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
Personally, though, if a story featured supporting characters of the MI6 kind that were prominent, I'd rather they were 00's. Someone like Tanner doesn't exactly spike my interest level.
In that sense, I'm excited to see what Nomi brings to the table.
But I won't be surprised if the films of the 7th Bond doesn't have them featuring prominently...might be a return to how they were utilized in Bond's Golden Era.
I don't see any problem with M having a similarly-placed enemy in the Government though. That makes sense to me. I get the feeling if Bernard Lee had gone toe-to-toe with some MI6 mole in the 70s everyone would be raving about it. It was hardly about Tanner, and I think I could say that several Bond supporting characters haven't caught my attention hugely either, but I'm not complaining about them. They do their job.
I'm yet to see anyone describe why it was so bad.
Can I ask why? What is it about him that inspires such confidence?
Yes, it sounds good on paper. And I thought it could be something that a Bond film could do well in the future. Had Bernard Lee's M gone up against a similar antagonist and had it had been done well, the raving would be deserved. As would the raving about it had it been done well in SP.
No, it wasn't about Tanner. It wasn't about Moneypenny either. But they contribute little to nothing to this film in particular and certainly don't contribute anything to the finale in London. They're just kind of.....there. It was a shame for Harris especially as she had such a solid start in the previous film. Kinnear I'm admittedly biased against, as I've never really liked him in the part despite him being a decent actor.
That being said, I still don't find it particularly awful, but it was certainly symptomatic of the half-baked writing/excess problems of SP that these characters were featured in this sequence despite the fact that they don't really do anything, save for Q and M. It's certainly not as offensive a creative choice as some of the other ones made in the film, but it's not one that could be described as being good either.
Perhaps the criticism of the so-called "Scooby-Gang" is a bit overblown, but I can't disagree with it too strongly either. It probably seems more prominent than any other criticisms of supporting characters because Spectre is still the most recent film, and thus still the easiest target.
Yeah, I think Coz he's the first Bond Writer-Director. And he must have watched SP deeply, to figure out what wasn't right. Plus, we've never had Two Badly-Reviewed Bond films in Tandem....especially if Bond has been off-screen for half-a-decade.
I'm just not seeing what's done so badly about it..?
So the issue is that M and Q didn't go on their own? Why would they if Tanner and 'Penny were around? It seems odd to make complaints about the 'Scooby Gang' (ho-ho) being present and then to complain that the gang members didn't get enough to do.
I totally agree that Moneypenny could have easily handled more plot, she's great, but that's not really a reason for not having her in it; that's a complaint that she wasn't in it enough.
I'm just not understanding the nature of the objection.
As I said, it's a criticism that's a bit overblown, but I also get it at the same time. They are featured more prominently than previous supporting characters were.
I disagree that it's a complaint that she wasn't in it enough. She has plenty of screentime in SP for the type of character that she is, more screentime wouldn't have solved the issues for people, considering it would have likely just been more of the same under the circumstances. The stuff she did have just needed to be better written, as did the film as a whole.
https://siouxcityjournal.com/entertainment/television/rory-kinnear-picks-another-penny-dreadful-and-bond-james-bond/article_7f4b6a92-5e1a-53a4-9fa5-5f462c490776.html
Had the world not been thrust in the midst of a coronavirus pandemic, the 44-year-old might have been spending this month promoting “No Time To Die,” the latest James Bond film. Slated for April release, it was pushed to the fall when audiences are expected to be back in theaters.
For Kinnear, an Olivier Award-winning stage actor, “No Time To Die” is his fourth Bond film. He plays Bill Tanner, the MI6 chief of staff.
“Everyone is super-excited to see it,” he says. “The fact that there was so much flux around it before we went in to shoot it just added to that. It was amazing to see how calm and organized the whole process was.”
Oscar winner Danny Boyle was scheduled to write and direct but left due to creative differences. He was replaced by Cary Joji Fukunaga.
“If Danny had been the director, it would have been taken in a whole new direction,” Kinnear says. “I never got to see that version of the script. I don’t know if it would have been about the MI6 gang, so I feel always very lucky you get the call saying, ‘We’re having you back.’”
Star Daniel Craig is perfect for the franchise, he says. “He proves very useful to the writers in terms of supporting the plot without having to necessarily show everything.”
While Craig says this is his last Bond, Kinnear doesn’t think he’s bluffing. “I don’t see him coming back again. Also, he’s 51.”
Could the veteran character actor get the part? “There’s always space at the top table,” he says with a smile. “(Craig) got in trouble for being blond. Imagine a bald actor being cast. I think the world would stop.”
I don't think Spectre was superb either and I get that she should have had better stuff to do, but again, that's not really the same as this 'Scooby Gang' complaint people have been trotting out. I thought M got some good material. The ending was good for him and I liked the restaurant scene. Q was handled pretty well too I'd say.
Bear in mind this whole conversation has sprung up just because people reacted to a photograph of the MI6 team standing... in MI6. It's one of these automatic responses like 'I don't like Bond having any sort of personal involvement in the mission' which I'm not sure people are even thinking about any more because then they say how great it was when Bond's wife died in OHMSS or when Q went on the mission in LTK.
And yeah, I liked Q and I liked Fiennes take on M as well so I've no problems there. I certainly think it's funny that it's a complaint that is rolled out when Spectre has far bigger problems than that.
Yes, saw this other day. Thank you for putting it in the thread!
Me as well. She would be a good way to difference Bond 7 from the others. Forever and a day, adaptation, perhaps?
I think that's a bit of a disingenuous argument. I don't think people have an issue with Bond being personally involved in missions, so much as the retconning in SP makes him the centre of the whole universe. Targeting Bond because he disrupted Spectre's previous plans is one thing, but the coincidence of him also growing up with Blofeld was too much in my opinion.
Oh I really think they do.
Yes that's fair enough, I don't think that can be defended! :)
Naar welke uitgestelde bioscoopfilm kijkt u het meest uit?
7% Minions: The Rise of Gru
37% James Bond: No Time to Die
3% A Quiet Place: Part II
14% Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald
6% Top Gun: Maverick
33% Andere film
Source: GFK.
Probably because it's the single most annoying, stupidest dynamic Bond writers have come up with.
The mythos and the so called formula had Bond going through several stages of prep to go on a mission. That's where the Mi6 employees came in. It was, simply put, marvellous. You could change the story, the themes, but not Bond, and not those stages of prep. The "let's kill the formula", "let's shake things up" crowed ruined that, probably for good.
Now, we have Bond with ear devices, Moneypenny's fridge talk, Q-mini portable labs, the "gang" in a car, ... Undeniably influenced by the MI films.
I miss seeing Bond, alone, to his own devices, in a remote part of the world, preferably for most of the film, soaking in the culture and the escapism.
Don't get me wrong, I love Fiennes as M. And the rest of the cast. Hey, wanna make them go in the field? Then have Mallory show his old army skills alongside Bond in an adventure to clear up some old trouble of his. At least you'd have someone the caliber of Fiennes having some repertoire with Bond, as they often did in the books. Take Moonraker and their bridge game at Blades. Oh, so many lost opportunities...
I was so scared for Sean Connery's Bond in FRWL....coz he was all alone on that train.
I agree with every single word of this. Well said.
No it's definitely the term made up by Bond fans that's more annoying.
How did you not get that in Spectre and Skyfall? They went out of their way to give you that, the gang you find so offensive actually ensured that Bond couldn't be traced by his smart blood as he went to Blofeld's lair. Like it or not, the world is full of mobile comms devices. For Bond not to have any would be bizarre.
What you're complaining about so tiresomely is a, what, two minute scene of them driving through a tunnel in London at the end of Spectre, from where Bond is rapidly removed and left... what's that? On his own and left to his own devices?
Do you hate it when Q turns up in LTK out of interest?
So, let's see if I can answer to all of that, shall we? ;)
1) If you find a term made up by Bond fans annoying, then you should revise your status in the forums, you see, fans coining terms to show their liking of disliking of their fandom is normal. And quite fun. "brothergate"; the 3 letter film (LTK, QOS,...);... are all examples of fans being fans. Besides, the term "Scooby Gang" is used by multiple fans in multiple forums, that can't be an outlier, your opinion, on the other hand, is, and there's no problem with that, as each of us has theirs.
2)SF's beginning was all about the earpiece and the team dynamic, I get that. But the single best scene of all the film (and I love the film, so I'm exaggerating here) is when Bond throws his earpiece into the champagne glass. I wanted to cheer. I have no complains about SF, as it gave me that escapism sense I was talking about for the most part. Specially in Silva's island, where he depended on a tiny radio alone. SP on the other hand had a car chase interrupted by Moneypenny's nightly activities, Q showing up in Austria, A secretary of the head of intelligence meeting with a pubescent Quartermaster and said head of intelligence to conspire to help their buddy Bond.
3) Most films since CR skipped formulaic elements, even those elements that worked in order to make a Bond film a unique and incomparable experience. Mostly to a good effect, but the "anti formula" aspect gets it wrong because they think a hardcore Bond like Craig can't be put into it. The truth is, you could have a Connery tough Bond, a Moore light Bond, a Dalton serious Bond, all inside that formula of events. They all worked. The so called formula was never the problem. Their take on Bond was. The problem was always feeling ashamed of a hardcore Spy thriller that used to make no excuses regarding where it came from and what it stood for.
4) "Like it or not, the world is full of mobile comms devices. For Bond not to have any would be bizarre", you said. Well, that would be Bond to a tee. The world changes, Bond does not. He likes to do things the old way (Love SF for that, really do).
5) "Do you hate it when Q turns up in LTK out of interest?" - I do, I really do hate it. Always thought it was ridiculous, to say the least.
6) "What you're complaining about so tiresomely" - I am not. I made one or two commentaries about it. Chill.
7) On a final note, I get it that Bond is influenced by other franchises throughout the times. And I'm very much appreciative of Craig's era. I am, after all, his fan as Bond, as I was of Dalton and Brosnan before him. I wished I lived throughout Connery's and Moore's eras. But we have to get out of this Bourne/24h/gritty stuff and find our own niche. And that's in espionage and escapism, exoticism and class, not in earpieces, spy teams, fellow agents, ... Other spy/action franchises are all about that. Bond is different, and the bits I love about the recent things are expressions of this. The few other bits that indulge these team dynamics I'm critical of, I don't find them particularly alluring. Yes, I don't like to know about other 00s. That was the mythos. Not knowing of them. It seems we live in a mythos-destructive fase, where remakes are done endlessly to break apart well established things. There's no true innovation. And there's no respect for the past.
That being said, good talk @mtm ;)
+1