Moore or Craig longest serving?

12357

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm shocked this is still even being contended.

    Moore will have done more films than Craig.
    Craig will have officially played Bond longer than Moore.

    There's nothing to really argue about that. That's plain fact.

    That is patently false.

    It's literal fact. Not sure how someone can disagree with that.
    I suppose a semantic argument could be made based on how you worded it. "played" suggests hours acting in the role. I'm looking forward to the explanation.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm shocked this is still even being contended.

    Moore will have done more films than Craig.
    Craig will have officially played Bond longer than Moore.

    There's nothing to really argue about that. That's plain fact.

    That is patently false.

    It's literal fact. Not sure how someone can disagree with that.
    I suppose a semantic argument could be made based on how you worded it. "played" suggests hours acting in the role. I'm looking forward to the explanation.

    We could argue anything in here. In the real world Craig will be regarded as the longest serving. 13 years unbroken tenure from film to film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm shocked this is still even being contended.

    Moore will have done more films than Craig.
    Craig will have officially played Bond longer than Moore.

    There's nothing to really argue about that. That's plain fact.

    That is patently false.

    It's literal fact. Not sure how someone can disagree with that.
    I suppose a semantic argument could be made based on how you worded it. "played" suggests hours acting in the role. I'm looking forward to the explanation.

    We could argue anything in here. In the real world Craig will be regarded as the longest serving. 13 years unbroken tenure from film to film.
    I don't disagree with that, much as I'm disappointed by it.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm shocked this is still even being contended.

    Moore will have done more films than Craig.
    Craig will have officially played Bond longer than Moore.

    There's nothing to really argue about that. That's plain fact.

    That is patently false.

    It's literal fact. Not sure how someone can disagree with that.
    I suppose a semantic argument could be made based on how you worded it. "played" suggests hours acting in the role. I'm looking forward to the explanation.

    We could argue anything in here. In the real world Craig will be regarded as the longest serving. 13 years unbroken tenure from film to film.
    I don't disagree with that, much as I'm disappointed by it.

    Like I said earlier, Roger is my man, but I find the argument against is ultimately futile.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I still think Craig might do a 6th....I cant explain it,i just feel he might,if BOND25 does extra extra well..and only a short gap of 2 years.

    I know I am normally not a silly predictionalist but the chance to equal Connery.......

    I was thinking the same thing. If the box office numbers are strong, they could persuade him to come back. As long they don't sit on their a**** for four years again.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited August 2017 Posts: 13,894
    "True Bond fans."

    Pray tell, what makes a true Bond fan?
    A true Bond fan:
    1. Considers Serra's GoldenEye score superior to ANY of the David Arnold scores.

    Arnolds Brosnan era scores are better than Serra's sole effort, which itself is better than what Arnold was allowed to do in the Craig era.
    2. Believes that DAD is one of the two best Bond films starring Brosnan.

    DAD has its moments, but of the Brosnan films, it is my least favourite.
    3. Likes DN more than FRWL and GF.

    I like DN more than GF, but not FRWL.
    4. Does not want to see Blofeld appear in a Bond film ever again.

    Not Brofeld. But I would be open to an off the wall interpretation, a more surreal looking Blofeld, closer to the books.
    5. Hopes that one day Sir Christopher Nolan will write AND direct a Bond trilogy.

    I don't want Nolan writing or directing a Bond film. Come to think of it, I don't even want Nolan as the tea boy. So how do I score, should I burn my 21 years worth of merchandise, or is there hope for me yet?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    pachazo wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I still think Craig might do a 6th....I cant explain it,i just feel he might,if BOND25 does extra extra well..and only a short gap of 2 years.

    I know I am normally not a silly predictionalist but the chance to equal Connery.......

    I was thinking the same thing. If the box office numbers are strong, they could persuade him to come back. As long they don't sit on their a**** for four years again.

    I think it's unlikely, but certainly not out of the question.
  • Posts: 12,249
    Unless the rumor of Bond 25 and Bond 26 being back-to-back is true, I don't think it would be a good idea for Craig go beyond Bond 25. I just have a bad feeling about it. And I think he has been an excellent Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I wouldn't be happy about it. Looking forward to a new era sooner rather than later.
  • Posts: 170
    The_Donald wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm shocked this is still even being contended.

    Moore will have done more films than Craig.
    Craig will have officially played Bond longer than Moore.

    There's nothing to really argue about that. That's plain fact.

    That is patently false.

    Please elaborate. We're all ears.

    Is Craig 'playing Bond' between films? I must have missed that

    @RC7 tell me about it, some people here consider Dalton to have 'played Bond' for 8 years
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    The_Donald wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm shocked this is still even being contended.

    Moore will have done more films than Craig.
    Craig will have officially played Bond longer than Moore.

    There's nothing to really argue about that. That's plain fact.

    That is patently false.

    Please elaborate. We're all ears.

    Is Craig 'playing Bond' between films? I must have missed that

    @RC7 tell me about it, some people here consider Dalton to have 'played Bond' for 8 years

    Daniel Craig will have played Bond uninterrupted for 13 years. Moore played him uninterrupted for 12. Although, I could use your line of reasoning and drag NSNA into that, in which case it really screws the Rog argument, but I won't. It's just fact, mate. By all means play the conspiracy theorist, but you'll just end up being 'that argumentative prick at the BBQ'.
  • Posts: 19,339
    NSNA is NOOOOOOT an official Bond film and shouldn't even be mentioned..i am so fed up with people sticking it in their 'official rankings' etc.....
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    barryt007 wrote: »
    NSNA is NOOOOOOT an official Bond film and shouldn't even be mentioned..i am so fed up with people sticking it in their 'official rankings' etc.....

    I'm with you, others aren't. They're wrong, mate.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    @The_Donald - So using your logic, Moore wasn't Bond from 1973-1985, he was only Bond from 1973-1974, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983 & 1985. But are what about when they have finished filming, they aren't Bond then, right?. So each actor isn't Bond for an entire year, just the length of time it took to make each film.
  • Posts: 19,339
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    NSNA is NOOOOOOT an official Bond film and shouldn't be mentioned..i am so fed up with people sticking it in their 'official rankings' etc.....

    I'm with you, others aren't. They're wrong, mate.

    Damn right they are.....that's why whenever I make an elimination game or other threads if its not official EON then its not in there.

    I deal in real Bond movies,good or bad (and in the film world none of them are bad),not stupid ,rip-off spoof.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited August 2017 Posts: 9,117
    @The_Donald - So using your logic, Moore wasn't Bond from 1973-1985, he was only Bond from 1973-1974, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983 & 1985. But are what about when they have finished filming, they aren't Bond then, right?. So each actor isn't Bond for an entire year, just the length of time it took to make each film.

    Well the actor is not Bond between takes so the real answer is he is only Bond for 2 hours of each of those years although in addition you have to factor all the retakes and scenes that got edited out.

    So expressed as a formula:

    x+y = Bond tenure
    z

    Where:

    x = Actor's screen time as Bond (I'm not counting Sean as SPECTRE hood in the FRWL PTS)
    y = All the footage of the actor in character as Bond left on the cutting room floor
    z = @The_Donald's deranged logic

    (Also for Rog and Pierce you need to factor in the TSWLM and GE trailers where they address the camera in character.)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    barryt007 wrote: »
    No,the fact it is not an official Bond film is TOTALLY relevant.
    If it is not an official film its not Bond.

    Then what is it? I got a sticker in 1983, white letters on black background that said Sean Connery IS James Bond. NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN. Unlike the EON series, maybe it was just make pretend? Like the continuation novels. The way you feel about NSNA is the way I feel about them.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    @The_Donald - So using your logic, Moore wasn't Bond from 1973-1985, he was only Bond from 1973-1974, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983 & 1985. But are what about when they have finished filming, they aren't Bond then, right?. So each actor isn't Bond for an entire year, just the length of time it took to make each film.

    Well the actor is not Bond between takes so the real answer is he is only Bond for 2 hours of each of those years although in addition you have to factor all the retakes and scenes that got edited out.

    So expressed as a formula:

    x+y = Bond tenure
    z

    Where:

    x = Actor's screen time as Bond (I'm not counting Sean as SPECTRE hood in the FRWL PTS)
    y = All the footage of the actor in character as Bond left on the cutting room floor
    z = @The_Donald's deranged logic

    (Also for Rog and Pierce you need to factor in the TSWLM and GE trailers where they address the camera in character.)

    Mate, you're missing an s from your equation to account for stunt doubles. You'd imagine there'd be some serious subtraction on Roger's side.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Don t forget the screentests.
  • Posts: 14,816
    Don t forget the screentests.

    I might be wrong but Moore didn't make any from what I've read.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited August 2017 Posts: 9,117
    RC7 wrote: »
    @The_Donald - So using your logic, Moore wasn't Bond from 1973-1985, he was only Bond from 1973-1974, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983 & 1985. But are what about when they have finished filming, they aren't Bond then, right?. So each actor isn't Bond for an entire year, just the length of time it took to make each film.

    Well the actor is not Bond between takes so the real answer is he is only Bond for 2 hours of each of those years although in addition you have to factor all the retakes and scenes that got edited out.

    So expressed as a formula:

    x+y = Bond tenure
    z

    Where:

    x = Actor's screen time as Bond (I'm not counting Sean as SPECTRE hood in the FRWL PTS)
    y = All the footage of the actor in character as Bond left on the cutting room floor
    z = @The_Donald's deranged logic

    (Also for Rog and Pierce you need to factor in the TSWLM and GE trailers where they address the camera in character.)

    Mate, you're missing an s from your equation to account for stunt doubles. You'd imagine there'd be some serious subtraction on Roger's side.

    True. Rog would be down to about 7 mins in AVTAK if we throw that in.
    Dont forget the screentests.

    Fair point. Of those we have seen, Sam Neil the shortest serving Bond and James Brolin the next shortest.
  • Posts: 14,816
    And aren't we glad for it.
  • Posts: 170
    RC7 wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm shocked this is still even being contended.

    Moore will have done more films than Craig.
    Craig will have officially played Bond longer than Moore.

    There's nothing to really argue about that. That's plain fact.

    That is patently false.

    Please elaborate. We're all ears.

    Is Craig 'playing Bond' between films? I must have missed that

    @RC7 tell me about it, some people here consider Dalton to have 'played Bond' for 8 years

    Daniel Craig will have played Bond uninterrupted for 13 years. Moore played him uninterrupted for 12. Although, I could use your line of reasoning and drag NSNA into that, in which case it really screws the Rog argument, but I won't. It's just fact, mate. By all means play the conspiracy theorist, but you'll just end up being 'that argumentative prick at the BBQ'.

    No NSNA kills your argument, since it debunks the notion of a 'Serving Bond'. The only meaningful measure of longevity is number of films.

    I will concede Craig will be the public face of Bond for the longest uninterrupted run. If that's something important to anyone, fine they can have it. But he cannot claim to have played Bond the longest. Roger did 7 missions, Craig will do 5.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,860
    NSNA is NOT part of the EON Bond series, it's is not an official Bond film, and therefore doesn't count in how long Connery served as Bond.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,884
    @The_Donald - So using your logic, Moore wasn't Bond from 1973-1985, he was only Bond from 1973-1974, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983 & 1985. But are what about when they have finished filming, they aren't Bond then, right?. So each actor isn't Bond for an entire year, just the length of time it took to make each film.

    Well the actor is not Bond between takes so the real answer is he is only Bond for 2 hours of each of those years although in addition you have to factor all the retakes and scenes that got edited out.

    So expressed as a formula:

    x+y = Bond tenure
    z

    Where:

    x = Actor's screen time as Bond (I'm not counting Sean as SPECTRE hood in the FRWL PTS)
    y = All the footage of the actor in character as Bond left on the cutting room floor
    z = @The_Donald's deranged logic

    (Also for Rog and Pierce you need to factor in the TSWLM and GE trailers where they address the camera in character.)

    Nonsense... you failed to include the fictional time variable "V" into that formula. So we need the sum S( V(1), V(1+i)..., V(i+n) ) where V symbolizes the elapsed time per film and where n<7, i=1,2,..,6. :)
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 170
    Benny wrote: »
    NSNA is NOT part of the EON Bond series, it's is not an official Bond film, and therefore doesn't count in how long Connery served as Bond.

    It isn't EON but that's an arbitrary objection. It is a James Bond film, and debunks the notion of Bond outside films, for how could Roger Moore be 'serving as Bond' if Sean Connery was playing Bond at the same time?

    I say once again: I am happy to say 'Craig will be the public face of Bond for the longest uninterrupted run', which is what everyone is really saying but using inaccurate language to describe it, and using it to wrongly put Craig above Moore
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited August 2017 Posts: 9,117
    The_Donald wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    NSNA is NOT part of the EON Bond series, it's is not an official Bond film, and therefore doesn't count in how long Connery served as Bond.

    It isn't EON but that's an arbitrary objection. It is a James Bond film, and debunks the notion of Bond outside films, for how could Roger Moore be 'serving as Bond' if Sean Connery was playing Bond at the same time?

    I say once again: I am happy to say 'Craig will be the public face of Bond for the longest uninterrupted run', which is what everyone is really saying but using inaccurate language to describe it, and using it to wrongly put Craig above Moore

    But the question isn't 'Who is the public face of Bond for the longest uninterrupted run?' it's 'Who is the longest serving Bond?'

    If it was 'Who has played Bond for the longest time on screen?' or 'Who has played Bond the most times?' then Rog would be the answer.

    But that isn't the question and for one who is so keen on pedantically noting that NSNA is still a Bond film and then decry people for using 'inaccurate language' one might think you might able to grasp the fact.

    By your logic that you are only Bond during the films you make we might as well say in 1978 when Rog was at his peak and in the middle of his tenure that Sean, Laz, Tim, Pierce and a teenage Dan were all the current Bond too.

    The actor currently playing the role is the current Bond until someone says otherwise in terms of 'longest serving'. Who made the most films is an entirely different debate.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,860
    So on what basis is the time served being measured.
    Is it from the time they're announced till the time that EON announce the actor is finished.
    Or from the release of the actors first film, till the release of their last.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited August 2017 Posts: 9,117
    Benny wrote: »
    So on what basis is the time served being measured.
    Is it from the time they're announced till the time that EON announce the actor is finished.
    Or from the release of the actors first film, till the release of their last.

    Ask Donny boy. He's saying that having the most films counts but Sean is missing for the first 20 mins of FRWL so do we count that as him playing Bond?

    Also does it only count when said actor is on screen? In the 'Kill Bond. NOW!!!' scene in YOLT are they talking about Sean because as we can't actually see him playing the character at the time how can we say it's him? Could be Rog or Laz.

    Schroedinger's Bond if you will.

    Someone needs to document every minute on screen for each actor for an accurate result. After all Rog doesn't appear until after the credits in two of his films which chips away at his total.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited August 2017 Posts: 9,117
    Triple post FFS - I'm artificially trying to make myself the longest serving member by inflating my number of posts.
This discussion has been closed.