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
Wishaw though, they've struck gold there and I say that as someone who wrote him off because of the whole young geeky hacker angle before SF came out. He's brilliant and he could play Q than Desmond did. They bought Dench back with CR so I see no reason at all for them to not do the same with Wishaw. The rest I don't care about in the slightest.
I firmly believe it will be 3 years, so 2022 to tie in with the 60th Anniversary. Too big a thing to miss. They released a film on the 40th and 50th Anniversary so their is no doubt about that for me at least.
Ralph Fiennes played M now two times now. I can't remember that we were raving about Judi Dench after TND premiered. Same with Bernard Lee after FRWL. Those characters were just.....there.
Here's again an example of 'what do we really want?'. An M with not too much screentime only giving Bond the necessary tasks, so that we can focus on Bond as a man doing a mission, risking that this M won't be as 'impressive' as Judi Dench' version? Or giving Fiennes' M so much fieldwork and screentime, forcefully giving his character the same 'depth' as his predecessor, risking that this too will cause criticism like 'ooowh what a cheap copy-paste work from Dench' M.
Give Fiennes a bit of a break please. The man is following Dench' footsteps which in itself is incredibly difficult. Don't judge the man too hard. In the long-term this will be an M that can be loved too.
Absolutely! Only need the few scenes to be memorable and well-written.
By Michael Kitchen aka TheWizardOfIce?
Why don't you give everyone on here a break and let them give their own opinions without acting like some sort of self appointed negativity police? I didn't even say he was bad. He's alright, I liked the growing trust between him and Bond in SF and thought he had some great scenes in SP. I just don't think that so far he's made the impact that Lee (a lot of that is down to him being the original tbf but still, he owned it and set the standard, perfect casting) and Dench (the sexist dinasour scene alone, and then her coldly pimping Bond out in TND, she doesn't mess around) had made in their first two.
So you're right he could get better and better but so far, I think he seems fairly replaceable, especially in comparison to Wishaw who has really made Q his own.
I'm not saying they must get rid of Fiennes don't get me wrong. I like him. He's fine. I just wouldn't lose any sleep if once Craig goes, they did recast M and Moneypenny.
Yes, that's the one! ;)
Exactly @Creasy47. And this best of both worlds principle should not only apply to this character M, but also for the entire 25th Bond film.
Totally agree with your succinct assessment of the situation. Fiennes - serviceable but unremarkable - is he too young for Craig's Bond, I wonder? They almost seem like peers. Make it hard for Fiennes to have that authority over Bond IMO. Kinnear - someone put him and us out of our misery (worst MI6 staffer characterisation ever?). Harris - limp (where is the attention grabbing actress we saw in Moonlight?). Whishaw - couldn't stand him in SF (just an annoying twerp) but seems to have 'found' his Q in SP and totally turned it around with a likeable, new interpretation of who the character might be in the 21st century - definitely a keeper IMO.
Overall though, this lot are getting way too much screen time. The beauty of these characters in the past was the all too brief classic little scenes that left you wanting more - but you always just had to wait until the next film. By overusing the current lot EON seriously run the risk of everyone just getting bored/sick of them - as evidenced by the general apathy towards the Scooby Gang voiced on these boards.
I have to say I think this problem started a while ago, most notably with Dench's M, who I rapidly began to dislike after her first irritating and officious appearance in GE - the dialogue stank, which didn't help I suppose. I never like her character and don't fully understand how she became so universally adored. By TWINE I was sick of her. I suppose it was inevitable that they'd end up making an entire film about her, which doubtless contributes to my general lack of appreciation for SF.
Jeffrey Wright was used just about the right amount in CR and QoS. You always remember his scenes, as he's a good actor and the dialogue was actually pretty well written. Felix calming a pumped up rooky Bond in CR always sticks in my mind - a great scene. And then the fleeting bar encounter in QoS also works well.
As we all know though, the fact we have almost A-listers in all these minor roles means EON feels obliged to use them more and more to justify the pay checks.
Let s hope so, and that they don t postpone the film yet another year waiting for him.
In my opinion, a good or a bad Bond film doesn't depend on such minor characters. Having said so, I don't mind if Tanner returns. Nor do I mind if Leiter returns and Tanner stays home. But, for the sake of variety, it makes sense to re-introduce Leiter again, and not Tanner. But that's only for the sake of variety. Nothing else.
I already loves Fiennes' M very much. A man of action, former military stuck at a desk job, but willing to do it with integrity and competence, almost envious of Bond... There's great potential there.
I'm sure Tanner will be back in Bond 25. Hopefully they'll give him more substance this time. Rory is a wonderful actor and, as many have expressed here, his talents feel wasted so far. I do recall, meeting Rory Kinnear at a party (very nice guy), he said (I'm recounting broadly) P&W switched the character's name in QOS and made him Tanner but without really altering the character already written in the script - and I think this explains why this version of Tanner doesn't really feel like the man from the books.
I'm hoping Leiter is back as well.
Yeah, we love James Bond eh ;-)
Really? M, Q, Moneypenny, Leiter, just window dressing?
Earlier on (with Dench, Salmon etc.) they at least attempted to create new ideas & scenarios for Bond's coworkers and boss.
In addition, as @peter has said, having MP sit behind a desk seems a bit passe in today's day and age.
I don't know about you, but I didn't miss any of these jokers in CR or QoS. Leiter was interesting, but the films could have done without him as well. It's not like he was a huge part of either story. The fact that he made an impact is on account of Wright more than the character himself.
Other than M, the other three really have no relevancy in this Bond’s timeline.