Actors Timeline - The contract, or the movies?

X3MSonicX

One of the things i've always wondered about 007 is the timeline of the films and the actors.

Let's use an example so you can understand me more. Coming back to Timothy Dalton to Pierce Brosnan's years.

Dalton was named around 1986 to be the new Bond of the era, and his last film was in 1989. Then, in the 90's, they've chosen another Bond, and Brosnan was in his first Bond film.

For me, Brosnan was Bond from 1994 (When i suppose that they had choosen him) to 2005 (When they've choosen Dan Craig.)

And Tim goes from '86, after Moore, to 1994, before Brosnan.

The question I'd want to do is; The actor timeline goes since his choose to be Bond or since his first film?

And, it goes until the Next actor, or until his last film?

If you didn't get it yet, tell me.

Soundofthesinners

So, do we measure Dalton's time, for example, from 1986-1994 or 1987-1989? I've always done the latter, myself.

X3MSonicX

I measure the time since it's choice from EoN, until the next actor's choice.

There are some people that chooses to measure since it's first film to it's last. So i'd like to know which one is the right one.

MrBond

I don't think there's a right answer do this. Everything's about it's own preferences.

But purely official, the Bond of the "time" is the one that hasn't been replaced yet. So in that mean, Dalton was Bond up until the day Brosnan was hired in 1994.

But if we want to make each actors timelines easier, then the years 1987-1989 is the choice for Dalton.

Thepastykid

If at any time during my life I had been asked who the current James Bond was I would refer to the actor in question until he quit..so Brosnan was the current, incumbent Bond until 2004..and there was no Bond again until October 2005 when Craig was announced. As time passes though I refer to an actors tenure as the era his films span..so Dalton was 87-89, Brosnan 95-02..but it is personal preference