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
So yeah, Moore and Connery absolutely tied as Bond. Its that simple.
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).
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.
You're right. I just get my gears running whenever this issue comes up, ya know.
Conney AND Moore, in terms of films.
I was going on official Eon Bond movies but yes Connery did do 7 films.
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.
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.
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.
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
That simply isn't true. NSNA is a James Bond film, whether you like it or not.
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!
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.
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.
@Aleander you should try and accept not everyone is going to agree with you, and try and be a little less argumentative.
Spot on.
A bad Thunderball remake, I'd add.
Then there are the specifics for number of films, years hired and active in the role. Yeah, Lazenby. He shot his, um, bolt.
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.
We're just going over the same stuff all the time.