72 replies to this topic

[Ducki]

Is it just me or as the films are now direct sequels of each other, would it be interesting to see where Q and Moneypenny come in, there introduction to Bond, thier past? And what about a new SPECTRE, not like the early films, but like that of the books? Anyone care to share thier views?

[DominicGreene]

Q could come in as a techie they hired and money penny could come in because M's last assistant has gone bad and tried to sell secrets.

[volante]

Maybe we are missing a trick.

All the Quantum members proudly wear the letter Q on the lapels

[Ducki]

I like what both of you have said there, with M's secretary gone Moneypenny could fill the void, and I never picked up on the Quantum badge in that respect. Clever!

[The Shark]

Maybe we are missing a trick.

All the Quantum members proudly wear the letter Q on the lapels

Yes they work for Quantum, but perhaps the highest echelon of Quantum is in fact SPECTRE, the puppet masters of the Quantumers. Who pull the strings and get rid of any associates they deem traitorous.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Maybe we are missing a trick.

All the Quantum members proudly wear the letter Q on the lapels

Yes they work for Quantum, but perhaps the highest echelon of Quantum is in fact SPECTRE, the puppet masters of the Quantumers. Who pull the strings and get rid of any associates they deem traitorous.

No. Just... no.

[Ducki]

Maybe we are missing a trick.

All the Quantum members proudly wear the letter Q on the lapels
Yes they work for Quantum, but perhaps the highest echelon of Quantum is in fact SPECTRE, the puppet masters of the Quantumers. Who pull the strings and get rid of any associates they deem traitorous.
No. Just... no.

I actually quite like that idea, maybe a bit extreme but interesting non the less. Probably wouldnt happen though

[DamnCoffee]

I would love for Moneypenny to be sent on assignment to help Bond with something, possible a computer cracking programme or something.

They hit it off immediately, but when they come to have sex, they are rudely intterupted and Moneypenny is sent back to London for her own safety.

This would explain the sexual tension considering they never did get to 'do it.'

[Safari Suit]

They hit it off immediately, but when they come to have sex, they are rudely intterupted and Moneypenny is sent back to London for her own safety.

This would explain the sexual tension considering they never did get to 'do it.'

No offence, as this is not actually a bad idea per say, but I really hope they stay away from that kind of stuff. I hate it when they have cutsey "origin" explanations for this which just don't need explaining.

[Zorin Industries]

The only way MONEYPENNY could be progressive rather than deadwood is if - like MHarkin suggests - she is the Bond Girl in the field. It would be wholly fresh and original for BOND and MONEYPENNY to share a sort of Rock Hudson / Doris Day PILLOW TALK "will they or won't they" relationship, banter and verbal oneupmanship. But it leaves an odd note for any future films, so isn't really viable. Besides, the thinking behind BOND and MONEYPENNY is that they spent a weekend in a cottage somewhere together but it was long ago. As the new films have not reset the counter as much as the fans on CBN think they have (usually the ones who bleat on about OHMSS and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE remakes - as they didn't do that bit or that bit wasn't done right), it would be near impossible to have a character in this new Bond's life who he has got history with. It just doesn't sit with the tone.

MONEYPENNY is not necessary anymore. Neither is Q. The series has moved on. We are not in that era of nods to the past - which is why the series has finally progressed at last. Bringing back deadwood represents regression the series does not need anymore. Nor can it perhaps survive much more of.

We are not in that 1960's debutante world anymore where the country was inadvertently run by MONEYPENNYS and ex-Army chaps handy with concealing a knife in a cigarette box.

If Daniel Craig's BOND has a MONEYPENNY there needs to be serious motivation and reason for it. And right now I cannot see any beyond pleasing the historians.

Maybe M could have a very metrosexual younger male assistant for Craig to throw the puppy eyes at? Now there's a thought....!

[Loomis]

She is not necessary anymore. Neither is Q.

Yet M is, I suppose? And I trust you have no problem with Tanner? It would be, IMO, perfectly possible to have a Moneypenny and/or Q scene in BOND 23 that was well-written, well-executed and well-acted and did not feel unnecessary or embarrassing. There is nothing inherently good or bad about these characters - it's all in the handling.

After all, Villiers could easily have been Moneypenny (with a small bit of rewriting, natch - Bond's relationship with the character would not have been as prickly, and the animosity would have been replaced by some sexual tension) and no one would have left the cinema groaning or saying that the Bond series had become a parody of a parody of a parody. If they did, then they're probably not the sort of people who should be watching Bond anyway (I have a friend who cannot and will not tolerate Bond in any way, shape or form).

Why don't we get rid of the gunbarrel altogether? No James Bond Theme, not even during the closing credits. Junk the opening title sequences. Why have any more songs?

[Safari Suit]

The only way MONEYPENNY could be progressive rather than deadwood is if - like MHarkin suggests - she is the Bond Girl in the field. It would be wholly fresh and original for BOND and MONEYPENNY to share a sort of Rock Hudson / Doris Day PILLOW TALK "will they or won't they" relationship, banter and verbal oneupmanship. But it leaves an odd note for any future films, so isn't really viable.

OK, interesting but make sure they stay a fair way away from "will". Otherwise, it will be naff. Naff, naff, naff, naff, naff. But I agree if the character has to be brought back that would be an interesting way to do it.

[Zorin Industries]

M is needed as she is a device of exposition and narrative motivation. And the audience needs to see BOND with a superior he trusts. It's part of the hierarchy of the story. Throwing in MONEYPENNY and Q throws in all sorts of dead-end tangents that serve no purpose in furthering the story.

[Loomis]

Throwing in MONEYPENNY and Q throws in all sorts of dead-end tangents that serve no purpose in furthering the story.

Is that also true of "throwing in" Villiers, then?

Like I say, it's all in the handling. You seem to be dismissing the very idea of Moneypenny and Q under any circumstances. Those of us who wouldn't mind seeing their return (if executed suitably well) aren't just luddites who crave corny jokes and Q saying "Grow up, Double-O Seven!" every two minutes, y'know.

It's like this: I wouldn't mind seeing the return of Blofeld. But only if played by Michael Sheen (not a rumour I believe in, but I think it would be pretty cool if true). I'm not asking for someone who Looks Like Blofeld™, or for a white cat. Same deal with my continuing interest in Moneypenny and Q. Just because I'm expressing interest in these characters it doesn't follow that I necessarily just want to see them in corny, "classic" form.

[Zorin Industries]

She is not necessary anymore. Neither is Q.

Yet M is, I suppose? And I trust you have no problem with Tanner? It would be, IMO, perfectly possible to have a Moneypenny and/or Q scene in BOND 23 that was well-written, well-executed and well-acted and did not feel unnecessary or embarrassing. There is nothing inherently good or bad about these characters - it's all in the handling.

After all, Villiers could easily have been Moneypenny (with a small bit of rewriting, natch - Bond's relationship with the character would not have been as prickly, and the animosity would have been replaced by some sexual tension) and no one would have left the cinema groaning or saying that the Bond series had become a parody of a parody of a parody. If they did, then they're probably not the sort of people who should be watching Bond anyway (I have a friend who cannot and will not tolerate Bond in any way, shape or form).

Why don't we get rid of the gunbarrel altogether? No James Bond Theme, not even during the closing credits. Junk the opening title sequences. Why have any more songs?

Sorry Loomis, but I strongly disagree here.

VILLIERS cannot just be rewritten to be a MONEYPENNY. What is the point of that? VILLIERS himself was cut away from SOLACE. Why bring back a MONEYPENNY replacement who was replaced by TANNER (who does have a purpose - Fleming cites him as one of BOND's best friends and confidantes). It's about dynamics and the timbre of the gender play on offer.

"Sexual tension"? What "sexual tension" does Craig need? He is a Bond of confidence, masculinity and agility, not a chap of the English realm who loves the young fillies but is cautious of them.

The gunbarrel and title song are part of the dressing of Bond films. Take them away and you have nothing but another action film (sort of). As two VERY successful Bond films have now proved, take away Q and MONEYPENNY and no-one notices. Gunbarrels and title sequences also have a function, a necessity. Not sure the deadwood does.

Throwing in MONEYPENNY and Q throws in all sorts of dead-end tangents that serve no purpose in furthering the story.

Is that also true of "throwing in" Villiers, then?

Like I say, it's all in the handling. You seem to be dismissing the very idea of Moneypenny and Q under any circumstances. Those of us who wouldn't mind seeing their return (if executed suitably well) aren't just luddites who crave corny jokes and Q saying "Grow up, Double-O Seven!" every two minutes, y'know.

It's like this: I wouldn't mind seeing the return of Blofeld. But only if played by Michael Sheen (not a rumour I believe in, but I think it would be pretty cool if true). I'm not asking for someone who Looks Like Blofeld™, or for a white cat. Same deal with my continuing interest in Moneypenny and Q. Just because I'm expressing interest in these characters it doesn't follow that I necessarily just want to see them in corny, "classic" form.

Fine.

MONEYPENNY and Q have been condensed into TANNER and M. It took all of the Brosnan films for the writers and producers to see that. That is not a criticism but having more MI6 staff in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY seriously eroded the central role and drive of BOND himself to the point when the audience asks "do they even need BOND?".

If you want "sexual tension" it's there between Dench and Craig (to a very subtle, cautious degree). It is no coincidence BOND keeps calling M when she is in bed or in the bathroom. It is certainly more "tension" than "sexual tension" and I'm not suggesting M wants to share a Slow Boat To Pinewood with BOND, but the mainstay female relationship BOND has "at the office" has always been with Judi Dench / M. Which is why even in the 1990's Samantha Bond (as spikey and as lovely as she was) had nowhere to go apart from Benny Hill gags about cunnilingus, cigars and virtual reality fantasies straight out of RED DWARF.

[Loomis]

VILLIERS cannot just be rewritten to be a MONEYPENNY. What is the point of that?

Well, you may as well ask what the point is of Villiers as a character in CASINO ROYALE. And why could the role not have been rewritten as Moneypenny?

Or, to put the question differently, why could CASINO ROYALE not have accommodated a female secretary for M? It accommodates a male secretary for M, but what in particular does Villiers bring to the film that could not have been accomplished by an actress in that role?

Why bring back a MONEYPENNY replacement who was replaced by TANNER (who does have a purpose - Fleming cites him as one of BOND's best friends and confidantes).

You'd be very hard pushed to tell from QUANTUM OF SOLACE that Tanner was one of Bond's best friends and confidants. That's not at all how he's portrayed in the film. He's just a stiff-assed stuffed shirt at MI6 who's there to make M look clever ("He's a person of extreme interest, Tanner....").

Calling the character played by Rory Kinnear Tanner is precisely the kind of fanboy Fleming box-ticking you yourself decry. The character might as well have been named Hopkinson or Markowitz.

That is not a criticism but having more MI6 staff in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY seriously eroded the central role and drive of BOND himself to the point when the audience asks "do they even need BOND?".

Again, you appear to be assuming that I want to see MI6 overmanned with useless characters a la TWINE's groaning banquet of Robinson, Tanner, Moneypenny, Q, R and Dr Whatshername. Being open to the possible return of Q and/or Moneypenny does not mean that I necessarily crave the wholesale abandonment of restraint and good judgement from the filmmakers. It does not necessarily mean that I want CARRY ON BOND.

If you want "sexual tension" it's there between Dench and Craig (to a very subtle, cautious degree). It is no coincidence BOND keeps calling M when she is in bed or in the bathroom.

I don't want sexual tension (subtle or otherwise) between Bond and a 70-year-old who could pass for his mother. It's repulsive.

[The Shark]

M is needed as she is a device of exposition and narrative motivation. And the audience needs to see BOND with a superior he trusts. It's part of the hierarchy of the story. Throwing in MONEYPENNY and Q throws in all sorts of dead-end tangents that serve no purpose in furthering the story.

It's a sad world, when everything has to have the modus vivendi of efficiently "furthering the story" or otherwise it's unnecessary and should be dropped. When you get rid of everything but the bare bones of a spy thriller you get QOS, a film that's feels embarrassed to be a Bond movie, and plays like it was soullessly directed by a robot.

Bond movies, and especially Fleming's novels, were often about enjoying the frivolities of life - food, drink, culture, society and sex - under the framework of pulpy spy-adventure novels. Take that away, and it becomes just another breakneck espionage thriller. These "tangents" you detest were more often than not, the building blocks for expressing Bond's character and how he interacts with the world. Just because they're not post-menopausal exposition devices doesn't mean they just got rid of as deadwood.

Take away the gun barrel and title sequences, as you rightly note, and you take away the dressing of Bond films. Take away Monepenny and Q for one "Bond Begins" film, and also nobody notices, due to it's freshness after the stagnant Brosnan era. The film ends, and much like the source novels, Bond mutters "The bitch is dead", licks his wounds, and moves on. Later he shoots Mr. White and says the immortal words. Like the CR and LALD, Bond doesn't have time to worry about answers and finding closure for Vesper. Fans are ready for Bond to return, and become more "Bond-like" after CR.
Thanks to Forster, the reset button's pressed, and Bond's sent back to an even more "un-Bondlike" form, resembling more of a 70s spy thriller than a Bond novel or film. Like Pavlov's dogs not receiving a positive stimulus when expected - fans and critics feel betrayed and disheartened that they didn't get the Bond film that they wanted, after Casino Royale.
More likely than not fans wanted a more classical Bond film, with the usual dressing such as Moneypenny, Q, gadgets, humour, class and sex. They expected a progression after Casino Royale, when what they got was a regression.

You may not miss Moneypenny or Q, but judging the responses to QOS, most fans, moviegoers and critics seem to, along with other "tangents".

However, I do agree with you on Moneypenny having a different role, along with other Fleming character such as Ponsonby and Goodnight. They could something like oversees Case Officers or UK based Report officers. Occasionally there are secretaries here and there, sot that shouldn't ruled out.

Cheers.

The Shark.

[Zorin Industries]

VILLIERS cannot just be rewritten to be a MONEYPENNY. What is the point of that?

Well, you may as well ask what the point is of Villiers as a character in CASINO ROYALE. And why could the role not have been rewritten as Moneypenny?

Or, to put the question differently, why could CASINO ROYALE not have accommodated a female secretary for M? It accommodates a male secretary for M, but what in particular does Villiers bring to the film that could not have been accomplished by an actress in that role?

Why bring back a MONEYPENNY replacement who was replaced by TANNER (who does have a purpose - Fleming cites him as one of BOND's best friends and confidantes).

You'd be very hard pushed to tell from QUANTUM OF SOLACE that Tanner was one of Bond's best friends and confidants. That's not at all how he's portrayed in the film. He's just a stiff-assed stuffed shirt at MI6 who's there to make M look clever ("He's a person of extreme interest, Tanner....").

I disagree. They cast high with Rory Kinnear who you believed from the start of SOLACE would be on M's side without it coming into question or negotiation. Bond films need that. It's not about stuffed shirts making M look clever - which Ms Dench does quite well on her own.

Calling the character played by Rory Kinnear Tanner is precisely the kind of fanboy Fleming box-ticking you yourself decry. The character might as well have been named Hopkinson or Markowitz.

Er no - the producers made a conscious decision to name Rory Kinnear's character TANNER. It is about trust. Bond trusted the TANNER of the books and Eon Productions trust Ian Flemings character allocation.

That is not a criticism but having more MI6 staff in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY seriously eroded the central role and drive of BOND himself to the point when the audience asks "do they even need BOND?".

Again, you appear to be assuming that I want to see MI6 overmanned with useless characters a la TWINE's groaning banquet of Robinson, Tanner, Moneypenny, Q, R and Dr Whatshername. Being open to the possible return of Q and/or Moneypenny does not mean that I necessarily crave the wholesale abandonment of restraint and good judgement from the filmmakers. It does not necessarily mean that I want CARRY ON BOND.

I agree with you here. But TANNER was not superfluous. He was necessary. M is globetrotting and the "office" needs someone the audience and BOND trusts.

If you want "sexual tension" it's there between Dench and Craig (to a very subtle, cautious degree). It is no coincidence BOND keeps calling M when she is in bed or in the bathroom.

I don't want sexual tension (subtle or otherwise) between Bond and a 70-year-old who could pass for his mother. It's repulsive.

It's a generational, gender tension not HAROLD AND MAUDE.

The Bond films are making very different statements now - about themselves and their storytelling future. MONEYPENNY has scant role in that. It is not even a case of "with a bit of decent writing" etc. MONEYPENNY and Q are retrogressive statements. I would be very surprised if we see both of them back

Excuse the green text. My secretary is getting his legs waxed...

[The Shark]

VILLIERS cannot just be rewritten to be a MONEYPENNY. What is the point of that?

Well, you may as well ask what the point is of Villiers as a character in CASINO ROYALE. And why could the role not have been rewritten as Moneypenny?

Or, to put the question differently, why could CASINO ROYALE not have accommodated a female secretary for M? It accommodates a male secretary for M, but what in particular does Villiers bring to the film that could not have been accomplished by an actress in that role?

Why bring back a MONEYPENNY replacement who was replaced by TANNER (who does have a purpose - Fleming cites him as one of BOND's best friends and confidantes).

You'd be very hard pushed to tell from QUANTUM OF SOLACE that Tanner was one of Bond's best friends and confidants. That's not at all how he's portrayed in the film. He's just a stiff-assed stuffed shirt at MI6 who's there to make M look clever ("He's a person of extreme interest, Tanner....").

I disagree. They cast high with Rory Kinnear who you believed from the start of SOLACE would be on M's side without it coming into question or negotiation. Bond films need that. It's not about stuffed shirts making M look clever - which Ms Dench does quite well on her own.

Calling the character played by Rory Kinnear Tanner is precisely the kind of fanboy Fleming box-ticking you yourself decry. The character might as well have been named Hopkinson or Markowitz.

Er no - the producers made a conscious decision to name Rory Kinnear's character TANNER. It is about trust. Bond trusted the TANNER of the books and Eon Productions trust Ian Flemings character allocation.

That is not a criticism but having more MI6 staff in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY seriously eroded the central role and drive of BOND himself to the point when the audience asks "do they even need BOND?".

Again, you appear to be assuming that I want to see MI6 overmanned with useless characters a la TWINE's groaning banquet of Robinson, Tanner, Moneypenny, Q, R and Dr Whatshername. Being open to the possible return of Q and/or Moneypenny does not mean that I necessarily crave the wholesale abandonment of restraint and good judgement from the filmmakers. It does not necessarily mean that I want CARRY ON BOND.

I agree with you here. But TANNER was not superfluous. He was necessary. M is globetrotting and the "office" needs someone the audience and BOND trusts.

If you want "sexual tension" it's there between Dench and Craig (to a very subtle, cautious degree). It is no coincidence BOND keeps calling M when she is in bed or in the bathroom.

I don't want sexual tension (subtle or otherwise) between Bond and a 70-year-old who could pass for his mother. It's repulsive.

It's a generational, gender tension not HAROLD AND MAUDE.

The Bond films are making very different statements now - about themselves and their storytelling future. MONEYPENNY has scant role in that. It is not even a case of "with a bit of decent writing" etc. MONEYPENNY and Q are retrogressive statements. I would be very surprised if we see both of them back

Excuse the green text. My secretary is getting his legs waxed...

That's right, Moneypenny and Q have no place in the land of Nu-Bond. A world where sex is an annoyance, humour is unnecessary, and fun is an anathema.

Fleming's rolling in his grave.

[Loomis]

They cast high with Rory Kinnear who you believed from the start of SOLACE would be on M's side without it coming into question or negotiation.

I certainly did believe that, but that's not the point I have an issue with. You (correctly) cite Tanner as one of Bond's best friends and confidants, but I'm saying that that is not how the character comes across in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

If I'm wrong, and I may be, please give examples of where it's made clear in the film that the two men have a good and trusting relationship. The whole point about QUANTUM OF SOLACE is that you don't know who to trust - at one stage Bond even wonders whether the Americans have bought M with oil. If Eon were as brave as you seem to think, this could have been a real possibility. An audience member who hasn't read Fleming and doesn't know what the character of Tanner is supposed to represent (Bond's best Brit bud, etc.) might well sit there wondering whether he, too, was a member of Quantum. Which is all good and fine, but it doesn't square with how to seem to believe the film presents the character (i.e. in a faithful-to-Fleming way).

There's evident trust and goodwill between Bond and Leiter, granted (following on from what was established in CASINO ROYALE), but I don't see that the same is evident of the Bond/Tanner relationship as depicted here.

And, if I'm not mistaken, the announcement that CASINO ROYALE would not feature Q was made several months in advance of the news that the film would also not feature Moneypenny. This leads me to suspect that, in early drafts of the script, Villiers was Moneypenny.

It is not even a case of "with a bit of decent writing" etc. MONEYPENNY and Q are retrogressive statements.

Again, why? Why are they inherently bad? It's amazing that the Bond films have been so popular for nearly fifty years what with Moneypenny and Q supposedly dragging things down and making it impossible for the filmmakers to make good films.

But I think you and I are broadly in agreement. Neither of us thinks Moneypenny and Q are necessary for a Bond film (see LIVE AND LET DIE way back in '73 - for that matter, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY did just fine without M), and neither of us wants to see the same old same old "audience-pleasing" pantomime schtick purely for the sake of it. However, I just question your apparent belief that Moneypenny and Q would - by definition - sink the Craig era if they were introduced to it.

[Zorin Industries]

They cast high with Rory Kinnear who you believed from the start of SOLACE would be on M's side without it coming into question or negotiation.

I certainly did believe that, but that's not the point I have an issue with. You (correctly) cite Tanner as one of Bond's best friends and confidants, but I'm saying that that is not how the character comes across in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

If I'm wrong, and I may be, please give examples of where it's made clear in the film that the two men have a good and trusting relationship. The whole point about QUANTUM OF SOLACE is that you don't know who to trust - at one stage Bond even wonders whether the Americans have bought M with oil. An audience member who hasn't read Fleming and doesn't know what the character of Tanner is supposed to represent (Bond's best Brit bud, etc.) might well sit there wondering whether he, too, was a member of Quantum.

The point is the audience trusts TANNER. If he was anyone else with any other name yes he could be in the pocket of Quantum. But he needs to have that clear boundaries. As does M. And as does BOND. I concur that there are few moments where we see TANNER and BOND as old allies, but we don't see TANNER's character doubted by BOND either (and in a film where nearly everyone is duplicitous).

[The Shark]

They cast high with Rory Kinnear who you believed from the start of SOLACE would be on M's side without it coming into question or negotiation.

I would say he was severely miscast, and was written as M's anonymous lapdog, with no hinted friendship with Bond whatsoever. I would say Michael Kitchen should have returned, and his character was far more faithful to Fleming's depiction, as an antonymous, strong Chief of Staff, the kind of man who would occasionally go out to drink with Bond after work.

[Zorin Industries]

That's right, Moneypenny and Q have no place in the land of Nu-Bond. A world where sex is an annoyance, humour is unnecessary, and fun is an anathema.

Fleming's rolling in his grave.

Buried on a kebab spit was he?

Sex is not an annoyance in these films now. Humour is not only necessary it is used in subtle abundance and fun drips from every scene of ROYALE and SOLACE. It's just that cinema, Bond and most of the 21st century audience do not live in a world of 1960's debutantes and old guard gadget makers straight out of the box marked DAD'S ARMY.

[Loomis]

The point is the audience trusts TANNER. If he was anyone else with any other name yes he could be in the pocket of Quantum. But he needs to have that clear boundaries. As does M. And as does BOND. I concur that there are few moments where we see TANNER and BOND as old allies, but we don't see TANNER's character doubted by BOND either (and in a film where nearly everyone is duplicitous).

Not doubted by Bond, as such, but neither is there any appreciable sense that Bond truly trusts him (and there's a point where he doesn't even trust M).

As for the audience trusting Tanner, I'll wager that only a minority of viewers would know who Tanner is supposed to be, because only a minority of viewers have read Fleming. Tanner has never been one of the Household Names of Bondage™ like M, Moneypenny, Q or Felix Leiter.

[Zorin Industries]

They cast high with Rory Kinnear who you believed from the start of SOLACE would be on M's side without it coming into question or negotiation.

I would say he was severely miscast.

Fine. Say that. But have a look at Kinnear's other work before you say he was miscast. He was - as ever with the new wave of Bond films - very canny and savvy casting. Kinnear is very well respected and sought after in the acting world. Some colleagues are working with him as I speak...

[Loomis]

Kinnear is very well respected and sought after in the acting world.

No doubt, but he isn't playing Fleming's Tanner, and neither, frankly, is his performance in QUANTUM OF SOLACE anything that most normal cinemagoers would really notice or be impressed by. This is not necessarily his fault, but due to the way the character is (not) written and to the screentime he has. His Tanner comes across as, at best, a forgettable member of the supporting cast, and certainly not as "Bond's rock", "007's shoulder to cry on", An Obvious Beacon of Trust For the Audience™ or any such thing.

We can say that Kinnear was miscast without calling his professionalism into question.

[Zorin Industries]

Not doubted by Bond, as such, but neither is there any appreciable sense that Bond truly trusts him (and there's a point where he doesn't even trust M).

As for the audience trusting Tanner, I'll wager that only a minority of viewers would know who Tanner is supposed to be, because only a minority of viewers have read Fleming. Tanner has never been one of the Household Names of Bondage™ like M, Moneypenny, Q or Felix Leiter.

BOND trusts M throughout. He even puts his own mission in jeopardy by enabling her to tow the officialdom line and retract his credit cards and passports. She doesn't want to, but he knows it buoys up her autonomy and lets him go incognito for a country or two.

You are getting het up with the name TANNER. He is called TANNER as the creatives behind the film want to reference Fleming. It is not their intent or necessity to have the audience "get that". They just need the audience to know that not everyone is a money-grabbing turncoat in the film.

[The Shark]

Interesting filmography there. Although, I still stand by my point that he didn't project a particularly magnetic or interesting character.

Might of made a good accountant though.

[Zorin Industries]

Kinnear is very well respected and sought after in the acting world.

No doubt, but he isn't playing Fleming's Tanner, and neither, frankly, is his performance in QUANTUM OF SOLACE anything that most normal cinemagoers would really notice or be impressed by. This is not necessarily his fault, but due to the way the character is (not) written and to the screentime he has. His Tanner comes across as, at best, a forgettable member of the supporting cast, and certainly not as "Bond's rock", "007's shoulder to cry on", An Obvious Beacon of Trust For the Audience™ or any such thing.

We can say that Kinnear was miscast without calling his professionalism into question.

We can also say that Kinnear holds his own against Judi Dench which Colin Salmon certainly didn't do and began to have the cinematic gravitas of a HOLLYOAKS regular.

It is about gravitas and trust. THAT is why Rory Kinnear was so well cast and that is why the role HAD to be called TANNER.

[Loomis]

BOND trusts M throughout.

Not when he asks her: "How much oil did the Americans promise you?" The only character in QUANTUM OF SOLACE whom Bond seems to trust unconditionally right from the get-go is Mathis. He's even a bit sceptical with Leiter. Which is understandable, but it doesn't chime with the idea that 007 knows he has this rock-solid team of people around him. That's not the impression that the film creates.

He is called TANNER as the creatives behind the film want to reference Fleming. It is not their intent or necessity to have the audience "get that".

Well, that's fine, but why would it be a crime for them to want to reference Fleming by calling a character Moneypenny?

They just need to know that not everyone is a money-grabbing turncoat in the film.

But, like I say, I don't think viewers take one look at Tanner and know that.