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
Now, on casting the regulars in a post-Craig era, I personally believe it will discontinue the chronology started in 2006, and start a new one. Bond will be an experienced operative, but it will exist in a different continuation.
I agree. I think we'll get the full crew back for 25 if Craig returns for one more, but after he goes whether it's now or before 26, I too think we'll then get a new crew of supporting actors.
Yeah I'm sure Ralph lists The Avengers 4th on his CV ahead of stuff like Quiz Show, The End of the Affair, Corialanus and Grand Budapest Hotel too.
What I don't get is all these people saying 'if you're paying Ralph Fiennes X amount of millions to be in the film he's not going to settle for only being in it 5 minutes.'
Why not? You pay him the Ralph Fiennes rate for one or two days shooting. If you've written a script that features him running around with a gun that takes a week to shoot it's going to cost more.
He strikes me as happy enough to do this but only as long as it doesn't interfere with his other projects so I don't see why he wouldn't be happy to just do the standard M role. And if he wouldn't I'm sure there are some big name thesps in the Patrick Stewart/Ian Mckellen/Michael Gambon (although I think they are all too old) who would be happy to pick up the paycheck for 20 years.
Ben and Naomie are young enough to go on for another 15 years or so just need an M to go with them. If that's Ralph then fine or if not someone of a similar calibre after Dan goes but spell it out at the beginning 1) you're signing up for at least 5 films 2)90% of the time you will just be sitting behind a desk and only in the film for 5 to 10 mins.
Exactly. I've said this before.
Not at all. I've never even seen it (which I should given its pretty much the only Connery film I havent seen) but I thought that rather than listing your favourite Fiennes films, the point you were making is that Ralph was on a level with Judi Dench and citing this as an example is not a good way to make your point.
:)) Gotta love Harry Waters.
Ah yes, I must have read too fast. Thanks. Wiz put all the attention on 'The Avengers'. ;)
The man had his principles
:))
I'd have liked it if they'd kept Villiers and had Loelia Ponsonby instead of Moneypenny.
And through all this debate Rory Kinnear has done what he does best and just kept his head down and been invisible hoping no one will notice he's still there picking up his money.
The sooner we get rid of this nonentity the better. If we're going to have Tanner in the films (personally I think he's rather superfluous) then someone like Mark Strong or Damian Lewis should get the job when the next Bond takes over. This guy is 1) second in command to M so needs to have some sort of presence and 2) Bond's friend so needs a personality.
Can you seriously envisage Bond going for a round of golf and a drink with Rory?
'Sorry Rory the 5 minutes are up. Strict rules of golf. You can spend all day looking in the rough but you arent going to find your charisma.'
He was ok in QoS and SF, but he was redundant in Spectre he didn't need to be there.
You're right @tanaka123. He is indeed OK. He doesnt trip over the set and he says his lines. My cup runneth the f**k over.
Rory will probably cut that review out and stick on the wall in his dressing room. OK is what he aims for. He is like the international baseline for acting performances. Rory is absolute zero. If you give a really good performance you get a plus score on the Kinnear scale, if you are really shit you get a minus.
But Rory never waivers from OK.
Charisma isn't something I would attribute to him as he's more a character actor but with the right material he can be quite compelling.
Though unless Tanner is going to be elevated above his current persona, why bother casting someone as charismatic as Mark Strong?
Well I have to say in everything I've ever seen him in he comes across as Ernie Wise to whoever is acting opposite him's Eric Morecambe.
This is the nub of the problem. If youre going to have Tanner then he needs to be able to carry some authority which Rory simply cannot. But if you do cast someone with that then they are probably just going to come over as M lite.
For B25 I wouldnt mind some kind of rendition of Colonel Sun with SPECTRE kidnapping M to exchange with Blofeld but during the first scene after the PTS where M would get snatched you would have Bond back at MI6 and Tanner calling the shots and with Rory this would just be embarrassing.
But to be honest the MI6 regulars cast seems much too bloated as it is in terms of characters and screen time and the easiest way to steamline it down is by giving Rory a picture of a Spitfire and letting him go.
I can see what they've tried to do by bringing Tanner in to give us a little bit more Fleming but they never really had much of an idea what to do with him and consequently he just spouts a bit of exposition and then stands in the background and to be fair I guess thats not Rory's fault. Its a thankless role really and I doubt we could attract anyone better to sign up for it as written so I think just let him quietly disappear.
If Blofeld or Madeline arent in the next film people will wonder why. If Tanner isnt no one will even notice.
This is the main problem. The role has been poorly written in this era, the scene on the Thames in SP is some of the most clunky exposition I've ever seen. There's also the issue that if you didn't know better you might be forgiven for thinking he's just M's PA. He's only been sidelined more with the additions of Q and MP. What annoys me is that there's potential to build a Bond/Tanner relationship, which to me is more interesting than Q and MP. Hopefully further down the line they'll capitalise on this missed opportunity.
There are definitely brief glimpses of what he can do in SF, but with each MI6 addition he falls down the pecking order to the point where he is now just Basil Exposition, with no time to build his character.
Perhaps youre right and I'm being harsh - but then thats what I do isnt it?
I saw Rory's Hamlet at the National Theatre. He was simply superb. Four hours he commanded the stage and it was one of the most compelling stage performances I had seen for a very long time.
The problem is, as already mentioned here, Rory has nothing much to work with on the Bonds. I've met Rory a few times in social situations (lovely fella) and when we were chatting he told me that making his character Tanner was a late decision and an idea of Wade and Purvis who wanted to add another character from the books in QOS.