43 replies to this topic

[iexpectu2die]

Of the two most recent Bond films, which is your favourite of M's assistants?

Personally I'd have loved to see Villiers stay, but Rory Kinnear did a fine job as Tanner

Who do you prefer?

[DamnCoffee]

I liked Tanner. Villers was probably the strongest of the two though.

It just annoyed me that Villiers wasn't even mentioned, considering Quantum of Solace carried on directly from Casino Royale.

[Mr. Somerset]

Tanner, but not quite the Tanner I visualize from the books.

[tdalton]

Just based on what we've seen in the films, I prefer Villiers to Tanner. The Tanner in QUANTUM OF SOLACE doesn't really do a whole lot other than simply walk next to M wherever she goes, whereas Villiers, even when doing those same things, had more memorable scenes with M (for example, the scene in CASINO ROYALE where M and Villiers are walking out of a meeting and she's complaining about how much she missed the Cold War, all while Villiers struggles to keep up).

[MajorB]

I liked Villiers because he always looked a little haggard and overworked, which helped add to M's character as someone tough, driven, uncompromising, and not necessarily easy to work for. It was an added slice of real life. Tanner in QOS seemed very efficient and composed, which seemed a bit less interesting. Not Roy Kinnear's fault--he did a fine job with the part as written, but simply had less to work with than Menzies did.

[DamnCoffee]

I liked Villiers because he always looked a little haggard and overworked, which helped add to M's character as someone tough, driven, uncompromising, and not necessarily easy to work for.

I agree. I love the moment in Casino Royale, when Bond rings him from Miami Airport and he answers the phone and rubs his eyes. He looks really tired.

[Professor Dent]

I'd give the edge to Villers. Tanner seemed to be a little too calm, cool, & collected in Quantum of Solace.

[Jeff007]

Villers was M's Assistant where as Tanner is the Chief of Staff.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Tanner, but more as a Chief of Staff rather than M's secretary as happened in Quantum of Solace

[Tybre]

Villiers. Tanner in QoS to me seemed more like he was there for the sake of having Tanner. Villiers actually added something, even in minor ways, like his clumsily fumbling with things and occasionally falling behind M as M is complaining about how she misses the cold war and the like. And why was Tanner basically playing M's assistant? I know Tanner is technically below M on the chain of command, but only by a peg. Shouldn't he have more important things to do as Chief-of-Staff?

[tdalton]

Villiers. Tanner in QoS to me seemed more like he was there for the sake of having Tanner. Villiers actually added something, even in minor ways, like his clumsily fumbling with things and occasionally falling behind M as M is complaining about how she misses the cold war and the like. And why was Tanner basically playing M's assistant? I know Tanner is technically below M on the chain of command, but only by a peg. Shouldn't he have more important things to do as Chief-of-Staff?

Exactly. Tanner's presence in QUANTUM OF SOLACE didn't really add much to the film, other than to take some speaking parts away from M or other members of her staff that are seen in numerous scenes. I think that the way that Villiers was portrayed also helped to show what kind of a boss M was, as he was always seemed a bit frantic about getting things done as well as he often times seemed tired.

[MattofSteel]

Yeah. I can't really see how one can even make a distinction between the two, considering they were essentially the same character.

Villiers was a bit clumsy, Tanner always looked depressed. I can't say I think Rory Kinnear did a good job, because there wasn't really a job to do. You're right, Tanner was there for the sake of having Tanner. Definite fault of the script - he's supposed to be Bond's best friend in the service, and they didn't even plant the seed in that direction. If anything, they planted the antithesis.

[Matt_13]

Just based on what we've seen in the films, I prefer Villiers to Tanner. The Tanner in QUANTUM OF SOLACE doesn't really do a whole lot other than simply walk next to M wherever she goes, whereas Villiers, even when doing those same things, had more memorable scenes with M (for example, the scene in CASINO ROYALE where M and Villiers are walking out of a meeting and she's complaining about how much she missed the Cold War, all while Villiers struggles to keep up).

This statement reflects my views as well.

[quantumofsolace]

They were both good and both played well by excellent actors.

[tim partridge]

Anyone else think Villers should have been Moneypenny?

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

They were both sound, but I thought Villiers had more about him as a character. Tanner can be a bit robotic at times, whereas Villiers did seem to react to certain things such as seeing Solange's dead body and Bond's cardiac arrest. Tanner never really displayed any significant emotion in Quantum Of Solace, but I suppose he didn't have to deal with as much as Villiers did in Casino Royale. Given that Villiers now seems to be a one-film wonder, I'll welcome Tanner back for Bond 23 definitely, although I still believe Villiers had more to offer.

[Manticore]

Of the two most recent Bond films, which is your favourite of M's assistants?

Personally I'd have loved to see Villiers stay, but Rory Kinnear did a fine job as Tanner

Who do you prefer?

Tanner. But Robinson was far better...

[Righty007]

Tanner. Villiers is a poof.

[Jim]

Tanner. Villiers is a poof.

You write that as if it's a bad thing.

[Righty007]

Tanner. Villiers is a poof.

You write that as if it's a bad thing.

The fact that Villiers is effeminate factored into my decision on which character I prefer, that's all.

If M's going to have a secretary, I want Miss Moneypenny. If M's going to have a Chief of Staff, I want Bill Tanner. Villiers was a dainty hybrid of both characters.

[Jim]

If M's going to have a secretary, I want Miss Moneypenny. If M's going to have a Chief of Staff, I want Bill Tanner. Villiers was a dainty hybrid of both characters.

Is it ever established that either of those characters is heterosexual?

[dee-bee-five]

Anyone else think Villers should have been Moneypenny?

Given that it seemed pretty obvious to me that Villiers was a gay twist on Moneypenny, I liked the change.

Actually, I like Villiers and Tanner and should have liked to see both in Craig's two films.

Villiers is a poof.

And this is a negative, how...?

If M's going to have a secretary, I want Miss Moneypenny. If M's going to have a Chief of Staff, I want Bill Tanner. Villiers was a dainty hybrid of both characters.

Is it ever established that either of those characters is heterosexual?

Hey, maybe Moneypenny and Loelia Ponsonby had a bit of girl-on-girl Pussy 'n Tilly action behind the filing cabinets...?

[Mr. Blofeld]

Anyone else hope we could possibly see both in the next movie, similar to how we got both Michael Kitchen and Colin Salmon in TWINE after each appeared in a single movie beforehand?

[Righty007]

If M's going to have a secretary, I want Miss Moneypenny. If M's going to have a Chief of Staff, I want Bill Tanner. Villiers was a dainty hybrid of both characters.

Is it ever established that either of those characters is heterosexual?

I wasn't saying Villiers is a homosexual, just effeminate. I prefer Bill Tanner because he's a Fleming character with a presumed military background whereas Villiers probably got his job through nepotism. Of course, that's just speculation.

Anyone else hope we could possibly see both in the next movie, similar to how we got both Michael Kitchen and Colin Salmon in TWINE after each appeared in a single movie beforehand?

Bill Tanner and Charles Robinson are Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff, respectively. Charles Robinson was created when Michael Kitchen was unable to sign on to Tomorrow Never Dies.

Villiers is an assistant like Moneypenny so technically we could see both characters (Tanner and Villiers) return in Bond 23 but to compare this situation to the Tanner/Robinson situation is inaccurate.

If they're going to show an assistant and a Chief of Staff, why not just use Miss Moneypenny and Bill Tanner instead of making up dopey characters?

[Mr. Blofeld]

Villiers is an assistant like Moneypenny so technically we could see both characters (Tanner and Villiers) return in Bond 23 but to compare this situation to the Tanner/Robinson situation is inaccurate.

Well, it'd be fun to see them interact, I guess...

[byline]

It's strange, but I felt they were essentially the same character, so I wondered why the renaming/recasting even occurred. There were subtle differences, to be sure, but I just didn't feel they were distinctive enough to call for a completely different character. I could've seen Villiers in Tanner's scenes just as easily as I could've seen Tanner in Villiers'. Does anyone know why, exactly, the change was made?

[Publius]

Bond seemed to hate Villiers...

(paraphrasing)
"Listen, you get her and you do it now!"
"Can I put you on hold?"
"...I thought you might say that."

I liked the potential for that dynamic, taking the job of Moneypenny, only as a wimpy guy instead of a tough woman, but adding the tension Bond used to have with Q. I'd like that almost as much as I like Bond's friendship with Leiter being more testy than in the novels.

[007½]

I preferred Tanner: he seemed a lot more like a civil servant than Villiers. Villiers seemed a lot more like a secretary from a normal company, as opposed to Tanner's air of being a Permanent Secretary (PS- Perm. Sec. is the top civil servant in a government department - see Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister for more info...) Though I do think that Villiers was a better Moneypenny than that woman from the Dalton era. Though Jewel Staite would be better (she even has the BC accent that Lois Maxwell had, rest her soul.)!

[dee-bee-five]

I wasn't saying Villiers is a homosexual, just effeminate.

Er, you called him a "poof". You might as well have called him a "faggot" and had done with it.

I prefer Bill Tanner because he's a Fleming character with a presumed military background whereas Villiers probably got his job through nepotism.

What? Because he's a "poof"? Well, of course he couldn't have got his job any other way, could he? I mean, he couldn't possibly have served in the military, could he..? (That is so wrong, fyi, believe me...)

[Tybre]

I wasn't saying Villiers is a homosexual, just effeminate.

Er, you called him a "poof". You might as well have called him a "faggot" and had done with it.

I prefer Bill Tanner because he's a Fleming character with a presumed military background whereas Villiers probably got his job through nepotism.

What? Because he's a "poof"? Well, of course he couldn't have got his job any other way, could he? I mean, he couldn't possibly have served in the military, could he..? (That is so wrong, fyi, believe me...)

He's not saying homosexuals can't be in the military; leastways that's not how I read it. But I do agree with him there. Villiers doesn't feel like he served in the military. Or if he did, he was probably a desk job. Villiers doesn't seem to me like he's ever killed a man. Still, I do prefer Villiers.