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
Their first scene together in DN is a textbook example of how to introduce characters without a lot of exposition. When M calls Bond out for taking the Berretta we see how even Bond can't fool M. Many great examples exist through the next few films. It was such a great relationship. While I would love to see a return, for the reasons you mention, it is unlikely do to so.
A very big +1.
I don’t want to see Ralph Fiennes return— the M whose little side project was responsible for killing the last Bond.
Clean slate all the way. Give the new guy his own M, Q, Moneypenny and Tanner (when/if they’re needed for the story (I’d almost think one could amalgamate Tanner and Moneypenny at this point).
Well, yes, but I think that Tanner is sort of secondary. People expect M, Moneypenny and Q besides 007, but most outside of this board won't even know Tanner. It probably took even me until the 2000s (more than thirty years after watching my first Bond movie, and about 25 years after reading my first Fleming novel) to become aware of someone named Tanner. Sorry for him, but he's a bit nondescript. So let's stick with a new approach to Moneypenny. Not as square as Lois, but less aggressively feminist than Samantha Bond. But she should be around, or people (including me :-) ) would be disappointed.
I agree with you. Having a secretary seems so retro...I'd rather she be some sort of trusted advisor to M.
I think Tanner could be very interesting depending on how they approach him. He's relegated to being an inconsequential (but sometimes interesting) side character in the films, but I like the idea of a character who's Bond's best friend in the Service. He's a man in the novels who I can imagine being not unlike Bond in his younger years, having now settled down with a wife/family and a consistent desk job. I think you can do something interesting with such a character (maybe him and Bond could confer behind M's back like Q and Bond do in films like SP. Nothing too elaborate, maybe just have Tanner cover for Bond etc). Just depends on the story/what they want to do.
I thought he was great and would be happy to see him back, but I can see why they would probably make a fresh start.
I like the book Tanner, but I can see why Rory Kinnear's character didn't become that: we already had a friend character for Bond in Felix (probably the most convincing version of their friendship we've seen so far), and Moneypenny became Bond's confidante and ally inside MI6, which didn't leave much of Tanner's role in the books to be carried to screen.
They could adapt the book version, although I must admit I probably kind of prefer Moneypenny in that role.
Yeah, it really depends on what they want to do. I think it'd be quite fresh seeing Bond confer with a version of Tanner who's a bit more an older mirror image of Bond now with a desk job. I'm fine regardless as long as whatever they do works and they get some solid actors in.
It is quite difficult to find a place for both Tanner and Moneypenny in a modern organisation without any overlap. Even in the literary world I think Kim Sherwood couldn't be bothered with having them both so she wrote off Tanner.
I think what probably makes the most sense is that one processes interior reports from London and is a go-between to Whitehall and other intelligence sources and the other deals with exterior stations and stations from there. Who gets what doesn't really matter, and I suppose in a movie nobody has time for those details
Nowadays we have swung to a place where continuity is the bees knees. This will mean that EON has an interesting choice to make. Bring back the gang and they inhabit the same character we saw with a new guy. OR they recast the lot and have everyone be new for the new "timeline" or "universe".
Personally I would not throw out the baby with the bath water and I would happily bring them all back. The ones that are most crucial would be M and Moneypenny. A new Q and Tanner aren't the end of the world if those actors pass.
I would prefer a return to the privacy of these characters. It always felt thrilling in OHMSS when we saw M's house. We have now seen these characters domestically and to me that ruins the mystery a bit.
In NTTD Bond and Felix were older than the rest except for M. Next go around Bond and Felix will be younger than the same supporting cast. And in real life, those actors themselves will be quite a bit older, emphasizing even more the absurdity of the casting.
Does it matter? No. But it also doesn't make sense. It'll be like that dream season on Dallas. The Craig years simply won't have existed. These won't be the same characters because they never existed.
The PTS will open with a gorgeous woman in the shower. A naked Bond will step in to join to her. She'll turn and for a second with a look of shock followed by a smile of relief.
Bond: Something the matter?
Girl: I had this crazy dream that you were gone.
Bond: Here I am. In the flesh.
Cue Music.
I quite like that idea, could freshen it up a bit and also make M seem a bit grander and more important.
That show was as much about the political manoeuvring in the corridors of power as it was about the fieldwork. For Bond I imagine Fleming streamlined the power structure to make for faster plots. I don’t know how much Whitehall internal struggles are desirable in a big Bond film. I mean, I myself like that stuff, but it’s generally not what Bond is about.