8 replies to this topic

[RMc2]

In the Metro today: http://metro.co.uk/2...e-best-6459841/

 

Congratulations DC!

[thecasinoroyale]

Longest serving but by no means something I'd pat him on the back with the content delivered in that time.

11.5 years and 4 films.

Give me Roger Moore and his 7 films in 12 years any day.

[Grard Bond]

I agree, in this case it has no meaning at all.

[SecretAgentFan]

"Most frequently serving Bond" should be more important than "Staying Bond for the longest time without getting the chance or the urge to actually serve as Bond".

[Tiin007]

"Most frequently serving Bond" should be more important than "Staying Bond for the longest time without getting the chance or the urge to actually serve as Bond".

 

Agreed 100%.

 

The current best-case scenario for Craig is that he does a total of 5 Bond films in the time it took Moore to do 7.

 

Heck, he may wind up doing 5 Bond films in a longer time than it took Moore to do 7. 

[Orion]

The fact he's three behind is Saltzman's fault, but it raises the question of whether Craig would've done it for as long if he had Moore's schedule, baring in mind Craig relies FAR less on stunt doubles than Moore ever did.

[Dustin]

The Moore days used to be an entirely different era, I don't think we can easily compare the way these vehicles were churned out forty years ago with the mammoth events they strive to be today. Back then these films sometimes used to be in theatres for ten or even 13 weeks and still had an audience. Today, the opening weekend is often the make-or-break of a production, with armies of pundits and spin doctors weighing in on what is, at best, a passing entertainment of very minor consequence.

As for Saltzman's fault, in his defence it must be noted that Eon was in a partnership with UA/UAP from day one. And a very fruitful and successful partnership it used to be over many years. When Saltzman sold his stake in the Bond series I believe nobody would have seriously predicted a situation such as we witness today. Even when MGM bought UA it was a serious stretch to foresee how MGM would turn into a struggling venture without much substance beside 007.

Plenty of snake oil has been sold in recent years, much of it because people wanted just this mixture. But it's simply not true that this absurd and surreal turn of events has been Saltzman's fault. He was one of the makers and shakers in the business, responsible for many ingenious productions (Harry Palmer, Battle of Britain, Call me Bwana etc) and never shy to approach a new venture outside his comfort zone. He had his faults, no doubt about it. But MGM turning into a Ponzi scheme to milk one single cow was not his doing.

[DavidJones]

Obviously, Saltzman could not predict all the trials and tribulations to come, but it was still his ego that stopped him giving his share to Cubby.

[SecretAgentFan]

Let´s not badmouth a legendary producer who was also responsible for the success of the Bond films.  It was a complicated situation, as far as I know, and isn´t ego standing in everybody´s way?