No Time To Die: Production Diary

144454749502563

Comments

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited February 2016 Posts: 15,534
    But if Kinnear as Tinnear was omitted from the films, we wouldn't get all these wonderful complaints from @TheWizardOfIce about him.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 35,383
    But if Kinnear as Tinnear was omitted from the films, we wouldn't get all these wonderful complaints from @TheWizardOfIce about him.

    "That, I'm afraid, is inevitable."
  • Posts: 13,398
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Yeah Kinnear is a good actor, I think it's just a case that Tanner in the Craig films is such a non-character to begin with.

    Perhaps youre right and I'm being harsh - but then thats what I do isnt it?

    I saw Rory's Hamlet at the National Theatre. He was simply superb. Four hours he commanded the stage and it was one of the most compelling stage performances I had seen for a very long time.

    The problem is, as already mentioned here, Rory has nothing much to work with on the Bonds. I've met Rory a few times in social situations (lovely fella) and when we were chatting he told me that making his character Tanner was a late decision and an idea of Wade and Purvis who wanted to add another character from the books in QOS.

    That's why I don't think Tanner should be recast.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    In terms of Bond allies, I'd rather Felix make a big return in 'Bond 25' and either lose/replace Tanner altogether. As has been stated, he really doesn't contribute a whole lot in the films, don't think they'd be terribly different if he was omitted.

    Maybe the reason why Tanner has been more present is precisely because they couldn't fit Felix Leiter in SF and SP? Just an hypothesis.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited February 2016 Posts: 35,383
    @Ludovico, considering they mentioned him in SP, it could've been fitting to have him included in a scene (perhaps he arrives with some men to rescue Lucia before Bond sets off for the Spectre meeting). Lately, Tanner has been there to tell us things we already know or had an idea of. He doesn't have anything to offer.

    Instead of having him saunter around in the background, bring back Felix and his cool attitude to get into some trouble with Bond in the field.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    As I understand it, Leiter was actually in the early versions of Spectr
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    edited February 2016 Posts: 2,044
    As I understand it, Leiter was actually in the early versions of Spectre. One line that he had was when he mentioned how he thought Moneypenny was a "foxy lady".
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,417
    I have to agree on Tanner. We haven't gotten an iota of the Tanner from the books, and all he really served to do in QoS and SF was being M's lackey and nothing else. He also leaves M very much out in the open during the inquiry shooting, and if Mallory hadn't been there she'd have been dead in seconds. He's never truly shown his use, either in intelligence gathering or dependability, to be honest. And yes, as others have said, I could never in a million years seen Dan's Bond being around him after hours in a pub.

    I feel like EON are now trying to address Tanner's lack of use by making the character a bigger part of the action, like in the early drafts of SP. The problem is that by trying to make him a bigger part of the movie than he should be, you resort to making stupid decisions that defy his character and make him nearly unrecognizable. Some may know from early SP drafts that Tanner was intended to be the big mole within MI6. From what I read, this villainized him a fair bit, and made him into someone we wouldn't recognize as being the same understated, sometimes ditzy Tanner.

    I'd rather they just wrote him out instead of trying to alter who his character has been all this time. We already had to deal with a significant amount of retconning in SP already to make the CR-QoS-SF connections work, so to then also have to believe that Tanner was a backstabber all this time would be too much to take.

    If I had my way I'd have had a scene at the beginning of SP when Bond is back in London with Tanner saying goodbye, stating that M's passing took it all out of him and he needed to resign promptly. I think it would have been a far greater, more interesting use of him than the few shots we got of him following Bond and Q around like a cow to slaughter.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited February 2016 Posts: 9,117
    I have to agree on Tanner. We haven't gotten an iota of the Tanner from the books, and all he really served to do in QoS and SF was being M's lackey and nothing else. He also leaves M very much out in the open during the inquiry shooting, and if Mallory hadn't been there she'd have been dead in seconds. He's never truly shown his use, either in intelligence gathering or dependability, to be honest. And yes, as others have said, I could never in a million years seen Dan's Bond being around him after hours in a pub.

    I feel like EON are now trying to address Tanner's lack of use by making the character a bigger part of the action, like in the early drafts of SP. The problem is that by trying to make him a bigger part of the movie than he should be, you resort to making stupid decisions that defy his character and make him nearly unrecognizable. Some may know from early SP drafts that Tanner was intended to be the big mole within MI6. From what I read, this villainized him a fair bit, and made him into someone we wouldn't recognize as being the same understated, sometimes ditzy Tanner.

    I'd rather they just wrote him out instead of trying to alter who his character has been all this time. We already had to deal with a significant amount of retconning in SP already to make the CR-QoS-SF connections work, so to then also have to believe that Tanner was a backstabber all this time would be too much to take.

    If I had my way I'd have had a scene at the beginning of SP when Bond is back in London with Tanner saying goodbye, stating that M's passing took it all out of him and he needed to resign promptly. I think it would have been a far greater, more interesting use of him than the few shots we got of him following Bond and Q around like a cow to slaughter.

    I've only just thought about it but perhaps the reason he nearly let M get shot in SF was because he's a baddie?? You see its all brilliantly connected not the botch retcon job people think.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=bxU2eqZtYmc

    I agree about writing him out but consider he has had so little impact he doesnt even deserve a line, let alone a scene, explaining why. Apart from the fact he's now popped up in 3 films hes replaceable as Villiers. Tobias Menzies he is more memorable in 1 film than Rory has been in 3 and no one explained why he didnt come back.

    But to be honest the character is largely redundant if you ask me. Even in the books he only ever pops his head round the office door and says 'fancy a chat later James?'

    In film, which is a leaner and more stripped down medium, its M's job to do the exposition which leaves us asking just what is the point of Tanner? And honestly I cant think of one.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 15,063
    I don't think that Tanner's given very much to do in the Craig films either. Michael Kitchen was the best Tanner by a long shot.
  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    Posts: 3,139
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I don't think that Tanner's given very much to do in the Craig films either. Michael Kitchen was the best Tanner by a long shot.
    Hear hear .
  • Posts: 1,083
    I'm fine with Tanner staying. Yes, he needs more to do but he's been a good wedge between Bond and M thus far. If he had a larger part people would complain about that. With a smaller part as is... people complain about that. The poor guy can't win. :-$
  • Posts: 1,497
    Who is this Tanner character everyone is talking about? I kid, but really he was more or less a background character. They could have swapped that role with someone else, called him Banner and it wouldn't have made a difference.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2016 Posts: 4,585
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    I quite like what they've done with Ben Whishaw's Q. But I would be happy for Moneypenny and Q to disappear from the series. Llewelyn made the part his own - and the whole 'we don't really go in for that anymore' pretty much makes the character redundant. I think they need to decide if they do or don't want to have gadgets in the Bonds films now. I mean they still have gadgets in M:I films so why this, oh everyone has an iphone now so gadgets are redundant?

    I'd have liked it if they'd kept Villiers and had Loelia Ponsonby instead of Moneypenny.

    I quite agree. Tobias Menzies was inspired casting; they caught him early-ish in his career as well and he's only gone up since then.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    The thing about Tanner is that, I like Rory Kinnear in the role. But, in Spectre he didn't really seem to do much. I admit, he's behaving more like a pawn under authority from a superior without being three dimensional in the Craig era than he was during the Brosnan era. Michael Kitchen's Tanner had more characterization to him than being a secondary presence in the background as "MI6's chief of staff".

    That said, I also liked James Villiers' authority figure Tanner who behaves like he's M in For Your Eyes Only. I like that presence about him as he criticizes 007's downpoints of his assignment in Spain during the Gonzalez case.
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,633
    I'm just going to mention, I really like Whishaw and hope he stays after B25. They didn't switch Qs up until 1999, so I think maybe he's got a chance.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 267
    I wish they'd kept the guy who played Villiers in CR as opposed to bringing on Kinnear as Tanner, but Kinnear hasn't been given much to work with.

    I'd love to see a sequence in a Bond film that is relaxed - something like Bond & Tanner playing golf or cards. Kinnear's Tanner has basically just been a guy who gets orders from M and has no real personality. Kitchen was perfect in the role without being given a whole lot to do either. I think Damien Lewis would be great in a role like Tanner or as a new Leiter down the road.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,585
    I'm just going to mention, I really like Whishaw and hope he stays after B25. They didn't switch Qs up until 1999, so I think maybe he's got a chance.

    Cleese:Lazenby::Whishaw:Moore.
  • Why on earth would they want to replace the supporting cast? :-/
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,409
    I want them to keep the current supporting actors as is for a few more films; I like them a lot. That's just how I feel. I realize Tanner is a loose end, not really needed; but Rory K. is a fine actor so that's not a negative against his talent. What I hope is that Fiennes stays for a few more, not just one - and bring back Leiter. I really like J. Wright as Felix. Bring him back at least for the rest Craig's films. But the other cast I could see transitioning to a new Bond, sure.
  • Posts: 1,083
    Yeah, Wright is great. I got pumped when Bond mentioned him in SP. He should come back for Bond 25 for sure.
  • walter1985walter1985 Rotterdam
    edited February 2016 Posts: 91
    i remember Harris saying that she stays as long as Craig stays. Whishaw said he wants to stay as long as the producers let him.
  • Posts: 8,924
    I am hoping the supporting cast stays on honestly as really if for argument sake lets say Hiddleston is the next bond starting in 2022 him taking orders from Fienne's M gadgets from Wishaw's Q talking to Kinner's Tanner and flirting with Harris's moneypenny wouldn't seem completely out of place would it? Moore and Lazenby both had good chemistry with Harris Lee and Desmond Llewelyn, Dalton worked fine with Brown and Llewelyn and Brosnan did great with Desmond Llewelyn and honestly Craig did a better job with Dench then Brosnan in my opinion. I say let them stay as long as they can physically do the job and are ok with returning.

    As for the next one I posted this in Mission impossible and realize it could work here. I would like to see the ramification of an organization where the head is incarcerated. again rarely to spy films deal with the fallout of an organization for example Tomorrow Never Dies didn't deal with the fall out of Janus losing it's head even though there is no way every single janus agent was killed by the end of goldeneye. I would Argue the same is true with Spectre there was a room filled with spectre agents and yet Blofeld is arrested and we are still going to focus on him?

    I am curious if the film at least partially focused in on the fallout of an organization without a head?
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited February 2016 Posts: 1,725
    I'm sold on Fiennes as M, the guy is just a class act and does the part due justice, whilst being very Fleming'esque.
    I could take or leave Whishaw and Harris, however... difficult to put my finger on what I don't like about their Q & Moneypenny respectively, but I find their parts a bit too over-written - they are far too 'posed', if you know what I mean. They seem to overthink their performance too much.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    AceHole wrote: »
    I'm sold on Fiennes as M, the guy is just a class act and does the part due justice, whilst being very Fleming'esque.
    I could take or leave Whishaw and Harris, however... difficult to put my finger on what I don't like about their Q & Moneypenny respectively, but I find their parts a bit too over-written - they are far too 'posed', if you know what I mean. They seem to overthink their performance too much.
    Thank you.
  • Posts: 4,431
    IMHO , SF showed what great potential Fiennes has as M and with Spectre, he was lacking a worthy character to lock horns with. Given the right script, he has the potential to come up with one or two iconic scenes that will be remembered forever.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    IMHO , SF showed what great potential Fiennes has as M and with Spectre, he was lacking a worthy character to lock horns with. Given the right script, he has the potential to come up with one or two iconic scenes that will be remembered forever.
    Fully agree. He was brilliant in SF when paired with Dench/Craig. His talents were wasted on 'C'. The dialogue was cringe worthy in addition. Moreover, he seemed overly angry (particularly in the opening office scene with Bond). I wish they had written it a different way to suggest more trust and warmth in that opening scene (following on from what was built during SF). It may have endeared him more to me.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
    In Bond 25 and following outings I want the whole M angry at Bond, M doesn't trust Bond, Moneypenny doesn't trust Bond stuff to end. The only trust issues I want to see is Q being sure that Bond will destroy the gadgets on the field.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,725
    In Bond 25 and following outings I want the whole M angry at Bond, M doesn't trust Bond, Moneypenny doesn't trust Bond stuff to end. The only trust issues I want to see is Q being sure that Bond will destroy the gadgets on the field.

    Quite. The trust between M and Bond was vital in the books, MR (novel) being the best example of this. Cinematic Bond is long overdue a proper Blades' scene with those two, and Fiennes + Craig seem the ideal combo to put that MR chapter to film...
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 4,431
    When this clip came out, I hated it and, rightly, many fans said not to pre-judge it. But IMHO, rarely do you see one actor so clearly out of his depth (and not helped by the dialogue) and another actor with so much class and ability but just being wasted. He needs someone with real gravitas and weight to play against.


    in contrast his line "don't cock it up" is a highlight within SF.
    He is so wonderfully English that you wonder if there is potential for him to go up against Felix's boss or similar character from USA with an under-current of culture clash . Someone like Alec Baldwin who has real menace about him (but too late as MI got him)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    When this clip came out, I hated it and, rightly, many fans said not to pre-judge it. But IMHO, rarely do you see one actor so clearly out of his depth (and not helped by the dialogue) and another actor with so much class and ability but just being wasted. He needs someone with real gravitas and weight to play against.


    in contrast his line "don't cock it up" is a highlight within SF.
    He is so wonderfully English that you wonder if there is potential for him to go up against Felix's boss or similar character from USA with an under-current of culture clash . Someone like Alec Baldwin who has real menace about him (but too late as MI got him)

    And to think people were still insisting post-SP that Scott would've made a better ESB than Waltz. It's just laughable. There was a discussion the other day about having a peer from an international agency for him to go up against (in fact Gogol was mentioned) which I would welcome. I'd love to see Fiennes going toe to toe with another heavy-weight actor.
Sign In or Register to comment.