It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.)
But possibilities exist for 8 or 10, sure.
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.
"It's Huuuuuge."
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.
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
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.
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.
Fair enough. It really is too bad, as we could've had more film inbetween that time had it not been for, well, politics.
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.