› ›

Moore or Craig longest serving?

gumboltgumbolt Now with in-office photocopier
edited August 2017 in Actors Posts: 153
I read on this site that when Bond 25 is released DC will pip RM to become the longest serving Bond. But is that right? How do you define the start and finish of an actor's era?
Is is when they are announced as the new actor until they announce they have finished?
Or is it based on release date of movies?
Personally, I prefer the simplicity of release dates as the reference point. You start when your first film is released and you stop on the day your last film is released. Otherwise we get confused. For example, if you go with announcements, Dalton was 86-94 despite his films being 87-89. Moore would have been 1972 to start but when did his era end? Did he not announce AVTAK was his last before it was released? If so, does that mean he stopped in 1985 and there was no Bond of record until Dalton was confirmed in 1986?
Brosnan could be 1994 - 2004 on announcements but 95-02 on release dates. DC would be 2005 on announcements but 2006 on release dates. Now that he has said B25 is his last, I think his era ends in Nov 2019 - consistent with RM and AVTAK 1985 ending.
Can anyone explain how the article on this site calculated the figures it mentioned re DC and RM?
«134567

Comments

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,431
    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.
  • christophmc23christophmc23 Scotland
    Posts: 5
    I agree, it should be on the number of films you do and not the amount of years in the role..problems with studios writers strike etc have made Daniels run longer..so yeah, it should be judged on number of films!! I would be delighted if he done as many films as RM!
  • gumboltgumbolt Now with in-office photocopier
    Posts: 153
    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...
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Longest serving isn't the same as frequency of starring as...

    Any actor from the moment he's officially cast/announced to when it's officially announced they've vacated the role is the measurement of how long one has the role.

    Craig will be the longest serving Bond actor by the time Bond 25 comes out.
  • gumboltgumbolt Now with in-office photocopier
    Posts: 153
    Can anyone confirm when RM was announced as leaving? Was it, as I thought, prior to the release of AVTAK or was it later than that?
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,167
    gumbolt wrote: »
    Can anyone confirm when RM was announced as leaving? Was it, as I thought, prior to the release of AVTAK or was it later than that?

    I thought it was December of 1985 he officially announced he would not be returning.
  • StrogStrog
    edited August 2017 Posts: 684
    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.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    As I mentioned in the Production Timeline, I see the tenure by amount of films, not days served. Moore reigns supreme for me in that department.
  • The_DonaldThe_Donald
    edited August 2017 Posts: 170
    No way Craig beats Roger. That would be tantamount to saying the last Bond will have the longest tenure of all. Output is what matters. In that respect Connery and Moore are tied.
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited August 2017 Posts: 19,339
    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.
  • The_DonaldThe_Donald
    Posts: 170
    Correction to my post, Roger did 7 and Sean did 6, so Roger is ahead.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Technically he will be the longest serving probably, but as others have said I personally would base it on film output (number of films or length of films combined).

    Otherwise one gets distortions (like Dalton's run being 8 years for instance: 1986 from announcement-1994 at resignation).
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,122
    christophmc23 wrote: »
    I agree, it should be on the number of films you do and not the amount of years in the role..problems with studios writers strike etc have made Daniels run longer..so yeah, it should be judged on number of films!! I would be delighted if he done as many films as RM!

    That's pretty much what I think.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,889
    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.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Craig will have been Bond longer than Moore, how is there any doubt about that?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Craig will have been Bond longer than Moore, how is there any doubt about that?

    In terms of days, there's no doubt about that. I still count it as number of films, though.
  • The_DonaldThe_Donald
    Posts: 170
    BondAficionado 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.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    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.
  • The_DonaldThe_Donald
    Posts: 170
    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.

    I would have thought people on here would have more respect for Roger. He's not my favourite Bond but the guy made 7 Bonds. By any reasonable criteria he is the longest serving.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    The_Donald wrote: »
    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.

    I would have thought people on here would have more respect for Roger. He's not my favourite Bond but the guy made 7 Bonds. By any reasonable criteria he is the longest serving.
    He's my 2nd favourite and I'm actually somewhat disappointed he will lose the title of longest serving but Craig will be considered the winner by the media on a pure days basis after he does B25.
  • The_DonaldThe_Donald
    Posts: 170
    bondjames wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    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.

    I would have thought people on here would have more respect for Roger. He's not my favourite Bond but the guy made 7 Bonds. By any reasonable criteria he is the longest serving.
    He's my 2nd favourite and I'm actually somewhat disappointed he will lose the title of longest serving but Craig will be considered the winner by the media on a pure days basis after he does B25.

    Actually wouldn't Sean be longest serving then? 1962 - 1983. Even by that stupid criteria they would lose.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The_Donald wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    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.

    I would have thought people on here would have more respect for Roger. He's not my favourite Bond but the guy made 7 Bonds. By any reasonable criteria he is the longest serving.
    He's my 2nd favourite and I'm actually somewhat disappointed he will lose the title of longest serving but Craig will be considered the winner by the media on a pure days basis after he does B25.

    Actually wouldn't Sean be longest serving then? 1962 - 1983. Even by that stupid criteria they would lose.
    Nobody considers NSNA legitimate but yes, technically he would be.
  • gumboltgumbolt Now with in-office photocopier
    Posts: 153
    If you count NSNA (which I do not) then Connery had three tenures as Bond - his first run of five, then he quit; then his one-off return in DAF; then NSNA if you count it. "Longest serving", in my view, must be a consecutive period.
  • The_DonaldThe_Donald
    Posts: 170
    bondjames wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    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.

    I would have thought people on here would have more respect for Roger. He's not my favourite Bond but the guy made 7 Bonds. By any reasonable criteria he is the longest serving.
    He's my 2nd favourite and I'm actually somewhat disappointed he will lose the title of longest serving but Craig will be considered the winner by the media on a pure days basis after he does B25.

    Actually wouldn't Sean be longest serving then? 1962 - 1983. Even by that stupid criteria they would lose.
    Nobody considers NSNA legitimate but yes, technically he would be.

    It's just as legitimate as any other (for better or worse). Mcclory had the rights to make a James Bond film. And I don't suppose the general public give 2 hoots whether a film is EON produced or not.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    The_Donald wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The_Donald wrote: »
    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.

    I would have thought people on here would have more respect for Roger. He's not my favourite Bond but the guy made 7 Bonds. By any reasonable criteria he is the longest serving.
    He's my 2nd favourite and I'm actually somewhat disappointed he will lose the title of longest serving but Craig will be considered the winner by the media on a pure days basis after he does B25.

    Actually wouldn't Sean be longest serving then? 1962 - 1983. Even by that stupid criteria they would lose.
    Nobody considers NSNA legitimate but yes, technically he would be.

    It's just as legitimate as any other (for better or worse). Mcclory had the rights to make a James Bond film. And I don't suppose the general public give 2 hoots whether a film is EON produced or not.
    Certainly not that lady who launched the lawsuit against MGM regarding the false advertising on the boxset! For her it's canon.
  • SharkBaitSharkBait
    Posts: 2,107
    Craig's Bond has been on a leave the longest.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Longest serving isn't the same as frequency of starring as...

    Any actor from the moment he's officially cast/announced to when it's officially announced they've vacated the role is the measurement of how long one has the role.

    Craig will be the longest serving Bond actor by the time Bond 25 comes out.

    This.

    I don't understand the hoo-ha surrounding this. Craig will be the longest serving Bond. Moore will remain the actor with 'most films'. Whichever way you cut it (and I say this with Rog as my favourite Bond) once 25 hits, Roger will no longer be the longest serving Bond - it's that simple. The stuff about Dalton lasting until 94 is guff. Starts the day of your first release, and ends the day of your last. 12 for Rog, 13 for Dan.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    For me, the two main criterias are the number of films made (for obvious reasons) and the time between casting/departing announcements (because, to quote @Strog, it's the amount of time the actor spent in the public consciousness; also, it can hint at the degree of change in popular culture tastes that the actor had to "withstand").

    As to which criteria of the two is the most important, it's the number of films, simply because it's the amount of output produced. While this could also be measured through the combined running time of the films, I think the number of films is a more significant criteria, because having more films --each of which features a unique story with a beginning, a middle and an end, as well as characters and locations specific to it-- is more valuable than the films being longer or shorter.
    gumbolt wrote: »
    If you count NSNA (which I do not) then Connery had three tenures as Bond - his first run of five, then he quit; then his one-off return in DAF; then NSNA if you count it. "Longest serving", in my view, must be a consecutive period.
    This is correct.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,122
    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.

    Bkutkmmkmmmmkmkkk
  • The_DonaldThe_Donald
    Posts: 170
    RC7 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Longest serving isn't the same as frequency of starring as...

    Any actor from the moment he's officially cast/announced to when it's officially announced they've vacated the role is the measurement of how long one has the role.

    Craig will be the longest serving Bond actor by the time Bond 25 comes out.

    This.

    I don't understand the hoo-ha surrounding this. Craig will be the longest serving Bond. Moore will remain the actor with 'most films'. Whichever way you cut it (and I say this with Rog as my favourite Bond) once 25 hits, Roger will no longer be the longest serving Bond - it's that simple. The stuff about Dalton lasting until 94 is guff. Starts the day of your first release, and ends the day of your last. 12 for Rog, 13 for Dan.

    Utter guff. So sitting on your arse twiddling your thumbs counts as 'serving as Bond'?
    By that logic you have to count Dalton as 8 years since he was still serving as Bond all that time. A nonsense of course.
This discussion has been closed.