Moore or Craig longest serving?

123457»

Comments

  • AleanderAleander Kavala, Greece
    Posts: 33
    RC7 wrote: »
    Moore (tied with Connery if you count NSNA).
    Why wouldn't anyone count NSNA? Are we still in the infentile EON>McClory days? Hasn't the fanbase grown a bit since then? I mean, regardless of how anyone feels about it, NSNA does exist, it is an official Bond film and while it wasn't made by EON, nowadays its owned by it. Its irrelevant to say "well, its six really, seven if YOU count NSNA". Connery played the role and was payed for it, SEVEN times. Maybe not fairly, but that is a subject for a different discussion.

    So yeah, Moore and Connery absolutely tied as Bond. Its that simple.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2019 Posts: 4,343
    Like it or not Craig is already the longest serving actor playing Bond, because longest serving is related to the numbers of years/days spent by an actor in the part.

    I believe the most reasonable way to calculate it is counting the days between the actor announcement til the day of the premiere of his last film. It's not perfect, I know, but all in all I find it the most reasonable, because counting also the days in-between the successor announcement sounds quite unfair (just look at Dalton's gap after LTK).
  • RC7RC7
    edited October 2019 Posts: 10,512
    Aleander wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Moore (tied with Connery if you count NSNA).
    Why wouldn't anyone count NSNA? Are we still in the infentile EON>McClory days? Hasn't the fanbase grown a bit since then? I mean, regardless of how anyone feels about it, NSNA does exist, it is an official Bond film and while it wasn't made by EON, nowadays its owned by it. Its irrelevant to say "well, its six really, seven if YOU count NSNA". Connery played the role and was payed for it, SEVEN times. Maybe not fairly, but that is a subject for a different discussion.

    So yeah, Moore and Connery absolutely tied as Bond. Its that simple.

    Strictly speaking, yes, of course.

    Many fans would caveat the answer with NSNA being non-canon, however, and I’d say it’s widely accepted that these metrics tend to be based on the official EON canon, unless we’re chucking David Niven, Barry Nelson etc in there... which like you say is perhaps a different discussion.

    The thread question however, there is no debating that, whichever way you look at it.
  • Posts: 12,506
    Moore in terms of films, Craig in terms of time.
  • AleanderAleander Kavala, Greece
    edited October 2019 Posts: 33
    RC7 wrote: »
    Many fans would caveat the answer with NSNA being non-canon, however, and I’d say it’s widely accepted that these metrics tend to be based on the official EON canon, unless we’re chucking David Niven, Barry Nelson etc in there... which like you say is perhaps a different discussion.
    While there is merit to that argument, its ultimately a pointless one. Because the Nelson thing was a special one-off, the Niven one is a parody, and NSNA is a legitimate attempt at a non-EON Bond film. It makes a huge difference when you have Sean Connery in the part, and not just playing Bond but also contributing significantly to the production. Its a disservice to the film and the actor to continually dismiss and discount NSNA, all in part of continuing a silly, narrowed viewpoint of having to "defend" EON against interlopers. I mean, its ridiculous to me that this would go still in 2019. Don't we fans realize this is basically what EON wants?
    The thread question however, there is no debating that, whichever way you look at it.
    You're right. I just get my gears running whenever this issue comes up, ya know.
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Moore in terms of films, Craig in terms of time.
    Conney AND Moore, in terms of films.
  • Posts: 12,506
    Aleander wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Many fans would caveat the answer with NSNA being non-canon, however, and I’d say it’s widely accepted that these metrics tend to be based on the official EON canon, unless we’re chucking David Niven, Barry Nelson etc in there... which like you say is perhaps a different discussion.
    While there is merit to that argument, its ultimately a pointless one. Because the Nelson thing was a special one-off, the Niven one is a parody, and NSNA is a legitimate attempt at a non-EON Bond film. It makes a huge difference when you have Sean Connery in the part, and not just playing Bond but also contributing significantly to the production. Its a disservice to the film and the actor to continually dismiss and discount NSNA, all in part of continuing a silly, narrowed viewpoint of having to "defend" EON against interlopers. I mean, its ridiculous to me that this would go still in 2019. Don't we fans realize this is basically what EON wants?
    The thread question however, there is no debating that, whichever way you look at it.
    You're right. I just get my gears running whenever this issue comes up, ya know.
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Moore in terms of films, Craig in terms of time.
    Conney AND Moore, in terms of films.

    I was going on official Eon Bond movies but yes Connery did do 7 films.
  • edited October 2019 Posts: 12,837
    I agree with those saying that amount of films and longest serving are different things. And I wouldn't count Connery's run as 62-83. He finished with YOLT then came back for an two one offs. Craig on the other hand has been the only one playing Bond since 2005. He's definitely the longest serving imo.

    I'm still amazed at how long his era has lasted honestly. Not complaining, he's great. But I couldn't have predicted him sticking around as long as he has. I guess the longer gaps have changed things but still, he didn't strike me as the type to want to be associated with the baggage of the role for this long. Fair play to him.

    To put it into perspective: my nephew was 7 when SF came out and I took him to see it. Still a fairly little kid. When CR came out he was still only a baby. And by the time NTTD comes out he'll be nearly 15, almost into his last year of high school.

    Or another way of putting it into perspective Iron Man came out in the same year as QoS. In between Wright's last appearance as Felix and his upcoming one, Marvel has become this big massive interconnected thing with multiple films a year and Robert Downey Jr has just now finished with it. His entire run as Iron Man has taken place in between Wright's appearances as Felix. We've also had three Terminator reboots, two Batmen, three Jokers, four Doctor Who's, all during DC's time as Bond.

    I'm probably just being weird and getting amazed over nothing. But I just really never thought we'd still be in the Craig era in 2019. Funny how things work out.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,899
    Craig longest serving Bond in years he's been in the role.
    Moore longest serving Bond as the amount of films he made for EON.
    @Aleander you have to accept, that not everyone has the same opinion as you.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2019 Posts: 4,343
    Even tho is a film with James Bond in it, I refuse to consider NSNA a James Bond film, if u know what I mean.
  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007 Vesper’s grave
    Posts: 2,630
    Aleander wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Many fans would caveat the answer with NSNA being non-canon, however, and I’d say it’s widely accepted that these metrics tend to be based on the official EON canon, unless we’re chucking David Niven, Barry Nelson etc in there... which like you say is perhaps a different discussion.
    While there is merit to that argument, its ultimately a pointless one. Because the Nelson thing was a special one-off, the Niven one is a parody, and NSNA is a legitimate attempt at a non-EON Bond film. It makes a huge difference when you have Sean Connery in the part, and not just playing Bond but also contributing significantly to the production. Its a disservice to the film and the actor to continually dismiss and discount NSNA, all in part of continuing a silly, narrowed viewpoint of having to "defend" EON against interlopers. I mean, its ridiculous to me that this would go still in 2019. Don't we fans realize this is basically what EON wants?
    The thread question however, there is no debating that, whichever way you look at it.
    You're right. I just get my gears running whenever this issue comes up, ya know.
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Moore in terms of films, Craig in terms of time.
    Conney AND Moore, in terms of films.

    A film featuring James Bond and a James Bond film are two different things. EON produced James Bond films, while Feldman/McClory made films that happen to feature James Bond. When people consider the official James Bond films, it is solely the EON series that they're talking about, not rival productions.

    You don't see anyone talking about say, Venom or even The Amazing Spider-Man, as an official MCU film, although both uses elements from Marvel Comics.

    At the end of the day, Craig has the longest tenure serving as James Bond, but Roger Moore starred in the most Bond films.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    edited October 2019 Posts: 2,252
    Even if one were to include NSNA, Connery wasn't Bond from 1972 to 1982 (give or take), so technically longest serving needs to exclude the gap when he wasn't Bond in the 70's to early 80's.

    And is longest serving from date of announcement / retirement, or from the movie release/premiere date, or the last cinema showing of their last film, etc etc. IMHO longest serving is the date of the official announcements, because in between the actors are probably in the role of James Bond for ads, games, promos etc
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    I personally wouldn't include nsna but my argument is that Connery wasn't serving as bond between between those appearances. One could include the gap between yolt and daf because lazenby was bond
  • AleanderAleander Kavala, Greece
    edited October 2019 Posts: 33
    matt_u wrote: »
    Even tho is a film with James Bond in it, I refuse to consider NSNA a James Bond film, if u know what I mean.
    I literally don't know what you mean. And by that, u know what I mean.
    A film featuring James Bond and a James Bond film are two different things.
    That simply isn't true. NSNA is a James Bond film, whether you like it or not.
    EON produced James Bond films, while Feldman/McClory made films that happen to feature James Bond.
    That is a misguided statement, and I'll tell you why. It'd be different if, say, The Rock happened to have used James Bond in it as a character. It wouldn't really be a Bond film, it'd be a story that simply employed Bond in that capacity. In contrast, NSNA is a story directly associated with Thunderball and all its variants, and while CR is admittedly not a real James Bond film, it still is directly associated with the eponymopus novel, making it as legitimate as anything. But more than anything, NSNA is a James Bond in all the important ways, most of all that it features elaborate action sequences and variants they may be, still the mainstays of what a Bond film should be.

    It boggles the mind that I have to say the above, but its true. You stretch your dislike and exclusion of NSNA to these ludicrous statements, making me post equally ludicrous-in-length responses, stating the obvious. Dang!
    When people consider the official James Bond films, it is solely the EON series that they're talking about, not rival productions.
    Rival to EON. Thus this implies an allegiance to EON, which is nonsensical, since none of us are affiliated with EON, unless you actually work for them which is different.

    Beyond that, I'm fairly sure NSNA was a huge success at the time of its release, gaining largely favorable reviews and much critical acclaim. It was one of the most well-regarded films at the time, and NOT JUST BECAUSE OF SEAN CONNERY, whose input beyond playing Bond is also undervalued by these statements.
    You don't see anyone talking about say, Venom or even The Amazing Spider-Man, as an official MCU film, although both uses elements from Marvel Comics.
    That's slightly different. Both Amazing Spider-Man and Spiderman: Far from Future are Spiderman films, yes. That they're not both in the MCU is irrelevant in that regard. Its also irrelevant to the nature of the story, its only relevant in the greater narrative context.

    But beyond that, its a comparison that doesn't quite work. Bond films prior to Craig had less of a connective tissue than they do now. It was not a priority, so to speak, so whether NSNA was an EON Bond

    But yeah, in a ranking of Spiderman films, I will mention all of them, MCU and non-MCU. Argument lost. Point given.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,899
    This is all getting very tiresome. I think we'll all have to agree to disagree.
    @Aleander you should try and accept not everyone is going to agree with you, and try and be a little less argumentative.
  • Posts: 19,339
    This thread needs to be closed,its stuck in a loop.
  • Sorry but NSNA is just a Thunderball remake.
  • Posts: 19,339
    JamesStock wrote: »
    Sorry but NSNA is just a Thunderball remake.

    Spot on.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    Sorry but NSNA is just a Thunderball remake.

    Spot on.

    A bad Thunderball remake, I'd add.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    The thread question has been answered so, yes, no harm in closing it.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Lazenby has served a lifetime sentence of regret.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,127
    To my mind Connery is the longest serving since filming began 1962.

    Then there are the specifics for number of films, years hired and active in the role. Yeah, Lazenby. He shot his, um, bolt.
  • edited October 2019 Posts: 19,339
    pachazo wrote: »
    Lazenby has served a lifetime sentence of regret.

    Of that,there is NO doubt matey,that agent should have been shot,and George as well for believing him and turning up at the premiere looking like a bloody tramp.
    Worked out well in the long run,if it went to his head after 1 film then what would he be like after more of them,I think he would have got totally complacent and killed the series.
  • AleanderAleander Kavala, Greece
    Posts: 33
    Benny wrote: »
    This is all getting very tiresome.
    It only gets so because you don't take lightly to another opinion. My main point is this: NSNA, for better or for worse, is a Bond film. Not just some irrelevant genre film with James Bond in it, but a legitimate OFFICIAL Bond film that was released in theatres and was acepted by the wider audience as such. To argue against it is seemingly going against reality.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,899
    And with the above post, this thread has run its course.
    We're just going over the same stuff all the time.

    ibzvlg6eo1dj.gif


This discussion has been closed.