›

Most Underused Characters in the Series

2

Comments

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    JW Pepper, he should have appeared in all 7 Moore films!

    On a more serious note, I always thought Tanner was underused in the films, especially when they chose Rory Kinnear (!) to portray him.

    I feel the same about Bill Tanner for the whole series. He is finally getting some recognition.

    And is it me or do they have now set Tanner to pretty much replace Felix Leiter? Tanner's role has been expanded, he will be play by the same actor in three films in a row (Leiter never had this chance), he is thus most consistently depicted, etc.

    Personally I'd sooner have less Tanner not more - especially given he's played by the charisma free Kinnear flopping across the screen like a pastry.

    The bloated MI6 team gets far too much screen time as it is, without having to shoe horn another character into the narrative. What next? Bring Smithers back in the Q scenes and expand his role to more than having a broken arm?

    I disagree. Bond is part of MI6 and Tanner is an original Fleming character. Why not use them? We tend to forget that in the early movies, the world outside 007 was featured a lot more: he does not show up right away in DN or FRWL. In DN MI6 is featured a good deal before we see the first glimpse of Bond. In FRWL, it is SPECTRE. In TB, the same thing happens: a lot of time is spent featuring the whole hijack and the reaction of Free World.

    I don't get the charisma comment: is a civil servant supposed to ooze charisma now?

    If you're going to use Fleming's Tanner then make him friends with Bond. Fleming's Tanner used to have lunch with Bond and little chats behind M's back. Make him a character who has a relationship with Bond rather than just 'generic bloke in the office' which is what 99.9% of the audience would think his character is called. It's only because he's nominally called Tanner this question has arisen. If his character was called Smith the debate would be 'that Smith is a dull, pointless character. Why don't they do Tanner properly like in the books?'

    Kinnear's Tanner somehow combines being Basil Exposition but without actually furthering the story in any way. He's just the fluffer until M is ready to see Bond.

    You make the point yourself when you mention Villiers. What changes in QOS or SF if you swap Villiers for Tanner? To quote Edwin Starr - absolutely nothing!

    Villiers and Kinnear's Tanner are utterly interchangeable blokes in suits sat behind a desk helping M. Now I agree its nice to see the nuts and bolts of MI6 from time to time but the core should always be Bond out in the field on his own not constantly cutting back and forth to what's going on in MI6. The reality is no doubt a team effort where lots of people have an input. If that's what you want go and watch a Le Carre film. Bond is a fantasy where one lone man goes out and saves the world against ridiculous odds.

    Cutting to Ralph Fiennes reactions is one thing but shots of Kinnear's bland photocopier salesman's face just deflates any drama and tension IMO, and, more crucially, nothing Tanner ever does furthers the story. And the golden rule of filmmaking is if something doesn't further the story it belongs on the cutting room floor.

    You are building a strawman: I don't want a completely realistic depiction of MI6 in Bond movies. I have The Sandbaggers for this, which is a great series by the way, thank you very much. But did you feel like Bond was lost in DN and FRWL, had too little screen time? In both movies he does not show up until relatively late. Heck, even in YOLT and DAF (neither movies I like) a fair deal of time is spent on other characters throughout the film. Was Bond in the Craig movies less present than the early ones?

    About Tanner, if they want to establish him as a friend of Bond, they'll have to use him a bit more. Hence why me and others think he is underused. I am not saying make a spin off series with him, I am saying they could use him more. As for the differences between him and Villiers, does Villiers even talk at all to Bond? If so, does he dare to bitch about M, or a specific character? Their reports seem to be fairly more antagonistic, or at least Villiers is more disapproving of Bond, he is M without the authority. Which is why I think he should be used again, but there you go.

    And I have to disagree about your golden rule of filmmaking. If it was the case, then many Bond girls would belong to the cutting room floor. Does Silvia Trench and the whole episode regarding her in DN (or FRWL) move the story forward at all? No, but she reveals something about Bond's character. Some characters exist bring character to the story. Oh and I know what you are going to say about Tanner: "but he does not bring even that." Well, I like a mild mannered civil servant in MI6 staff, it reminds us that they are not all superspies. Thus stressing Bond's nature.
  • Ed83Ed83
    Posts: 1,181
    I would agree with Severine, Mathis, and General Pushkin being a bit underused. Actually I was really sad to see Mathis get thrown away in the dumpster, but I guess it did evoke a bit of emotion.

    I would add Dr Kaufman and Hans to the list.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    I'd love a scene in TND where Kaufman can show he really can shoot Bond from Stuttgart and still create ze proper effect.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    George lazenby
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    JW Pepper, he should have appeared in all 7 Moore films!

    On a more serious note, I always thought Tanner was underused in the films, especially when they chose Rory Kinnear (!) to portray him.

    I feel the same about Bill Tanner for the whole series. He is finally getting some recognition.

    And is it me or do they have now set Tanner to pretty much replace Felix Leiter? Tanner's role has been expanded, he will be play by the same actor in three films in a row (Leiter never had this chance), he is thus most consistently depicted, etc.

    Personally I'd sooner have less Tanner not more - especially given he's played by the charisma free Kinnear flopping across the screen like a pastry.

    The bloated MI6 team gets far too much screen time as it is, without having to shoe horn another character into the narrative. What next? Bring Smithers back in the Q scenes and expand his role to more than having a broken arm?

    I disagree. Bond is part of MI6 and Tanner is an original Fleming character. Why not use them? We tend to forget that in the early movies, the world outside 007 was featured a lot more: he does not show up right away in DN or FRWL. In DN MI6 is featured a good deal before we see the first glimpse of Bond. In FRWL, it is SPECTRE. In TB, the same thing happens: a lot of time is spent featuring the whole hijack and the reaction of Free World.

    I don't get the charisma comment: is a civil servant supposed to ooze charisma now?

    If you're going to use Fleming's Tanner then make him friends with Bond. Fleming's Tanner used to have lunch with Bond and little chats behind M's back. Make him a character who has a relationship with Bond rather than just 'generic bloke in the office' which is what 99.9% of the audience would think his character is called. It's only because he's nominally called Tanner this question has arisen. If his character was called Smith the debate would be 'that Smith is a dull, pointless character. Why don't they do Tanner properly like in the books?'

    Kinnear's Tanner somehow combines being Basil Exposition but without actually furthering the story in any way. He's just the fluffer until M is ready to see Bond.

    You make the point yourself when you mention Villiers. What changes in QOS or SF if you swap Villiers for Tanner? To quote Edwin Starr - absolutely nothing!

    Villiers and Kinnear's Tanner are utterly interchangeable blokes in suits sat behind a desk helping M. Now I agree its nice to see the nuts and bolts of MI6 from time to time but the core should always be Bond out in the field on his own not constantly cutting back and forth to what's going on in MI6. The reality is no doubt a team effort where lots of people have an input. If that's what you want go and watch a Le Carre film. Bond is a fantasy where one lone man goes out and saves the world against ridiculous odds.

    Cutting to Ralph Fiennes reactions is one thing but shots of Kinnear's bland photocopier salesman's face just deflates any drama and tension IMO, and, more crucially, nothing Tanner ever does furthers the story. And the golden rule of filmmaking is if something doesn't further the story it belongs on the cutting room floor.

    You are building a strawman: I don't want a completely realistic depiction of MI6 in Bond movies. I have The Sandbaggers for this, which is a great series by the way, thank you very much. But did you feel like Bond was lost in DN and FRWL, had too little screen time? In both movies he does not show up until relatively late. Heck, even in YOLT and DAF (neither movies I like) a fair deal of time is spent on other characters throughout the film. Was Bond in the Craig movies less present than the early ones?

    About Tanner, if they want to establish him as a friend of Bond, they'll have to use him a bit more. Hence why me and others think he is underused. I am not saying make a spin off series with him, I am saying they could use him more. As for the differences between him and Villiers, does Villiers even talk at all to Bond? If so, does he dare to bitch about M, or a specific character? Their reports seem to be fairly more antagonistic, or at least Villiers is more disapproving of Bond, he is M without the authority. Which is why I think he should be used again, but there you go.

    And I have to disagree about your golden rule of filmmaking. If it was the case, then many Bond girls would belong to the cutting room floor. Does Silvia Trench and the whole episode regarding her in DN (or FRWL) move the story forward at all? No, but she reveals something about Bond's character. Some characters exist bring character to the story. Oh and I know what you are going to say about Tanner: "but he does not bring even that." Well, I like a mild mannered civil servant in MI6 staff, it reminds us that they are not all superspies. Thus stressing Bond's nature.

    I take your point re other characters in scenes without Bond and I don't have a problem with that but your argument falls down because scenes such as Kronsteen, Wint & Kidd, Zorin etc are entertaining because they are interesting characters.

    I have no problem (apart from there currently being too many) with scenes featuring the MI6 staff and a well written and nicely portrayed Tanner. But to say you want more of this Tanner is like saying you want more of Mcadam, Mrs Whistler or Bob Conley in the scenes mentioned above.

    A return of Michael Kitchen's Tanner or Colin Salmon's Tanner-by-another-name would get a thumbs up from me but someone really needs to put Rory out of his misery sooner rather than later.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    Well this Tanner is already more developed than other Tanners, save Kitchen's. But Kitchen is a bit old to play Bill Tanner now, as he should be more or less the same generation as Bond, certainly not his elder by an important number of years. I was never too impressed with Colin Samon's Robinson, partially because I had the impression that it was a consolation price for not playing Bond. Anyway, I do want the character of Bill Tanner (whoever plays him) more developed, to show a true camaraderie between him and Bond. He was underused in the previous continuity and if they want Bond to have a friend, we might as well use Fleming's original character.

    Oh, and another character I thought was underused is actually Felix Leiter. I know he appears far more than any other Bond ally, save M, Moneypenny and Q, but he was recast so often and it was so inconsistent from one actor to the other that he was barely recognizable from one incarnation to the next.
  • MooseWithFleasMooseWithFleas Philadelphia
    Posts: 3,369
    I agree with the people who said Severine and Wint & Kidd. Wint & Kidd were features highly in first half, but then sort of disappeared to the end. Best part of DAF for me.

    Other mentions:

    Puss Feller: I'm just a fan of the name, but from his limited screen time was a boss!
    Tibbett: Killed off too early. I'm fine with him being killed, but way too early. Moore and Macnee had such good chemistry
    Felix Leiter in QoS: Great scene in the bar, but could have been used further.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    Tibbett was one of the few things I loved about AVTAK. A shame he showed up that late during Moore's tenure.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    i always liked Jack Wade and felt that he could've returned in DAD, or the next film had Broz continued on... he's one of the things i liked about both GE and TND.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    And a very good theory too. :) I think it easily explained Wade being
    Used instead of Leiter.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    I never liked him much, for that reason: Jack Wade was a poor man's Leiter. That said, Felix Leiter has been recast so often and written so differently from one time to another, they could have simply cast Joe Don Baker in the role. And keep his two legs. I wonder if anyone outside the fan community would have noticed that it would have grown back.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited January 2015 Posts: 1,731
    Disagree with Tanner needing more screen time - if anything I'd like less of these tedious civil servant types and more actual characters, (ie.less of these boring middle-class 9 to 5 stiffs who are very good with futuristic touchy-sweepy-screen-thingies but are of no real added value to the story) at MI6 ...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    Disagree with Tanner needing more screen time - if anything I'd like less of these tedious civil servant types and more actual characters, (ie.less of these boring middle-class 9 to 5 stiffs who are very good with futuristic touchy-sweepy-screen-thingies but are of no real added value to the story) at MI6 ...

    Sadly, the new Q falls into this category as well it seems.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Disagree with Tanner needing more screen time - if anything I'd like less of these tedious civil servant types and more actual characters, (ie.less of these boring middle-class 9 to 5 stiffs who are very good with futuristic touchy-sweepy-screen-thingies but are of no real added value to the story) at MI6 ...

    Sadly, the new Q falls into this category as well it seems.

    Well sort of, but at least he's a little quirky. Whishaw is a good enough actor to make something of the part I think.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Disagree with Tanner needing more screen time - if anything I'd like less of these tedious civil servant types and more actual characters, (ie.less of these boring middle-class 9 to 5 stiffs who are very good with futuristic touchy-sweepy-screen-thingies but are of no real added value to the story) at MI6 ...

    Sadly, the new Q falls into this category as well it seems.

    Well sort of, but at least he's a little quirky. Whishaw is a good enough actor to make something of the part I think.

    Definitely. No, I get your point about Tanner. Hopefully Kinnear steps it up a notch since he looks to be playing a part in SP based on some of the set photos to date.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I thought at one point with Bond being upset over the death of Vesper, that
    We might have got a glimpse of Sir James Moloney from the novels. Helping
    Him through it, just a scene in QOS, then he could have given him the word
    Association test in SF.
  • fromswedenwithlovefromswedenwithlove
    edited January 2015 Posts: 654
    I feel that my favorite Bond-girl was very much underused... More Strawberry Fields!!
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Forever :))
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    fromswedenwithlove wrote: »
    I feel that my favorite Bond-girl was very much underused... More Strawberry Fields!!

    Strange, she is usually far from the favorite. I don't mind her, however I don't think she was very inspired, but a bit more screen time and development might have helped her being more appreciated.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Speaking of boring MI6 9-5 civil servants, I really would have liked to see more of Saunders (TLD). Thomas Wheatley did a great job and he was a very interesting character (as far as 9-5'ers go). Pity they had to kill him off. I actually would have liked to have seen him get a promotion and be in more adventures.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    edited January 2015 Posts: 15,124
    We need MI6 agents that are not 00 operatives. Something I did not like in the old continuity is the way they used 00s basically as red shirts: killed to get the story in motion and showing that Bond was facing incredible odds. But it cheapened the 00 status. They were overused in this way. Station agents and office workers, on the other hand, were seldom used.
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    I can give you two reasons why Penelope Smallbone could have been used more in the series.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    and I'm sure they're perfectly rounded . ;)
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    Actually, it may be more a case of being ill used, but Mary Goodnight was underused. She was a recurring character in Fleming, it would have been interesting, if written correctly, to have a semi-recurring Bond girl who Bond might need more than one movie to seduce and bed. Missed opportunity.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    Aki, in YOLT. I'm not sure what purpose her death served. Nobody's bothered by it at all, and it didn't change the direction of the plot.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Her death bothered me, thought she was a great character a modern
    Japanese girl, and beautiful too. Most Bonds seem to have one
    " Innocent" sacrificed, for Bond to avenge.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    We could preferably have seen a bit more of Blofeld in NSNA. Von Sydow was pretty good.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited January 2015 Posts: 1,731
    Ludovico wrote: »
    We need MI6 agents that are not 00 operatives. Something I did not like in the old continuity is the way they used 00s basically as red shirts: killed to get the story in motion and showing that Bond was facing incredible odds. But it cheapened the 00 status. They were overused in this way. Station agents and office workers, on the other hand, were seldom used.

    This
  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 5,994
    For me, the most underused character in the whole series (at least in the first twenty movies) was Felix Leiter. He really didn't have much to do in the movies in which he appeared, except in the last one (LTK), and even then, he was just there to provide Bond with a reason to go rogue.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    edited January 2015 Posts: 15,124
    Gerard wrote: »
    For me, the most underused character in the whole series (at least in the first twenty movies) was Felix Leiter. He really didn't have much to do in the movies in which he appeared, except in the last one (LTK), and even then, he was just there to provide Bond with a reason to go rogue.

    Maybe it is not so much that he was underused that he was used so inconsistently he made no lasting impression. I do hope we see Jeffrey Wright in Bond 25 just so Felix Leiter can be played by the same actor three times, thus creating a true character continuity.
Sign In or Register to comment.