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
The whole film is striving to move forward from the SP ending.
What it ultimately does is to make it Madeleine's story, not Bond's.
Regardless, I don't think we've truly had a great Tanner onscreen. Perhaps they can try again and do more in the next one? My pick for the role would be Kingsley Ben-Adir.
That’s why I liked the sound of one of the earlier Spectre drafts, where he turned traitor because he was worried about getting pushed out with all the sweeping changes that were happening to MI6. That could’ve been cool. The film and Tanner himself acknowledging how pointless he is and using that to drive a story. And his final scene, where Bond confronts him and he kills himself, would’ve finally given Kinnear something meaty to sink his teeth into.
Interesting take! Kitchen's Tanner was my favourite; his chemistry with Brosnan felt the most similar to the Bill & James chemistry in the novels.
Just watched NTTD again last night: still really felt like top-tier Bond during most of the film. Still don't like Safin that much, and the ending did feel a little long this time around.
Haha, he's delivering an Oscar-worthy performance in the background and no one is paying attention! :))
Agreed. Use him properly or don't use him at all. And Kinnear is completely wasted on this iteration of Tanner. One of my least favourite parts of the Craig era.
Christ, was that actually something they wanted to do? Seems a bit out of character for even Kinnear's Tanner to me personally.
Anyway, it's true that the MI6 regulars during Craig's era was starting to look a bit cramped. You had M, a rather well used Moneypenny and Q, and then Tanner. After a point there's only so much they can contribute.
This is why I'm personally fine with making at least one cut to the MI6 team for the next one. No Q (I don't think Wishaw will return and he's a hard act to follow), perhaps think about having a Loeila Ponsonby type character who's closer to Bond/can provide exposition and give him gadgets or whatever, and then you have M and Tanner. Going from the last three Craig films there's plenty that these character can do even if they're confined to London/MI6, and you may as well allow them to have more well defined relationships with Bond.
I feel like that doesn't really fit with how they act in the film though...? Must admit I can't recall the phone bit.
Nice to see you!
Yeah, I don't get the feeling that BrosBond sees Tanner as his friend at all to be honest- he acts quite... haughtily around him? They're not very matey. I know Craig isn't either but I don't get the sense that either Bond would ever confide in their respective Tanners.
Yeah I think having one of the established heroes turn traitor is a no-no; I think you're whipping the rug out from the audience too much, they don't want that.
Yeah I don't really see it that way at all. If that were the case, then it pretty much flies in the face of the insecurities the character displayed and also the scene with M upon Bond's return to London.
Yes, I think that was for NTTD wasn't it? Equally bad, I just don't think you can undermine our trust in the heroes to that extent. What they did with M in NTTD was on the edge of too much as it was; I don't mind him making a mistake, but breaking the law and creating a quite morally dodgy weapon is not what I want to see M doing.
I think it was for SP, but the general idea of making M morally questionable fed into NTTD.
Yes, it's rather an odd creative decision isn't it? It's arguably out of character for Mallory too considering he seemed suspicious of the Nine Eyes programme in SP. I mean, surveillance apparently is a big no no, but a weaponised robot virus thingy is fine...
I actually find that an interesting suggestion.
I actually think that if I saw the two on paper, I'd say that Spectre's story would be the one which would hang together better than NTTD's, funnily enough.
Nomi handing Bond her phone at the end of their conversation is how Bond is able to contact M. That’s why when M answers the phone he thinks it’s Nomi but is then surprised to hear Bond’s voice instead.
And she ends the scene with "See you in Cuba..?". So, yes, I'm a bit muddled as to what she's after exactly.
But then again, it could be a case of her hoping Bond would do the dirty work with Valdo at the party so she could snatch him off him afterwards, which is what she tries to do and fails. That could either be read as her using an asset, or another display of her insecurities (not being able to do the job on her own).
Interesting, either way.
That being said, I think the involvement of SPECTRE would have been enough to tempt Bond in the end, regardless.
That’s a great idea. I wouldn’t have minded an M who’s a bit more of a baddy one day, could be a fun twist to explore. But it didn’t suit the character we’d seen in the last two.
It definitely seems to be a part of it. We see at his home he’s kept tabs on Blofeld/SPECTRE via newspaper clippings. Felix was counting on Bond wanting to join in because of them. And during his phone call with M he actually acknowledges SPECTRE being a part of the operation has his attention.
So why does he turn it down at first? I think they were trying to use the hero’s journey formula where the hero initially turns down the chance for an adventure before changing his mind. I don’t think it works for Bond’s character because he doesn’t seem like the type to just brush off SPECTRE. But this only takes up about five minutes so it’s mercifully never drawn out like it was in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES for example everyone ponders over whether Batman will come back for an hour.
Agreed. For all the hype and her misleading amount of footage in the trailer, that's the only conclusion you can arrive at.
That sums up my frustration with the film. For a film were Bond is lead to sacrifice himself it should focus on him. There's too many narrative story threads, it should be entirely focused on Bond and his journey/reasoning for his sacrifice
Perhaps more time in Matera and Jamaica, and less time in London and potentially on Madeline's flashback would improved that
I think that's a bit of a leap. One may equally assume that the presence of Tanner was a gesture towards bald men, as he has nothing to do in the film.
I suspect that the story went through many changes, with versions where Nomi played more of a key part, and they kept changing it until they'd lost sight of what her role was.
It is amazing that people get so fixated on her being a black woman though: it was bad that she was a black woman when the trailer came out because she was definitely going to show up Bond up and be better than him and be a terrible overdose of woke; and when the film actually came out and she turned out to be slightly useless and Bond actually showed her up at every opportunity, then her actual ineffectiveness is a sign of token gestures etc.
No matter how you use non-white and/or female characters nowadays, someone somewhere will find fault and a negative political angle in it. It's saddening.
And frustrating. People looking for the boogie(wo/man) around every corner, so they convince themselves that indeed the world is falling apart (rather than moving forward, evolving…)
Now, the producers are not blind, and it's obviously the case that by casting a black woman to play a more 'by the book' character they were highlighting that sense that Nomi is Bond's opposite. I think Lynch was a great choice for the role, and she certainly had some great scenes with Craig's Bond. I have no doubt that the conscious decision to make Nomi a non-white character was always there. I highly doubt it was a case of colour blind casting.
Here's my issue though: as a creative decision that makes perfect sense. Lynch is a great fit for the role. Even if the producers thought they were being 'liberal' by casting a black woman in this particular role, there shouldn't be any issues. And yet, when the first trailer came out the most vocal complaints were from those seemingly annoyed that a black woman had become the new 007, that she ribs Bond for his age etc. The rumour of a black female taking over the role in the lead up to the film has nothing to do with the producers, and it's actually a spin on something I've seen a number of times over the years in various implausible forms (remember when Angelina Jolie was touted as a replacement to Brosnan's Bond? Or Will Smith?)
The fact is, most of the whinging, the snowflake-like complaints, the nastiness quite frankly, came from the anti-SJW camp on this particular occasion.