Earlier this week Skyfall star Ben Whishaw revealed that he expects to start shooting a new 007 movie with Daniel Craig before the year is out. Even more interestingly, he told RadioTimes.com: "I know that he’s doing the next three [Bond movies]”.
But if Whishaw is right, and Craig has signed up for three more films, where would that place him in the pantheon of Bond actors? Could Daniel Craig be the most prolific James Bond ever?
Pay attention 007…
In the chart below, I've compared the various Bonds in terms of number of films made, screen minutes spent in the role* and the length of their tenures (now, now, Moneypenny).
Roger Moore is the most prolific Bond, with seven films and 851 screen minutes over a 13-year period, compared with closest rival Sean Connery's six films and 672 minutes (in seven years).
Craig has also racked up seven years as Bond – mostly thanks to an unusually long layover between Quantum of Solace and Skyfall – while his three films to date put him ahead of George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton, with Pierce Brosnan firmly in his sights.
But if Craig were to make three more films, not only would he match Connery’s tally of six and overtake him in terms of screen time, he'd also equal Moore’s 13 years in the job.
Assuming Craig’s next three Bond movies have the same average running time as his first three, he’d rack up a total of 776 screen minutes. And if he shoots a new film every two years (the time between Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace) he'd be second only to Moore in screen outings and minutes – and equal first in terms of years spent in the role.
So could Daniel Craig be the most prolific James Bond ever? It's possible – if he signed up for four more films he’d outgun Roger Moore on almost every level. In fact, there's only one area in which Craig is unlikely ever to challenge Bond number three – age at retirement. Rodge was still doing it for Queen and Country at the ripe old age of 57.