Moore or Craig longest serving?

12346

Comments

  • edited August 2017 Posts: 170
    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.

    And as I keep saying 'longest serving' as defined by those on here is a false measure of longevity, absurdly inflating Dalton's tenure to 8 years. The definition is not even sound, given the presence of NSNA.

    Looking back over this thread I can see there a fair number who agree with me.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    The_Donald wrote: »
    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.

    And as I keep saying 'longest serving' as defined by those on here is a false measure of longevity, absurdly inflating Dalton's tenure to 8 years. The definition is not even sound, given the presence of NSNA.

    Looking back over this thread I can see there a fair number who agree with me.

    I agree.

    But I don't write the English language. The word you seem to have difficulty grasping is 'longest'.

    That cannot be used to count quantity as you are doing (number of films). It can be used as measurement of time or distance and saying loads of people on the internet ageee with you won't change that.

    It's patently ridiculous to say Dan s the longest serving Bond when half of his tenure has been spent whining about how tired he is.

    But using number of films (a measurement of quantity) to quantify time is ludicrous.

    I'm coming to think only logical way is screen time in the role but it needs someone with whose life is more pointless than mine to sit down with a stopwatch and calculate those figures for us
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    RC7 wrote: »
    There are no time disparities. Longest serving is exactly what it says. If I serve 15 years in the Army and I'm involved in, let's say two minor conflicts and my grandfather spends 6 years in the army between 19-39-45, I've still served longer. Roger's legacy isn't tainted by this for those panicking.

    Which is fine. There's no debate at all when you're counting objective figures, and if your metric is literally just the number of days in the position then again there's no denying who's served the longest.

    All I'm saying is that when Bond fans think of a Bond actor's longevity, they may not use the metric of days in the role, but rather amount of time on the screen as Bond. And personally, assuming Bond sticks around for say, another half-century or century, then I would imagine that people will generally use the number of movies made continuously as the mark of an actor's longevity over the number of years.

    I don't think anyone here can debate objective facts. It's just a matter of what definition you attach to longevity. For the term "longest-serving" in particular, I concede that it will carry the connotation of Craig by the time of B25.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think when it's all said and done, Craig Bond will be remembered more for the reboot than for the length of time in the role. He may even be remembered as the end of an era, if recent rumours are to be believed.
  • Posts: 170
    @TheWizardOfIce I think we are reaching an agreement of sorts - as close as we'll get anyway. The word longevity is not useful in this context imo. Roger did 7, Craig did 5, that is what matters in retrospect.


  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Announcements have nothing to do with it. If it did, then John Gavin was Bond in 1970. And it is rather arbitrary when the actors or EON decide to let it be known it is over. For example, Brosnan was probably finished before he knew it himself.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,870
    So what is a Bond actors tenure measured by?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    The_Donald wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce I think we are reaching an agreement of sorts - as close as we'll get anyway. The word longevity is not useful in this context imo. Roger did 7, Craig did 5, that is what matters in retrospect.

    Indeed. I mean we all know that Rog is the longest serving Bond no matter what bullshit people are coming out with to say that Dan is now just because it's good PR for B25.

    The only debate to be had is how best to measure it.
  • Posts: 684
    Christ alive, 80 new posts in here since I ducked out yesterday. And Wittgenstein thought he had resolved all philosophical problems.
    Announcements have nothing to do with it. If it did, then John Gavin was Bond in 1970. And it is rather arbitrary when the actors or EON decide to let it be known it is over. For example, Brosnan was probably finished before he knew it himself.
    Ah, fair point. Now how about this: in order for the public to conceive of an actor as Bond, that actor must be first be observed as Bond? In other words, if Hardy was announced as Bond tomorrow, there'd be no properly conceiving of him in the role, because we haven't seen him in the role. Just as with Craig in '06. Only after we see him, then, can he become Bond (in the truest sense of the public eye).

    So then what if tenure therefore starts on the release date of an actor's first Bond film? And since thereafter that actor can be known as Bond, his tenure doesn't end until the official knowledge that he's out -- whether it comes before a film's release, as with Sean, or after, as with Rog. If prior, the tenure ends on the film's release, as it began. If after, then whenever the announcement is made.

    So Rog's tenure started on the LALD day of release and ended on 3 December 1985. Craig starts on CR's release in 2006 till whenever it's official he's gone -- if B25 is his final and he's intent on it prior, then that'll be November 8, 2019 -- 4,374 days which means Rog still reigns at 4,542, and perhaps mine can be the last of the subjective contriving?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Strog wrote: »
    Christ alive, 80 new posts in here since I ducked out yesterday. And Wittgenstein thought he had resolved all philosophical problems.
    Announcements have nothing to do with it. If it did, then John Gavin was Bond in 1970. And it is rather arbitrary when the actors or EON decide to let it be known it is over. For example, Brosnan was probably finished before he knew it himself.
    Ah, fair point. Now how about this: in order for the public to conceive of an actor as Bond, that actor must be first be observed as Bond? In other words, if Hardy was announced as Bond tomorrow, there'd be no properly conceiving of him in the role, because we haven't seen him in the role. Just as with Craig in '06. Only after we see him, then, can he become Bond (in the truest sense of the public eye).

    So then what if tenure therefore starts on the release date of an actor's first Bond film? And since thereafter that actor can be known as Bond, his tenure doesn't end until the official knowledge that he's out -- whether it comes before a film's release, as with Sean, or after, as with Rog. If prior, the tenure ends on the film's release, as it began. If after, then whenever the announcement is made.

    So Rog's tenure started on the LALD day of release and ended on 3 December 1985. Craig starts on CR's release in 2006 till whenever it's official he's gone -- if B25 is his final and he's intent on it prior, then that'll be November 8, 2019 -- 4,374 days which means Rog still reigns at 4,542, and perhaps mine can be the last of the subjective contriving?

    All well and good but that system still falls foul of the Dalton paradox whereby an actor finishes his last film but is only announced as stepping down years later.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    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.

    For me personally it's the date of their first release to the date of their last. It's the cleanest measure and can be easily applied to each actor. I do understand Wiz's theory, however.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.

    For me personally it's the date of their first release to the date of their last. It's the cleanest measure and can be easily applied to each actor. I do understand Wiz's theory, however.

    Easily applied?

    So where do you stand on Sean? Is his tenure 5 years, 9 years or 21 years?
  • Posts: 684
    Strog wrote: »
    Christ alive, 80 new posts in here since I ducked out yesterday. And Wittgenstein thought he had resolved all philosophical problems.
    Announcements have nothing to do with it. If it did, then John Gavin was Bond in 1970. And it is rather arbitrary when the actors or EON decide to let it be known it is over. For example, Brosnan was probably finished before he knew it himself.
    Ah, fair point. Now how about this: in order for the public to conceive of an actor as Bond, that actor must be first be observed as Bond? In other words, if Hardy was announced as Bond tomorrow, there'd be no properly conceiving of him in the role, because we haven't seen him in the role. Just as with Craig in '06. Only after we see him, then, can he become Bond (in the truest sense of the public eye).

    So then what if tenure therefore starts on the release date of an actor's first Bond film? And since thereafter that actor can be known as Bond, his tenure doesn't end until the official knowledge that he's out -- whether it comes before a film's release, as with Sean, or after, as with Rog. If prior, the tenure ends on the film's release, as it began. If after, then whenever the announcement is made.

    So Rog's tenure started on the LALD day of release and ended on 3 December 1985. Craig starts on CR's release in 2006 till whenever it's official he's gone -- if B25 is his final and he's intent on it prior, then that'll be November 8, 2019 -- 4,374 days which means Rog still reigns at 4,542, and perhaps mine can be the last of the subjective contriving?

    All well and good but that system still falls foul of the Dalton paradox whereby an actor finishes his last film but is only announced as stepping down years later.
    Damn. I was too proud.

  • Creasy47 wrote: »
    I am curious if Moore will ever be topped in number of films, given the method of having one installment every other year is pretty unlikely these days.

    It's fully possible in today's climate. Probable is another matter—but possible? Definitely.

    Let's say a new actor begins at the age of 28 and consistently produces a new film every 3 years for the entirety of his tenure: so at ages 28, 31, 34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 49. That's 8 films already. He can easily make one at 52 too so that's 9. And let's say he's a Brosnan type who looks like he could go on playing the part forever: 55 and that's 10.

    10 films consistently spaced 3 years apart. (This is, of course, assuming the producers could consistently release films even 3 years apart, which I'll admit, sadly, is a big if.)
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,002
    A new actor starts at 28 playing a 35 year old Bond I hope. Or something.
    But possibilities exist for 8 or 10, sure.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.

    For me personally it's the date of their first release to the date of their last. It's the cleanest measure and can be easily applied to each actor. I do understand Wiz's theory, however.

    Easily applied?

    So where do you stand on Sean? Is his tenure 5 years, 9 years or 21 years?

    Well, I wouldn't personally count NSNA, but that's just my preference. For me Sean is classed as two tenures. His longest being 5 years, followed by a single film. A little like Mourinho at Chelsea - I wouldn't class that as a six year tenure.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    The_Donald wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce I think we are reaching an agreement of sorts - as close as we'll get anyway. The word longevity is not useful in this context imo. Roger did 7, Craig did 5, that is what matters in retrospect.

    Indeed. I mean we all know that Rog is the longest serving Bond no matter what bullshit people are coming out with to say that Dan is now just because it's good PR for B25.

    The only debate to be had is how best to measure it.

    "It's Huuuuuge."
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I am curious if Moore will ever be topped in number of films, given the method of having one installment every other year is pretty unlikely these days.

    It's fully possible in today's climate. Probable is another matter—but possible? Definitely.

    Let's say a new actor begins at the age of 28 and consistently produces a new film every 3 years for the entirety of his tenure: so at ages 28, 31, 34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 49. That's 8 films already. He can easily make one at 52 too so that's 9. And let's say he's a Brosnan type who looks like he could go on playing the part forever: 55 and that's 10.

    10 films consistently spaced 3 years apart. (This is, of course, assuming the producers could consistently release films even 3 years apart, which I'll admit, sadly, is a big if.)
    Indeed it very well can be topped, but it's not likely under this current leadership.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    DC carried on as Bond in the "We Are equals" campaign, in the Olympics, on SNL, on Colbert, on Jimmy Kimmel, on Red Nose Day...

    So, yes, RM did more films. But let's not scoff at the years spent 'as Bond." It's not just a movie role; it's a coat an actor wears almost every day, begrudgingly.




  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    What happened to @The_Donald ? He didn't do anything that I could see to necessitate banning. Hopefully his politically charged moniker didn't affect his stay here. I found him to be quite an interesting and opinionated fellow.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    The politics/username of @The_Donald had nothing to do with his banning, the fact that he was a past member, however...
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,002
    So you're saying--history matters.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The politics/username of @The_Donald had nothing to do with his banning, the fact that he was a past member, however...
    Oh I see. Thanks for clearing that up @MajorDSmythe.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Kicking: Impossible
    Posts: 6,719
    Strog wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    Christ alive, 80 new posts in here since I ducked out yesterday. And Wittgenstein thought he had resolved all philosophical problems.
    Announcements have nothing to do with it. If it did, then John Gavin was Bond in 1970. And it is rather arbitrary when the actors or EON decide to let it be known it is over. For example, Brosnan was probably finished before he knew it himself.
    Ah, fair point. Now how about this: in order for the public to conceive of an actor as Bond, that actor must be first be observed as Bond? In other words, if Hardy was announced as Bond tomorrow, there'd be no properly conceiving of him in the role, because we haven't seen him in the role. Just as with Craig in '06. Only after we see him, then, can he become Bond (in the truest sense of the public eye).

    So then what if tenure therefore starts on the release date of an actor's first Bond film? And since thereafter that actor can be known as Bond, his tenure doesn't end until the official knowledge that he's out -- whether it comes before a film's release, as with Sean, or after, as with Rog. If prior, the tenure ends on the film's release, as it began. If after, then whenever the announcement is made.

    So Rog's tenure started on the LALD day of release and ended on 3 December 1985. Craig starts on CR's release in 2006 till whenever it's official he's gone -- if B25 is his final and he's intent on it prior, then that'll be November 8, 2019 -- 4,374 days which means Rog still reigns at 4,542, and perhaps mine can be the last of the subjective contriving?

    All well and good but that system still falls foul of the Dalton paradox whereby an actor finishes his last film but is only announced as stepping down years later.
    Damn. I was too proud.

    I think your system still works, the logic being that up until 1994, "Timothy Dalton" was the best answer to the question "who's the current James Bond?" He held the mantle of James Bond for eight years. As TripAces says, "it's a coat an actor wears almost every day."

    Also, "the Dalton paradox" :D
  • mattjoesmattjoes Kicking: Impossible
    Posts: 6,719
    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.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but that wasn't him either. It's a little known fact, but Roger Moore didn't play James Bond at all in AVTAK, he just lent his likeness. He was replaced in the role by that guy who played the cowboy dummy in TMWTGG, as well as Martin Grace et al.
  • AleanderAleander Kavala, Greece
    Posts: 33
    thedove wrote: »
    I would prefer to have it measured on amount of films an actor makes. It's cleaner for this reason. Connery's time would get confusing with the hiatus of OHMSS. Lets keep Roger has the actor to play Bond the longest given his 7 films, then Connery with 6 and then Craig with his five. A shame about the lengthy breaks in Craig's tenure as I am sure he could have at least tied Roger.
    What? I'm fairly sure Connery made 7 films as Bond, making that record first. And arguably the longest serving ever, totalling 21 years.

    But, in all probability, the longest-serving should take into account the amount of films made in the meantime. Craig has been Bond for longer, but he's been fewer films that Roger, who still made 7 films in a total of 12 years. So again arguably, Roger is still the longest consecutive serving as he did more work in less time.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Aleander wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    I would prefer to have it measured on amount of films an actor makes. It's cleaner for this reason. Connery's time would get confusing with the hiatus of OHMSS. Lets keep Roger has the actor to play Bond the longest given his 7 films, then Connery with 6 and then Craig with his five. A shame about the lengthy breaks in Craig's tenure as I am sure he could have at least tied Roger.
    What? I'm fairly sure Connery made 7 films as Bond, making that record first. And arguably the longest serving ever, totalling 21 years.

    But, in all probability, the longest-serving should take into account the amount of films made in the meantime. Craig has been Bond for longer, but he's been fewer films that Roger, who still made 7 films in a total of 12 years. So again arguably, Roger is still the longest consecutive serving as he did more work in less time.

    You answered the question yourself. Craig has been Bond for longer. It’s irrelevant how many films were made.
  • AleanderAleander Kavala, Greece
    edited October 2019 Posts: 33
    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.
    That is nonsensical AND wishful thinking. It IS a Bond film made by Taliafilm Productions, with Connery playing Ian Fleming's James Bond, Agent 007, serving Her Majesty's Secret Service in MI6, with his boss being someone called M, his boss' secretary being someone called Moneypenny, facing an organization known as SPECTRE. The heck you're talking about?
    RC7 wrote: »
    You answered the question yourself. Craig has been Bond for longer. It’s irrelevant how many films were made.
    Fair enough. It really is too bad, as we could've had more film inbetween that time had it not been for, well, politics.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Too much politics and beauracratic nonsense these days, plus 'scheduling conflicts' etc

    Any of the longest serving metrics is valid, depends on what suits ones argument. The one that's more easily remembered is how many films they did. Hard to discuss what the actors did between films when enough time has passed
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    w2bond wrote: »
    Too much politics and beauracratic nonsense these days, plus 'scheduling conflicts' etc

    Any of the longest serving metrics is valid, depends on what suits ones argument. The one that's more easily remembered is how many films they did. Hard to discuss what the actors did between films when enough time has passed

    There are no varying metrics. It’s two different statements. Who served the longest? Craig. Who made the most films? Moore (tied with Connery if you count NSNA). It’s quite simple.
This discussion has been closed.