The Validity of Gal Gadot Beating Up Two Men - Red Notice (2021) Discussion

[–] mav100000 (340) 3 years ago

I have a slightly different take on all of this: I teach Krav Maga. Gal Gadot served in the Israeli army and was a "fitness instructor" in the army. She has Israeli Krav training. She is one of the exceptions in Hollywood who likely could take multiple men in a fight, and I count myself there! I would legitimately not want to fight her! Israeli Krav training is nuts!

Now, I usually am very critical of women in fight scenes in movies for many of the reasons stated here. However, I can also say that I had to tap against a woman who was about 105 lbs. (she admitted as much) the other day. Now, we were not sparring or rolling and I had purposely put myself in the position to let her work on the hold, but still, it can definitely happen! My issue with women in fight scenes is that the scene often looks very choreographed and yes, you get a small woman who clearly can't hit beating up large men. With Gal Gadot, even though she is tiny, I believe she can hit. Yet many of her fight scenes are rough for me because of the choreography, not because of her. She is badass, but just because she is doesn't mean the choreography matches. It can be tough to watch!

In the end, I teach both men and women and I've met a few women that I definitely would not want to fight, and of those, most are smaller than me. Hell, one is the daughter of a retired Army Ranger and fights just like him! (I used to train with him a lot.) The thing is, she is tiny, but I wouldn't want to fight her either! Could I win? Probably. Do I want to try? No! So it can happen. I just don't often believe it in movies. Gadot is another matter though!

End of rant!

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (1917) 3 years ago

The problem with this trend in the past 15 years or so (of showing a 5’5”, 110 lb woman throwing around multiple men is....not only does it seem like apparently every single female cop is an 8th degree blackbelt (with perfectly timed and executed kicks, punches and throws), but also...they never RECEIVE any blows! (And often times, they do this stuff in a dress and heels!)

Not that I want to see this....but if you want equal time and equal empowerment on-screen, then that means the women (half the time) get their asses handed to them. Again, I have ZERO interest in seeing that. But in reality, the percentage of time a woman in the field would WIN a fight against multiple men would be less than 1%. However...if the push continues for showing our daughters they can be every bit as tough, empowered and skilled as men.....if the push is for equality, then they’d need to lose half the time, not NONE of the time, as is currently the case. In reality, one blow to the face and it would be lights out.

But nobody wants to show that on-screen. So instead, we depict a FALSE sense of equality and empowerment. I get it, the pendulum needed to come back the other way a bit from the male-centric action of the 80’s. However, you can’t SLAM the pendulum 100% to the other side in order to pander. It’s so far from reality it’s actually a bit silly, and patronizing.

reply

[–] mav100000 (340) 3 years ago

I agree with what you say quite a lot, actually. I've seen it too. I know some tough women and I guarantee a few of them could take a guy, but when it came to taking a big hit... not so much. The best fighters I see are quick enough to get around many guys.

I also see what you say in the movie industry and yes, it bugs me too. I do believe it can be toxic to women to constantly tell them that they can fight like men all the time. Some can! But most cannot. Again, I teach both men and women and I've sparred with at least two women. They were quick and one actually really challenged me with a few shots. The other... no. She is tough as nails but it was no contest, and I was hitting at about 10% with her too. I'm not that big or strong, really, compared to many. (I'm realistic about it!) But teaching women to be empowered to fight can really backfire on them, and like you, I don't want to see that happen!

You hit it on the head though. Today, the pendulum has been slammed hard to one direction. It will come back eventually but in the meantime, we will see a bunch more tough woman movies where they kick men's asses because men suck... I just sigh and avoid those. However, if it was someone who actually can fight (like Gal Gadot), I'd watch because I'd believe it more than an untrained dancer-type (ie: choreography is the only thing keeping the fight going, not real skill).

reply

[–] necramonium (219) 2 years ago

There is a reason why Dwayne's character doesnt pummel her face into the dirt instantly during the fight and that is because Dwayne's character was working with Galdot's character.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

As another poster here commented, I think I read that Gadot has military training. So she probably has a basic knowledge of CQB. And, as someone else pointed out, she really was just taking on ONE guy.

Generally, I also have a hard time accepting these scenes where the waif-like actress kicks the crap out of a room full of burly trained bad guys and barely gets her hair mussed up... looking at you Jolie and Jovovich.

I thought the fight scene in Atomic Blonde was well done though. Theron's assassin comes out of it with actual damage... e.g. a hemorrhaging eyeball.

reply

[–] TheReccher (343) 3 years ago

Dude. There's this thing called tone. And whether or not a movie a movie has to be realistic depends on how serious that is. When a movie has a character say the object they're looking for is in a box called Mcguffin, that's the film throwing all attempts at realism out the window. Your post is akin to complaining about inaccurate Physics in a Bugs Bunny skit. Do fictional scenes of woman beating up men really bother you.

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (1917) 3 years ago

It’s simply an odd state of affairs. Women want equality and equal empowerment depicted on-screen....but you will never see someone other than a man get clocked in a fight. (And nobody would WANT to see that). So instead, we get what we have now...(and not just in this farce of a movie. I’m talking about pretty much every single action or cop show or movie).

reply

[–] ThrillerTalk (1118) 3 years ago

I thought so at first too, but after seeing the whole movie I get now why she was able to do that.

The Rocks character held back because she's secretly his mamacita.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Use spoiler tags, dude. What u did doesn't prevent a spoiler... and it just annoys people who scroll down forever to see the next post. If u don't know about them:

https://moviechat.org/formatting

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

My point is that these "little woman beats up big men" fight scenes ARE ridiculous, but they don't seem to be going away, so I just adjust my usual suspension of disbelief a little bit more. After all, James Bond always managed to outfight any man who came at him, regardless of size of the opponent."Nobody does it better" -- even if she is a girl.

No matter how much you try, it doesn't work well.

In general, when you make that type of worldbuilding adjustment, you have two ways to go. One way is to make them cartoonish (the original James Bond was incredibly cartoonish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhUlXS09lM0). But this way is often dismissed by modern Hollywood, which wants their empowered independent women to be taken seriously.

The other way is careful worldbuilding... which I haven't seen lately. You see that women are women are Strong and Powerful and... why are all the minions male? That makes sense in our world, since males are physically stronger, which leads to armed forces and security being mostly male, but in an universe where Women are Strong and Powerful? Why there isn't lots of female minions too??

I remember once I was reading a AD&D novel, years ago. In that universe (as in most that are RPG-based) there's no difference in strength between males and females, since strength and power depends on your level and class (RPG rule system). That's very common in modern Japanese Isekai shows and light novels too, btw. And I can accept that. But then you had a whole plot about a "sexist" guy who wanted his wife to stay home because he thought that as a female, she wasn't strong enough to fight male warriors. And I remember I thought... why? WHY??? In that universe, your strength depends on your level, it's completely gender-independent, so what's that about?. The whole plot didn't make any sense. I gave up the novel. That broke immersion and broke the story for me.

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 3 years ago

I love how certain men have a problem with women fighting and beating her opponents in movies and no problem at all with their male hero killing a room full of men with his bare hands while they line up and wait for him to punch them.

It's ALL fantasy my dudes, you've accepted the suspension of reality with your male hero of choice and somehow it's a bigger leap to have a female win a fight? They are both FAKE as Hell.

I think certain men just feel threatened by the idea that they could get beat up by a woman, I understand that, it has always been a school yard taunt, 'you got beat up by a giiiirrlll.'

Time to grow up. I'm not saying this to you personally because I'm pretty sure you agree with me!

I was the little sister of three older brothers and we fought all the time, I was outmatched and out weighed so I had to develop a different way to win and it didn't fail, ever, but I felt bad doing it so a lot of times I would rather let them win instead of jamming two fingers at the base of their wind pipe and kneeing them in the balls.

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (1917) 3 years ago

The whole windpipe and groin shot stuff might momentarily stun an unsuspecting purse snatcher. But in an adrenaline-amped brawl with trained men.....they’re not going to stand there and give you a target like the self-defense instructor at the YMCA.

Training, adrenaline, glancing blows and a lack of significant force all render the wind pipe and groin shot strategy virtually useless.

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 3 years ago

It worked on my brothers so your insisting that it is useless is wrong. Do you think they just stood there giving me a target lol

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (1917) 3 years ago

Kids roughhousing is a bit different than a thin woman in a dress and heels fighting and throwing around trained, armed, grown men.

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 3 years ago

True, but movie fights are fake no matter the gender of the hero.

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (1917) 3 years ago

That’s the whole point: Just how FAKE and ridiculous it looks....to see a thin, 110 lb woman....in a dress and heels...throwing trained, armed men around....never once sustaining a fist to the face. I guarantee you...if you ever received a true, intentional punch from one of your brothers, square in the nose, you’d STILL be recovering.

But miraculously...no woman in the history of film fights....has ever sustained an actual blow to the face.

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 3 years ago

Hell yes if I took a punch to the face I would be out. So would you.

Why can you suspend your belief for a male fighter but not a female? I think that you are vastly over interpreting how dead a man would be in the same situation. Do you think a man can sustain that much more than a woman?

You have no problem believing that a guy who is the height and weight of the average woman can kill a room full of men, it's laughable.

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (1917) 3 years ago

No, you’re right...and THAT is the point. A man....the size, weight and height of an average woman....would be tiny...and would not fare much better than a woman in a fight against a trained, armed man who is of average size for a male....though he would still have somewhat more of an advantage because he’d still have more upper body strength. In ANY scene...in which one person is fighting several, it becomes increasingly less believable. But it’s even MORE unbelievable when it’s a 110 lb woman in a dress and heels.

These days...you rarely see a situation in which one man fights and throws around several adversaries...without even sustaining one blow to the face. However...it is now routine and common to see a woman, fighting several men...throwing them around like rag dolls...and not once ever getting clocked in the face. A woman on TV or in the movies simply NEVER loses a fight or gets knocked out.

If you feel all things are equal in this regard, you have lost all credibility, and I have zero interest in much more of what you have to say. Sorry...

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 2 years ago

You have no problem watching a movie where a 130lb ninja takes out a room full of men lol You still aren't getting my point. No I don't think that women are as strong as men . . .I'm saying that the fights in movies are FAKE but you will easily suspend your disbelief if it's a ninja instead of a woman. They are all fake so why should you have a problem with what sex the fake fighter is? Neither one of those actors could actually win those carefully choreographed fights.

reply

[–] cyguration (3897) 2 years ago

Why can you suspend your belief for a male fighter but not a female? I think that you are vastly over interpreting how dead a man would be in the same situation. Do you think a man can sustain that much more than a woman?

As a matter of fact, YES, a man can sustain more damage than a woman.

The video is ONE man versus THREE men fighting in an elevator. He brushes off any blows from his attackers and knocks out the other three.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCFNvsjMs2Y

I can just keep linking various videos of real life men fighting off multiple other men and surviving or coming out on top. Here are a few more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHmMy40wcbE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4S8t3HCXHI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLVWQR5_KjU
https://youtu.be/9BShlPwPx20

Those videos literally do not exist anywhere on the internet for women doing the same thing.

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 2 years ago

You've posted something like this before and I thought that you were joking.

You seem to have completely missed the point.

The fights in films are FANTASY. Do you believe that the men in those movie fights would have actually been able to take on a pack of heavily armed and trained fighters alone. . . or are they carefully choreographed plays?

You accept that those fights are a fantasy and don't have a problem with it, the fights women are having in movies are the same damn thing, they are choreographed plays and yet you get all offended and cry about how a woman wouldn't be able to do that . . .well no shit.

The real issue is why it bothers you so much.

reply

[–] cyguration (3897) 2 years ago

The fights in films are FANTASY. Do you believe that the men in those movie fights would have actually been able to take on a pack of heavily armed and trained fighters alone. . . or are they carefully choreographed plays?

Except this isn't fantasy. This is a man taking on four heavily armed police officers, by himself, within the span of seconds, without falling down or losing his balance:
https://streamable.com/g2aloo

You accept that those fights are a fantasy and don't have a problem with it, the fights women are having in movies are the same damn thing, they are choreographed plays and yet you get all offended and cry about how a woman wouldn't be able to do that . . .well no shit.

That above video is not a carefully choreographed play. It's real-life, yet it looks like (and technically is even better) than a lot of the fight scenes we see in movies. He punches and knocks out one cop, pushes another down, shoulder tackles another, and then uses a rear-naked choke takedown on the last one.

Why would I be offended if I see something like that in a movie when we know men in our corporeal realm can do that without CGI, string-fu, or carefully choreographed dance routines?

The real issue is why it bothers you so much.

If I do see a guy in a movie blast through four or five guys with THAT level of skill as demonstrated in the video above (and other videos I posted), it doesn't bother me because we see that kind of thing happening in real life.

In movies, they DO NOT treat female heroines like real life at all. It's over-exaggerated and ramped up in the fantasy department to absurd degrees. If the movie is supposed to be over-the-top and ridiculous, fair play. But in a lot of cases they try to add some grounded sense of realism to these films, when in reality one-punch and the woman would be out cold, or worse yet, suffering from a skull fracture.

reply

[–] Jinx (3040) 2 years ago

The more you protest the more pathetic this gets. That video is supposed to prove that movie fights aren't fantasy? How embarrassing.

reply

[–] cyguration (3897) 2 years ago

Nope, it's to prove that art imitates life, and in this case, I'm not going to complain about movie fantasy fights when real life fights look just as good (or in the case of the Aussie Ninja) better than what we get in movies.

reply

[–] TylerAArse (2683) 3 years ago

If you were to watch the movie, you'd understand why she won that fight.

reply

[–] Zoltan (244) 3 years ago

I mean..I'm pretty sure there are a lot of women who could beat up Ryan Reynolds, to be fair.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Ha...yes, I think part of why this scene works is that Reynolds is no real opponent at all...

...but there is something else going on...

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Speaking of good movie fights:

Go all the way back to 1963 and Sean Connery as James Bond in "From Russia With Love." Late in the film, in the cramped confines of a sleeping car on the Orient Express, Connery and Robert Shaw -- two big, strapping, muscular men at the time -- have a realistic fight to the death in which it is clear that the loser must die(and not simply be knocked out) and so the fight has total commitment.

Some years later, Roger Moore having his rather silly fights with the Giant Bad Guy called "Jaws" (after a hit movie, and thus kinda silly in itself) rather negated the brutal reality of the Connery-Shaw encounter. "Jaws" never got killed, either.

Now we have the "John Wick" mass-killing marital arts stuff, and its great but ...something about Connery and Shaw going right at it, will always survive to those of us of a certain generation.

And: in that same movie -- From Russia With Love -- well before the Connery/Shaw fight, we get a gypsy camp "girl fight" (as they were called back then) that's pretty savage itself...but it gets interrupted by enemy action..

reply

[–] cyguration (3897) 2 years ago

Nice callback to the fight between Shaw and Connery. I would also add the hallway/elevator fight scene in Diamonds Are Forever with Connery. It's another common-sense, hard-hitting, white-knuckle brawl. It makes sense and it's still worth watching to this day.

Here's the fight here for people who don't remember it:
https://youtu.be/KEoh49r3SiA

The first series of exchanges is actually REALLY impressive here. Connery throws a punch after misjudging the space within the elevator and the other guy blocks it accordingly, but Connery is already throwing a right straight to the body and followed up with a left hook to the body, both of which get blocked, but leave the guy's face open for a right cross. It all happens within the span of just three seconds.

It looks and feels real, and it's a shame we don't get more fights like this in films.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Nice callback to the fight between Shaw and Connery. I would also add the hallway/elevator fight scene in Diamonds Are Forever with Connery. It's another common-sense, hard-hitting, white-knuckle brawl. It makes sense and it's still worth watching to this day.

Here's the fight here for people who don't remember it:
https://youtu.be/KEoh49r3SiA

===

Its a good one. Connery had been away for one film, and it felt like his willingness to get "down and dirty" with an opponent was a part of the "welcome back." Because of all the money spent to bring Connery back -- on a very short schedule with him per his demands -- a lot of Diamonds Are Forever feels a bit skimpy (especially the oil platform climax.) And some have said that this is the "first Roger Moore Bond, except with Connery in it."

But not during this fight scene. Close quarters, breaking glass, two big men equally matched and this -- Bond HAS to kill the other guy before Jill St. John finds out that Bond is IMPERSONATING him. This fight is to the death on CONNNERY'S call -- the fight to the death with Robert Shaw was rather self-defenses.

I looked at this fight, then the fight with Shaw -- and then at Roger Moore's fight with "Jaws" (silly name) on the train in Spy Who Loved Me. The fight with Jaws is more life-and-death than I recall (Jaws moving his razor metal teeth to fatally slash Bond's jugular)...but it ends with Jaws thrown off the train and alive.

Connery's fights are to the death in From Russia With Love(Shaw); Goldfinger(with BIg Oddjob, in a raterh unevenly matched and slow bout that Bond will lose if he doesn't outsmart his foe) Thunderball (the opener with the man in a dress -- Connery is killing him to avenge another's death), Diamonds are Forever(here); and Never Say Never Again(though the death of the opponent is played rather for laughs, involving Bond's urine sample.)

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

I don't recall a Connery fight to the death in Dr. No. In You Only Live Twice, Bond has a good fight with wrestler Peter Mavia (The Rock's grandfather!) that seems to end in a knockout, not death.

I think when one gets down to it, the Shaw fight is the most savage, this Diamonds Are Forever fight is second best for close combat(its Connery versus a fairly "regular looking guy" who was the film's stunt coordinator), and the Goldfinger fight is famous for its lopsided, weirdly quiet quality. The fight with the man in the dress is pretty savage too(Bond strangles the man with a poker)...but...we hardly know him/her.

I know that Roger Moore fought x number of HIS opponents to the death, too, but perhaps with less brutality(like the guy whose necktie Bond karate chops so as to send him falling to his death...)

reply

[–] cyguration (3897) 2 years ago

That's an extremely good observation about the methods and intentions of the different Bonds.

I guess I never thought about it before... that Connery's Bond usually fought to or intended to fight to the death for opponents he felt were an immediate threat.

I don't really remember the fight with the man in the dress, so I'll have to rewatch it from Thunderball.

I also had no idea Peter Maivia (sp?) tangled with Connery?! I guess I need to watch You Only Live Twice all the way through again. I only seem to remember bits and pieces of it, and it's been maybe 30 or so years since I've seen it.

I know that Roger Moore fought x number of HIS opponents to the death, too, but perhaps with less brutality

Yeah, most of Moore's fights are -- for a lack of a better word -- goofy. However, I did really like the fight with Baron Samedi, it's just a shame it was so short. But I would probably say that was one of Moore's most realistic fight scenes because it involved a very common sense approach to the fight and ended the way it should have given the circumstances.

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (1917) 2 years ago

Are we supposed to know who “Baron Samedi” is?

What movie was this fight in??

reply

[–] cyguration (3897) 2 years ago

Live And Let Die, during the sacrificial ceremony where Moore came in with the revolver and laid waste to Karnaga's men before briefly fighting the Baron.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

...and the Baron fell into snakes and seemed to die...but came alive in the final seconds of the movie, as I recall. Bond goes MCU.

Live and Let Die also has Bond putting an "inflation device" into Mr. Big's mouth and we watch as the man turns into a LITERAL balloon(especially the face) and explodes.

Not quite Connery...

I seem to remember a big guy in a turban and jacket fighting Bond atop a small plane in Octopussy --didn't Moore defeat the guy by smacking him in the face with an antenna and making him fall? If so...not quite Connery.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

I guess I never thought about it before... that Connery's Bond usually fought to or intended to fight to the death for opponents he felt were an immediate threat.

--

I would say before the Daniel Craig ones came along, the Connery fights were very savage, brutal, to the death -- with a little sadistic smile on Connery's face when he won.

Except the fight with Oddjob was rather overmatched --- Bond had to trick him into death.

And I'm pretty sure that Peter Maivia(I can't remember the spelling either) doesn't die in his fight with Bond, just knocked out. (With a statue, before that, Bond keeps hitting the Big Guy with a COUCH...lightweight couch, I guess, plus Connery was a bodybuilder.)

---

I don't really remember the fight with the man in the dress, so I'll have to rewatch it from Thunderball.

---

You won't have to watch long -- its the pre-credits sequence, back before those had skydiving cliff skiers, etcc.

---

I also had no idea Peter Maivia (sp?) tangled with Connery?! I guess I need to watch You Only Live Twice all the way through again. I only seem to remember bits and pieces of it, and it's been maybe 30 or so years since I've seen it.

--

The fight happens aways into the movie, after Bond goes to a Sumo wrestling event.

Peter Maivia(yep, SP?) and Rocky Johnson were wrestlers in the 70s. Peter's daughter married Rocky and The Rock was their baby boy. .

reply

[–] cyguration (3897) 2 years ago

I would say before the Daniel Craig ones came along, the Connery fights were very savage, brutal, to the death -- with a little sadistic smile on Connery's face when he won.

For all the criticisms I lob at Craig's Bond films, this is one area where I think he nails it quite well. He looks desperate but confident in many of his fist fights, which really do hearken back to the Connery era. I don't think Craig is quite as skilled in the execution of his fisticuffs as Connery was, but that's where choreography comes in to compensate.

What's interesting is that it's the one thing I longed for during the Brosnan era, as he was devilishly handsome and impossibly charming, but was portrayed to loathe the brutal savagery you rightly attributed to Connery. It's a shame because even Michelle Yeoh seemed to have a slightly more rough-and-tumble time in her Tomorrow Never Dies fight sequences than Brosnan did.

What's also interesting is that post-Bond, Brosnan seemed to take on grittier and more savage roles (i.e., The Foreigner, November Man, No Escape). It's a shame, too; wish he could have been portrayed that way during his era of Bond films. Definitely would have raised their value a fair bit.

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (1917) 2 years ago

Brosnan was too much of a pretty boy....prancing around in his little tuxedos, not a hair out of place, fretting about whether his little martinis were shaken or stirred. Conversely....Craig looked like a guy who would and could kill someone with his bare hands.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Brosnan was too much of a pretty boy....prancing around in his little tuxedos, not a hair out of place, fretting about whether his little martinis were shaken or stirred.

==

I recall one critic of the time noting that Brosnan "doesn't look like James Bond. He looks like James Bond's valet." Connery and Lazenby had been big, strapping men. Roger Moore was bit lightweight, but very tall. Timothy Dalton eh...I can't barely remember him.

On the other hand, I do remember more than one critic calling Brosnan "the second best Bond after Connery." (This was before Craig came along.)

I think thepoint is that Brosnan was put into very competant, well written, big budget productions...so we took HIM more seriously than Moore in his jokey little spoofs. Dalton's Bonds were as well made as Brosnan's but Dalton lacked Bronsnan's charisma.

--

Conversely....Craig looked like a guy who would and could kill someone with his bare hands.

--

Yes. Craig's Bond movies after Casino Royale are just too bleak and serious to enjoy but...his almost ugly, brutal face and ripped body made for some pretty savage fight scenes. Particularly in Casino Royale, which had him killing a man (almost) with his bare hands in a dssperate public bathroom fight(and finishing the man off with a gun) before moving on to other extremely physical life and death fights.

Connery perhaps got more "flashy" fights (versus Robert Shaw, versus Oddjob, versus a cross dressing killer, versus wrestler Peter Maivia, versus a big guy in an elevator) and was more handsome (and hence more sexy) in his fights than Craig -- but Craig had it going on for tough guy savagery.

Note: In "Spectre" Craig took on Big Guy Dave Bautista in a fight on a train that mixed all of the Bond train fights into one, plus a touch of the overmatched Oddjob fight in Goldfinger. Good fight -- great nostalgia -- but Bautista survived. Maybe he'll come back with the new Bond.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

What's also interesting is that post-Bond, Brosnan seemed to take on grittier and more savage roles (i.e., The Foreigner, November Man, No Escape). It's a shame, too; wish he could have been portrayed that way during his era of Bond films. Definitely would have raised their value a fair bit.

--

A weird thing about the Bond films, particularly the Moore films, is that they started to get more and more angled towards a 'family audience," if not a kid's audience. Perhaps the makers saw the big hits Lucas and Spielberg were getting with family friendly action(Star Wars, Indy Jones) and wanted to defuse the sex and violence.

I recall Cubby Broccoli (or somebody) remarking on a love scene between Sean Connery and Jill St. John atop a sophisticated aquarium in "Diamonds are Forever." Broccoli said: "Adults can watch the lovemaking -- kids can watch the fish."

reply