tubridy in 2009. He is not 6'2.5 inches. At most he is 6'1, his very slim build makes appear taller. He stands and greets his guests as they come on and has been noticeably shorter- four inches easily - than genuine 6'5 guys like Tim Robbins and Paul O'Connell. Niall Quinn, a strong 6'4, was also quote a bit taller. Roger is probably 5'11 max today, 6'1 max at his peak.
said on 3/Nov/16
Moore was six foot in 1983. He was two inches shorter than Connery and Caine.
He always wore lifts in films.
Editor Rob: James, if 1/10th of the actors in Hollywood wore lifts or elevators, I'd be able to retire on the commissions!
AlexMahone said on 3/Nov/16
Rob, in the future I will ignore this James guy. This was a simple test. He reacted/responded always when somebody describe his opinion and then come the "wore wig/lift" bullbagoogle and the off topic. A little bit pathetic...
Bruno said on 2/Nov/16
You must have missed out on the James Bond role in 73 and have an axe to grind with Sir Roger.
Rory said on 2/Nov/16
No. In 1983 he would have been 6'1 flat, about one quarter of an inch or so below his prime.