Moore or Craig longest serving?

24567

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    A dishwasher who worked ten tears washing a million dishes will have served as a dishwasher longer than someone who washed two million dishes over five years.

    Semantics is a chore for some.
  • Posts: 6,707
    The Dalton circumstances are exceptional, though (at least for now), and should probably be treated as such.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited August 2017 Posts: 13,894
    Dalton was still officially the face of Bond at the time. No matter how you try and twist it, he was still the face of the series, even though he wasn't making any Bond films. But why are we now just judging on number of years?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Maybe their body mass should be taken into the equation as well`I mean a big Bond is more Bond after all.
  • Posts: 14,816
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, otherwise Dalton would have been Bond for 8 years (1986 to 1994), which is more than Connery's prolific first run (1962 to 1967).

    Number of films or overall length of films combined works.

    In pure numeric terms Craig will win, but it doesn't mean much given the gaps.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, otherwise Dalton would have been Bond for 8 years (1986 to 1994), which is more than Connery's prolific first run (1962 to 1967).

    Number of films or overall length of films combined works.

    In pure numeric terms Craig will win, but it doesn't mean much given the gaps.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, otherwise Dalton would have been Bond for 8 years (1986 to 1994), which is more than Connery's prolific first run (1962 to 1967).

    Number of films or overall length of films combined works.

    In pure numeric terms Craig will win, but it doesn't mean much given the gaps.

    Craig still will have done "better" in that aspect than Brosnan, Dalton and Lazenby. Must be a sweet revenge for him given how skeptical and sometimes hostile people were when he was cast.
  • Posts: 6,707
    The body mass varies from film to film, though. Should the formula be the sum total of body masses in all of the actor's films divided by the number of films? Wait, the body mass varies from moment to moment... perhaps the sum total of body mass in each instant of a film divided by the total running time of the films?

    These are complex issues that deserve further analysis by a dedicated team of time wasters experts.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @Ludovico, yes he will, and that's where I rank him as well so it's fine with me.

    As I said, I'm not disputing he will be the winner. I just don't give a toss. Moore's my guy on that front.
  • Posts: 170
    A dishwasher who worked ten tears washing a million dishes will have served as a dishwasher longer than someone who washed two million dishes over five years.

    Semantics is a chore for some.

    Yes it appears so doesn't it. You're not working as Bond unless you're doing a film. Quite simple really.
  • Posts: 14,816
    Come to think of it their journey mirror each other's in that regard: both were considered a bit old after their fourth one, there were rumours of a successor and both ended up making a fifth one.

    Compare this to Brosnan's departure. I'm not bashing Brosnan but he had lost a lot of his appeal. I wonder if DAD was a caused or a symptom.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Compare this to Brosnan's departure. I'm not bashing Brosnan but he had lost a lot of his appeal. I wonder if DAD was a caused or a symptom.
    I'm not sure if that's the case. There were a lot of people rooting for Brosnan to make a fifth. DAD was a disgrace but I don't recall people having soured on him as Bond necessarily.

    I'm actually hearing more negativity about Craig on account of all the gossip and nonsense over the past two years.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Isn t that just because whining has become so fashionable?
  • Posts: 14,816
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Compare this to Brosnan's departure. I'm not bashing Brosnan but he had lost a lot of his appeal. I wonder if DAD was a caused or a symptom.
    I'm not sure if that's the case. There were a lot of people rooting for Brosnan to make a fifth. DAD was a disgrace but I don't recall people having soured on him as Bond necessarily.

    I'm actually hearing more negativity about Craig on account of all the gossip and nonsense over the past two years.

    Yet Brosnan was pretty much thrown away. He even said that much himself. Yes Brosnan had his fans but they were less numerous and less were die hard. That's how I remember it anyway. His critics were also more numerous.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Isn t that just because whining has become so fashionable?
    No, I don't think so. It's not about this forum. I'm referring to the general fan who I encounter and discuss Bond with from time to time (who knows I'm a die hard). They've all read the back and forth that's been in the press over the past two years and believe it. A lot of the younger ones just don't care that much about Bond at present. It's old news to them and Bond is generally passé, but there is some enduring love for SF as a one off.

    As I've said before, it will be quite a challenge to overcome some of this going forward, especially with this film coming out in 2+ years. They'll really have to knock it out of the park.
  • Posts: 226
    It should be the number of films. Rodge is still the longest running Bond and probably always will be.
    gumbolt wrote: »
    Or we could always calculate on total combined running times of all movies! That would mean DC is already marginally ahead of PB despite having the same number of films. And DC might well catch up with SC on that measure...

    ^Craig might end up spending more time playing Bond than anyone after his fifth film, though, especially if it's another 2 1/2 hour opus.

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,978
    A simpler view: the film actors are Bond for life.
    Long live Sean Connery.
  • OperationTroveOperationTrove Los Angeles
    Posts: 3
    Hi everyone. Longtime reader, first-time poster. I agree that it makes the most sense to consider an actor's announcements of stepping into and out of the role as the length of his tenure... however, do we count Sean Connery's voiceover work in the 2005 FRWL video game? In terms of portrayals, that would put Connery at 8. Craig, for his part, has voiced Bond in 3 games (2008's Quantum of Solace as well as GoldenEye 007 and Blood Stone from 2010) — putting him also at 8, counting B25.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    It's an interesting debate. I think I'll take the "official announcement" to "official announcement" side, so Craig will indeed win this argument for me. However, I will say that Sir Rog kept putting himself out there every two years ('74 to '77 notwithstanding) while Craig has twice now waited for four years in between his critical disappointments.
  • Posts: 170
    pachazo wrote: »
    It's an interesting debate. I think I'll take the "official announcement" to "official announcement" side, so Craig will indeed win this argument for me. However, I will say that Sir Rog kept putting himself out there every two years ('74 to '77 notwithstanding) while Craig has twice now waited for four years in between his critical disappointments.

    I've already debunked this criteria.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,884
    The_Donald wrote: »
    The longest serving title should mean the number of days that they were officially Bond.

    Anyone could certainly say that it's the amount of films made, or the films' lengths. But then it gets messy; number of lines/actual footage as Bond/footage as a rogue Bond/time actor is alive post first film etc. Therefore it's easier to just use the official announcements as start/end dates.

    Craig will definitely become the longest reigning Bond actor once the next film premieres and it'll be interesting watching how long he'll take until he officially retires. It's weird (positively speaking) knowing in advance that he's trying to make this his last JB film and so we don't know if it'll take him a month after the film has ended its run, or wait a year or two to boost his stat, until he leaves. : P
    I hope he stays into late 2020 (unless the Broccoli's have amazingly gotten more efficient at finding a new distributor and new actor) so it's 15 full years.

    Er what. So a guy could do 1 film, do 1 more film 20 years later & he would be the longest serving bond? Makes no sense to advantage Craig because they're taking longer between each film. Sounds like you're just finding a way to positively spin Craig as Bond. He's going to beat Brosnan. Take comfort in that.

    Yep. However, there are two ways of interpreting your thought experiment. The first is that a (fictional) actor spends maybe 5y as Bond making 1 film ( ~1800 days ), quits officially, and then returns 20 years later to make a single movie for like 11y ( ~4000 days), meaning he was Bond for ~5800days total. 2nd option: he starts his first film and stays Bond for the entirety of those 20+ years without another actor disrupting his tenure. Both ways make this fictional actor the longest serving JB OAT, but you cannot count days in-between if another stepped in, naturally.

    So with Connery it gets convoluted. You have to end his tenure after YOLT, start it before DAF, then continue the count until the final resignation. Only EON films should count, might I add.

    It might seem disrespectful to Sir Roger, but it isn't because these stats are downright stupid to get riled up at. But categorizing all the Bond actors within these stats doesn't hurt if you understand the reasoning. Longest serving Bond actor goes to the one who was officially Bond for the longest time. Period. No discussion. Just as there isn't a discussion about who made the most official films; Sir Roger. Just don't confuse the two.
    pachazo wrote: »
    It's an interesting debate. I think I'll take the "official announcement" to "official announcement" side, so Craig will indeed win this argument for me. However, I will say that Sir Rog kept putting himself out there every two years ('74 to '77 notwithstanding) while Craig has twice now waited for four years in between his critical disappointments.

    This is the way to do it. @Pachazo knows what's right. :)
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 684
    The vehemency with which this is being discussed by both sides calls to mind that photo which made the rounds a few years ago, of a woman, where half the people who saw it were adamant her dress was white and yellow and the other half were adamant it was black and blue, or some such.
    Longest serving Bond actor goes to the one who was officially Bond for the longest time. Period. No discussion. Just as there isn't a discussion about who made the most official films; Sir Roger. Just don't confuse the two.
    @BondAficionado Yes.
  • Posts: 170
    Bond is a fictional character only existing in the films he appears in. There is no such thing as 'being Bond' between films, only in films. For true Bond fans, sitting on your arse twiddling your thumbs does not count as 'serving as Bond'.

    For true Bond fans, and all those of common sense, Sir Roger is the longest serving Bond.

  • barryt007 wrote: »
    I base it on the number of films made,the commitment involved.

    So Dan is joint third with Pierce atm,he will be 1 behind Sean and 2 behind Roger,after BOND25 for me.

    Yes. This.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,860
    I base it on how many films they each have under their belt myself.
    Sir Rog - 7
    Connery - 6
    Craig - 5 (After Bond 25 is released)
    Brozza - 4
    T.Dalt - 2
    George Lazenby -1


  • Posts: 14,816
    Benny wrote: »
    I base it on how many films they each have under their belt myself.
    Sir Rog - 7
    Connery - 6
    Craig - 5 (After Bond 25 is released)
    Brozza - 4
    T.Dalt - 2
    George Lazenby -1


    I think that's how logically it should be. And five might not be the highest but it's a very good number. It could have been Connery's had he not returned for DAF.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    edited August 2017 Posts: 14,860
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    I base it on how many films they each have under their belt myself.
    Sir Rog - 7
    Connery - 6
    Craig - 5 (After Bond 25 is released)
    Brozza - 4
    T.Dalt - 2
    George Lazenby -1


    I think that's how logically it should be. And five might not be the highest but it's a very good number. It could have been Connery's had he not returned for DAF.

    Absolutely. Craig for me has been a great Bond. Fantastic debut and third and fourth films. At least for me. Really not keen on QOS, but I know it has many fans. No actors tenure, at least not one that has made more than three films has had a perfect run.
    I like Craigs interpretation of Bond, and his take on the character. I think he's done a fine job.

    EDIT -

    However, for sheer number of films, and for being an impeccable ambassador of the series. Sir Rog will never be bettered. I doubt any actor gets a seven film haul in. And if they do, they've done well and appreciate Bond and EON as much as Roger Moore did.
    He may not be the best Bond for some fans. But you cannot fault the mans dedication to the series.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Strog wrote: »
    As far as I can find, Moore was from August 1, 1972 till December 3, 1985 (announcement to announcement).

    See no reason why we can't just keep both 'measurements' -- each is equally valid.

    Rog will have the most films, and screen minutes in the role.

    Dan can have the most time spent in the public consciousness as Bond.

    For those who favour the 'announcement to announcement' theory (and logically there is indeed a lot of merit in it - after all for the last two years in the eyes of the public Dan has still been the incumbent Bond) then how to we treat someone who announces that this is their final film?

    Given Dan has stated this is it doesn't his tenure end on the day the film wraps not the release date? Once it's in the can he's no longer Bond. The release date is irrelevant because if you live in the UK Dan's tenure ends in late October. If you live in the US early November. If you live in Japan or somewhere it could early January.

    He have will have been Bond from the CR announcement on the thames until the culmination of filming B25 which he has been pre announced as the end of his tenure so still fits the announcement theory.

    Rog's tenure can be allowed to extend beyond wrapping AVTAK if the 3rd December is accurate as there was every chance he could have returned and the public were not sold AVTAK as his final film.

    So the question is what date does B25 need to wrap by for Dan to beat or not beat Rog?

    Much as I love Rog I'm afraid the most films theory is badly flawed as the question isn't 'Who did the most films?' it's 'Who was longest serving?' and playing the part is only half the job. You still have the promoting, interviews, photo shoots, ads in your role as the incumbent Bond.

    Although I get the annoyance that Dan will claim it over Rog for sitting on his arse for half his tenure while Rog was banging film after film out at the end of the day the question asks who did the job longer.

    Cantona quit aged 30 whereas I'm pretty sure Franny Jeffers is still slogging away at some conference team. The answer to the question 'Who was the better player?' is indisputable. The answer to 'Who was a footballer longer?' is also indisputable.
  • Posts: 170
    Incumbent Bond lol? No such thing. Sean and Rog both played Bond in 83. Bond is just a character folks.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,884
    The_Donald wrote: »
    Bond is a fictional character only existing in the films he appears in. There is no such thing as 'being Bond' between films, only in films. For true Bond fans, sitting on your arse twiddling your thumbs does not count as 'serving as Bond'.

    For true Bond fans, and all those of common sense, Sir Roger is the longest serving Bond.

    But that means that you're counting the minutes of all Bond films for each actor and not the amount of films themselves. I guess if a Bond actor made one 30h film, you would say he's the longest serving? Or if a new actor made 8x 100mins films, (less than Moore's total) he has more films, but loses due to the total length of them?

    Even the amount of films per actor is an odd way of doing it, since one actor could theoretically (it's possible) make 8 films back-to-back in like 1 year. Hell, he could quit being Bond and let his movies come out one-by-one or all at once, and someone could still crown him the longest serving. Pathetic notion.

    Since you say that Bond only exists in the films he appears in, why not get a stopwatch to time the length we see Bond on-screen? I mean hey, when he's not on-screen maybe he doesn't exist to you lol. And the Bonds appear all connected (Craig aside perhaps). So why break it down by actor? Each guy merely continued the other's part and so they all have the same time and films made.

    See how stupid and complicated things get? The sane way for it to be true to definition, is from official announcement to official announcement.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    The_Donald wrote: »
    Bond is a fictional character only existing in the films he appears in. There is no such thing as 'being Bond' between films, only in films. For true Bond fans, sitting on your arse twiddling your thumbs does not count as 'serving as Bond'.

    For true Bond fans, and all those of common sense, Sir Roger is the longest serving Bond.

    Hey @Thunderfinger, apparently we're not 'true fans'. No offense, but I always had you down as a fake fan.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    "True Bond fans."

    img_0427-0.jpg?w=696

    Pray tell, what makes a true Bond fan?
This discussion has been closed.