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
Tanner is unnecessary and meaningless to the average Bond viewer. M, Moneypenny, and Q on the other hand are expected (although I think CR and QoS did fine without them).
I'm still amazed 16 years later that they used Quantum of Solace as a title. Perhaps the bravest title choice Eon has ever made. Second bravest was swapping out For Your Eyes Only for Moonraker.
I like that idea. I know that Kim Sherwood made Moneypenny as M in her books. She also got rid of Tanner somewhat controversially. In the same idea that EON had for him in SP. SF worked well in her favor. I wish that she would have had more action in SP and NTTD.
Yes, she does work for the government. Let's just hope EON doesn't overdo the MI6 family again. It honestly could hurt the impact IF Charmian Bond and May are introduced.
Tanner would be the sacrifice of the MI6 team. It will be a while before EON kills M (again). I'd be surprised if they kill off Q or Moneypenny any time soon. If EON wants a traitor in MI6 again, just use Alec Trevelyan. Just use a multi-film story arc, or use him as Bond's mentor, like in the original draft of Goldeneye.
Good point. Octopussy was in the go-go early '80s before cultural conservatism really took hold.
I don't think you'd get that title and songs like Make It Last All Night in a Bond film now. Even Dirty Love would seem a bit risque.
Ah, the '80s.
That said I do think what these characters do in Bond's fictional MI6 - the jobs they perform, their seniority level etc - has a huge impact on the dynamics we come to expect in a Bond film. Making Moneypenny the head of the 00 section, for example, I think would fundamentally change the dynamic between her and Bond. The fun of the Moneypenny/Bond interactions is the mutual flirting. There's an underlying sense it's all fun and games and not to be acted upon, but it's always there regardless of whether Moneypenny has a more active role in the film's plot, or if she's more feisty with Bond. It works in part because she's an assistant. She's not Bond's superior, and Bond can talk to her like a fellow co-worker in that way. In the Craig era it even meant he could confide in her about going behind M's back. A big part of Moneypenny's savviness in the films too comes from her job role too. She's believably reliable at getting Bond information, or subtly pulling strings (ie. when she prevents Bond from resigning in OHMSS, or getting Q involved in LTK). With her as Bond's boss it's not quite the same.
I really hope one day we get a good Tanner. There's so much potential for the character that the films have never quite managed to capitalise on (ie. the fact that he's basically a slightly older version of Bond who's decided to take a desk job, and is his best friend in the Service).
+1. LOL. Turtles all the way down.
I doubt that we're going to get a lot of Tanner development going forward because he keeps the story at MI6 and not at some exotic international setting.
If it was early days in the series, I could see them setting the stage for meaningful development for Tanner, but now with M, Moneypenny, and Q firmly entrenched in Bond history, that's unlikely.
This is why Tanner is often relegated to exposition bot (or mole in the ill-advised SP script). And even in GE, arguably (?) Tanner's greatest moment, his character is basically only there to delineate the relationship between the new M and Bond and explain the satellites.
Somehow they did it with Frederick Gray in the Moore era. Maybe they'll pull off a similar feat with Tanner if he has exceptional chemistry with M and Bond (again, Gray). But I doubt it. We'll see more M/Moneypenny/Q rather than a ton of Tanner.
It made sense when we didn't have Q or Moneypenny but now we more than likely will, there's no need for a Tanner. I also think Tanner was kept around in the Craig-era for the sake of Rory Kinnear.
I was never a fan of Gray. I'm not quite sure why he was kept throughout the Moore era honestly (I think M/Bond briefing scenes work better when it's only them, or at least with people who are more on Bond's side. It gives the sense of the mission being secret and 'eyes only' with less or select people in the room. When there's this old man sitting in the corner constantly battering on about MI6's reputation in the international community and flapping his jowl about, usually somewhat at odds with Bond/M, it's not quite the same).
It really depends on what they want to do. They could do something like Horowitz's Forever and A Day or even Fleming's books where we get a brief scene of Tanner and M discussing what to do/eventually deciding to send Bond in (perhaps there's some sort of conflict there - perhaps he doesn't think Bond should go on the mission/is sceptical he'll succeed, while M thinks he's the man for the job. Again, that's something you see in Fleming's novels). There's a nice sense of Bond/Tanner's history in Horrowitz's book as well that if briefly hinted at could be interesting.
I can imagine them wanting to use Tanner and do something different. M's a prominent role but Moneypenny and Q are a bit limited usually in what they do, and Bond films are often overstuffed with MI6 side characters anyway who do little (but relevant) things for the plot.
I don't think the problem with Kinnear's Tanner was his inclusion. It was that he had to work with a dull interpretation of the character who was only there to replace some other guy in the previous film (who himself wasn't very interesting - was his name Vickers or Villers or something?) Kinnear's an excellent actor incidentally, but there really wasn't anything to his Tanner, and his strengths as an actor weren't quite utilised.
Like I said, Bond films are often stuffed with MI6 side characters and they don't need to have a whole lot of importance in the grand scheme of things. They just have to be interesting or have good chemistry with Bond, or even just add something intangible to those early MI6 scenes. I mean, is Charles Robinson in the Brosnan era necessary in the strictest sense? Not at all, and if you were cutting characters in the scripts he'd be the first to go. But having Colin Salmon around adds this bit of legitimacy to the situations in some weird way. He's younger, looks the part of a 'man of action' in the situation room, and even just him communicating details about missiles over the radio in the TND PTS adds tension. I think there's a reason why he was included in TWINE alongside Tanner even when it wasn't necessary. Heck, I'd say Salmon isn't as good an actor as Michael Kitchen, and yet he comes off as a sort of upgrade of Kitchen's Tanner. It's because of Salmon's presence.
Make a more interesting Tanner with a bit more of a personal connection/friendship with Bond who adds something that the others don't, and of course cast a good, memorable actor, and it'll work. Again, it's just about what they want to do.
James Bond: Asa Butterfield (year two type of Bond)
M: Emily Blunt (would be able to handle herself in action, pure trust in Bond, just occasionally nitpicking on certain things)
Q: Phoebe Waller-Bridge (would be kidnapped by SPECTRE and use her tech skills to escape)
Moneypenny: Hayley Atwell (mix of agent and secretary)
Mary Goodnight: Anya Taylor-Joy (a bit ditzy, but still compliant enough to handle herself)
Loelia Ponsonby: Rachel Weisz (full time MI6 secretary, openly cares for Bond)
Felix Leiter: Alden Ehrenreich (he would get in on the action, not just defending Bond and giving him information)
Bill Tanner: Robert Pattinson (once again, he could be in on the action, great with sleath)
Alec Trevelyan: Andrew Garfield (more a mentor, than a peer, built up his betrayal over two movies, at least)
Dr. No: Michael Shannon (a mad scientist, with a different science to make his own)
Irma Bunt: Diane Lane (she's wanted to play a villain, who better? Maybe a mentor for Blofeld. Army General at one point)
Ernst Stavro Blofeld: Tom Hiddleston (a calm version of Blofeld, yet could handle himself physically. Acting career, which helps with his changes)
Joanne Brochet/Sixtine: Saoirse Ronan (same as she is in the Forever and a Day Book. Bond is sad when she dies, but doesn't feel the need to advantage her)
Charmian Bond: Felicity Jones (tough, mostly as written in the Young Bond books. She lives to the end of the overall movie story arc)
May: Olivia Colman (same as the books, an occasional quip or two towards Bond's lifestyle)
Auric Goldfinger: Russell Crowe (loves diamonds as much as gold, banker as much as businessman)
Felicity Willing: Winona Ryder (mostly the same plot as the book. Known to be evil from the beginning)
This was fun to make, this could be a unique cast for a decade, at least. But then again, I'm not in charge of EON!