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
Semantics is a chore for some.
Craig still will have done "better" in that aspect than Brosnan, Dalton and Lazenby. Must be a sweet revenge for him given how skeptical and sometimes hostile people were when he was cast.
These are complex issues that deserve further analysis by a dedicated team of time wasters experts.
As I said, I'm not disputing he will be the winner. I just don't give a toss. Moore's my guy on that front.
Yes it appears so doesn't it. You're not working as Bond unless you're doing a film. Quite simple really.
Compare this to Brosnan's departure. I'm not bashing Brosnan but he had lost a lot of his appeal. I wonder if DAD was a caused or a symptom.
I'm actually hearing more negativity about Craig on account of all the gossip and nonsense over the past two years.
Yet Brosnan was pretty much thrown away. He even said that much himself. Yes Brosnan had his fans but they were less numerous and less were die hard. That's how I remember it anyway. His critics were also more numerous.
As I've said before, it will be quite a challenge to overcome some of this going forward, especially with this film coming out in 2+ years. They'll really have to knock it out of the park.
^Craig might end up spending more time playing Bond than anyone after his fifth film, though, especially if it's another 2 1/2 hour opus.
Long live Sean Connery.
I've already debunked this criteria.
Yep. However, there are two ways of interpreting your thought experiment. The first is that a (fictional) actor spends maybe 5y as Bond making 1 film ( ~1800 days ), quits officially, and then returns 20 years later to make a single movie for like 11y ( ~4000 days), meaning he was Bond for ~5800days total. 2nd option: he starts his first film and stays Bond for the entirety of those 20+ years without another actor disrupting his tenure. Both ways make this fictional actor the longest serving JB OAT, but you cannot count days in-between if another stepped in, naturally.
So with Connery it gets convoluted. You have to end his tenure after YOLT, start it before DAF, then continue the count until the final resignation. Only EON films should count, might I add.
It might seem disrespectful to Sir Roger, but it isn't because these stats are downright stupid to get riled up at. But categorizing all the Bond actors within these stats doesn't hurt if you understand the reasoning. Longest serving Bond actor goes to the one who was officially Bond for the longest time. Period. No discussion. Just as there isn't a discussion about who made the most official films; Sir Roger. Just don't confuse the two.
This is the way to do it. @Pachazo knows what's right. :)
@BondAficionado Yes.
For true Bond fans, and all those of common sense, Sir Roger is the longest serving Bond.
Yes. This.
Sir Rog - 7
Connery - 6
Craig - 5 (After Bond 25 is released)
Brozza - 4
T.Dalt - 2
George Lazenby -1
I think that's how logically it should be. And five might not be the highest but it's a very good number. It could have been Connery's had he not returned for DAF.
Absolutely. Craig for me has been a great Bond. Fantastic debut and third and fourth films. At least for me. Really not keen on QOS, but I know it has many fans. No actors tenure, at least not one that has made more than three films has had a perfect run.
I like Craigs interpretation of Bond, and his take on the character. I think he's done a fine job.
EDIT -
However, for sheer number of films, and for being an impeccable ambassador of the series. Sir Rog will never be bettered. I doubt any actor gets a seven film haul in. And if they do, they've done well and appreciate Bond and EON as much as Roger Moore did.
He may not be the best Bond for some fans. But you cannot fault the mans dedication to the series.
For those who favour the 'announcement to announcement' theory (and logically there is indeed a lot of merit in it - after all for the last two years in the eyes of the public Dan has still been the incumbent Bond) then how to we treat someone who announces that this is their final film?
Given Dan has stated this is it doesn't his tenure end on the day the film wraps not the release date? Once it's in the can he's no longer Bond. The release date is irrelevant because if you live in the UK Dan's tenure ends in late October. If you live in the US early November. If you live in Japan or somewhere it could early January.
He have will have been Bond from the CR announcement on the thames until the culmination of filming B25 which he has been pre announced as the end of his tenure so still fits the announcement theory.
Rog's tenure can be allowed to extend beyond wrapping AVTAK if the 3rd December is accurate as there was every chance he could have returned and the public were not sold AVTAK as his final film.
So the question is what date does B25 need to wrap by for Dan to beat or not beat Rog?
Much as I love Rog I'm afraid the most films theory is badly flawed as the question isn't 'Who did the most films?' it's 'Who was longest serving?' and playing the part is only half the job. You still have the promoting, interviews, photo shoots, ads in your role as the incumbent Bond.
Although I get the annoyance that Dan will claim it over Rog for sitting on his arse for half his tenure while Rog was banging film after film out at the end of the day the question asks who did the job longer.
Cantona quit aged 30 whereas I'm pretty sure Franny Jeffers is still slogging away at some conference team. The answer to the question 'Who was the better player?' is indisputable. The answer to 'Who was a footballer longer?' is also indisputable.
But that means that you're counting the minutes of all Bond films for each actor and not the amount of films themselves. I guess if a Bond actor made one 30h film, you would say he's the longest serving? Or if a new actor made 8x 100mins films, (less than Moore's total) he has more films, but loses due to the total length of them?
Even the amount of films per actor is an odd way of doing it, since one actor could theoretically (it's possible) make 8 films back-to-back in like 1 year. Hell, he could quit being Bond and let his movies come out one-by-one or all at once, and someone could still crown him the longest serving. Pathetic notion.
Since you say that Bond only exists in the films he appears in, why not get a stopwatch to time the length we see Bond on-screen? I mean hey, when he's not on-screen maybe he doesn't exist to you lol. And the Bonds appear all connected (Craig aside perhaps). So why break it down by actor? Each guy merely continued the other's part and so they all have the same time and films made.
See how stupid and complicated things get? The sane way for it to be true to definition, is from official announcement to official announcement.
Hey @Thunderfinger, apparently we're not 'true fans'. No offense, but I always had you down as a fake fan.
Pray tell, what makes a true Bond fan?