Brad Whitaker and General Georgi Koskov in The Living Daylights?

Silhouette Man

What are our collective thoughts on these two villains - 'Major' Brad Whitaker, arms dealer and the KGB General Georgi Koskov in The Living Daylights. Are either of them convincing as credible James Bond villains. As there are two 'big bads' here, does the Bond villainy get rather diluted as a result. There was a similar experiment with Prince Kamal Khan and General Orlov in Octopussy, but that seemed to work better and Khan probably had more screen-time than Orlov did.

I think that Koskov comes across as one of the more cultured and less barbarian of the James Bond villains - perhaps even too much of a light touch while Whitaker is under-used, but he does have a brilliant fight scene with Bond at the end. Necros makes up for the lack of menace from the big two villains, but he's dispatched before the final act.

Are Whitaker/Koskov of the Stromberg school of Bond villainy?

I'd love to hear your thoughts....

LastRatStanding

The 'big death' is also Nercos'. He is really my favourite villain out of all 3 - we see him in action most and his death is the most exciting. The villainy is most certainly diluted by the fact there is 2 main bad guys but more so by the fact they are both underwhelming - Khan and Orlov proved that the double-baddy thing can work. Koskov is allright over all, a fairly interesting character which makes up for his lack of menace and I agree with you that Whitaker is under used.

I wouldn't say Whitaker and Koskov are in the same school as Stromberg seeing as Stromberg was just a straight up boring villain on his own whereas the two in The Living Daylights have their interesting factors but don't compliment eachother well, unlike Khan and Orlov who's individual goals are not only more interesting than Whitaker and Koskov, their scenes together have a sort of 'chemistry'. I don't feel anything is added to the entertainment of the film by having 2 main baddies - they should have chosen which one was the big baddy and went all out!

Seriously, with a better Villain The Living Daylights would be #1.

Silhouette Man

LastRatStanding wrote:

The 'big death' is also Nercos'. He is really my favourite villain out of all 3 - we see him in action most and his death is the most exciting. The villainy is most certainly diluted by the fact there is 2 main bad guys but more so by the fact they are both underwhelming - Khan and Orlov proved that the double-baddy thing can work. Koskov is allright over all, a fairly interesting character which makes up for his lack of menace and I agree with you that Whitaker is under used.

I wouldn't say Whitaker and Koskov are in the same school as Stromberg seeing as Stromberg was just a straight up boring villain on his own whereas the two in The Living Daylights have their interesting factors but don't compliment eachother well, unlike Khan and Orlov who's individual goals are not only more interesting than Whitaker and Koskov, their scenes together have a sort of 'chemistry'. I don't feel anything is added to the entertainment of the film by having 2 main baddies - they should have chosen which one was the big baddy and went all out!

Seriously, with a better Villain The Living Daylights would be #1.

Thanks, Mr Rat.

Well, I've always thought of Brad Whitaker as more of the main villain out of the two, but I know that others think that Koskov is the main villain. It's interesting that both Khan and Koskov blame Orlov and Whitaker respectively for their misdeeds once they are both dead. Khan blames Orlov for the A-bomb to Octopussy, saying that Orlov double-crossed them both while Koskov says "Whitaker has held me here for weeks".

Shady Tree

In TLD, the villainy is diluted to the point of being underwhelming - which is a shame because, as LTK proved, Dalton's Bond really raises his game against a substantial adversary. Koskov is played too lightly. Whitaker, who has a better claim to being the main villain, is loosely based on Colonel Oliver North, but that's a reference which only the contemporary audience would get. I enjoy his final showdown with Bond, especially since John Barry scores it (his last action scene of the series) with dramatic music reminiscent of FRWL. Necros is one of Whitaker's mercenary cohorts, so his line about his sympathy for his comrades struggling for world revolution always rings false/seems unconvincing to me. But he's the best in a line of blonde, Donovan Grant wannabes (including Blofeld's guard in YOLT, and Stamper in TND) - and he has his own cool John Barry signature theme ('Necros Attacks').

Silhouette Man

Shady Tree wrote:

In TLD, the villainy is diluted to the point of being underwhelming - which is a shame because, as LTK proved, Dalton's Bond really raises his game against a substantial adversary. Koskov is played too lightly. Whitaker, who has a better claim to being the main villain, is loosely based on Colonel Oliver North, but that's a reference which only the contemporary audience would get. I enjoy his final showdown with Bond, especially since John Barry scores it (his last action scene of the series) with dramatic music reminiscent of FRWL. Necros is one of Whitaker's mercenary cohorts, so his line about his sympathy for his comrades struggling for world revolution always rings false/seems unconvincing to me. But he's the best in a line of blonde, Donovan Grant wannabes (including Blofeld's guard in YOLT, and Stamper in TND) - and he has his own cool John Barry signature theme ('Necros Attacks').

Interesting about Colonel Oliver North - I'm looking at a series on the underdeveloped Bond villains.

Yes, Necros is the main "typical" Bond villain, amusingly, although Whitaker does acquit himself in the end!

superado

Koskov is the Roger Moore of the villains, a bit too affable, light in the loafers and as villainous as a prissy office manager; compare to other Russian villains, e.g., Klebb, Orlov and Ourumov...a more dedicated group. Whitaker was miscast or plainly written wrong, he was harmlessly slimy and more like a small-change villain, lacking any realistic zeal or bent, being shamed by villains of lesser scale like Renard or Kristatos. As dumb as Jack Wade was as a character that role was waiting for someone like Joe Don Baker. It's too bad considering what they wanted to convey with the character of Whitaker as a megalomaniac, wannabe military great. Since Hitler himself was a poseur though arguably a successful one, his kind of bent would have been to study for the Whitaker role.

Silhouette Man

superado wrote:

Koskov is the Roger Moore of the villains, a bit too affable, light in the loafers and as villainous as a prissy office manager; compare to other Russian villains, e.g., Klebb, Orlov and Ourumov...a more dedicated group. Whitaker was miscast or plainly written wrong, he was harmlessly slimy and more like a small-change villain, lacking any realistic zeal or bent, being shamed by villains of lesser scale like Renard or Kristatos. As dumb as Jack Wade was as a character that role was waiting for someone like Joe Don Baker. It's too bad considering what they wanted to convey with the character of Whitaker as a megalomaniac, wannabe military great. Since Hitler himself was a poseur though arguably a successful one, his kind of bent would have been to study for the Whitaker role.

Yes, he is weak compared to the other Russian renegade Generals - "I'm not a barbarian, James", "Duty has no sweethearts" and his arrest at the end. No death scene as not deserved?

There is a rather Hitlerian blandness abhout Stromberg and Whitaker - the banality (and reality?) of evil, you could say!

Barbel

IMHO neither of the two are memorable Bond villains in the true sense, but Koskov comes closer. He and Bond share more screen time, the leading lady changes allegiance between them (often a good indicator), and Bond has some personal grudge against him after being fooled by his "defection".
Whitaker outranks Koskov, which technically makes him the main villain- but Blofeld outranks Klebb in FRWL and she's generally regarded as the villain of that film, and the same to a slightly lesser degree goes for Largo in TB .

Silhouette Man

Barbel wrote:

IMHO neither of the two are memorable Bond villains in the true sense, but Koskov comes closer. He and Bond share more screen time, the leading lady changes allegiance between them (often a good indicator), and Bond has some personal grudge against him after being fooled by his "defection".
Whitaker outranks Koskov, which technically makes him the main villain- but Blofeld outranks Klebb in FRWL and she's generally regarded as the villain of that film, and the same to a slightly lesser degree goes for Largo in TB .

Yes, you're in the Koskov camp, then. As it's Whitaker who makes the boldest attempt on Bond's life (Koskov just wanted him arrested), I'd say that he has the claim to fame as chief villain, though I guess it could be argued that the villains in TLD are of the "joint honours" variety!

Barbel

Silhouette Man wrote:

its Whitaker who makes the boldest attempt on Bond's life

Nah, that's just standard- making a bold attempt on Bond's life doesn't qualify a character for major villainhood.

toddthatcher

these are my thoughts on The Living Daylights in general. I have movie blog posting on all Bond films through Licence to Kill on my blog and will have the last seven up soon.

http://toddmthatcher.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/the-007-files-the-living-daylights/

Higgins

Can someone stop that spamming of his blog?

toddthatcher

Bondtoys wrote:

Can someone stop that spamming of his blog?

it's not spam... it's links to actual postings about the Bond films.

Higgins

It is spamming as you don't directly contribute anything to the board here - besides pointing to your blog.

Edit: Your first 19 posts contained 18 direct links to your blog with almost no additional information.

Silhouette Man

Bondtoys wrote:

It is spamming as you don't directly contribute anything to the board here - besides pointing to your blog.

I agree and I have a James Bond blog all of my own. By all means you can promote your blog, but contribute something to the actual thread besides this to highlight the relevancy of your review series on your blog, toddthatcher.

Jarvio

Both Koskov and Whitaker, unfortunately, are very weak villains in an otherwise great film.

However, I do prefer Koskov to Whitaker - Even though he's weak, he's kind of like a different type of villain. Instead of threatening and menacing, instead he is a double-crossing weasel. And he pulls it off very well. So in that sense, Koskov works for me.

Whitaker on the other hand, just plain doesn't work IMO. He's supposed to be one of those top of the chain in command-type villains who is threatening and intimidating. He is not. He just seems not so clever and weasely. Maybe he was just miscast and a different actor may have suited more. The actor was ok, but just didn't fit that role IMO, and as others have said, he suits Jack Wade far more.

Interesting point about whether it has anything to do with there being 2 main villains, but as others have pointed out, Khan and Orlov proved that the double villain thing can work. Also TWINE proved it too IMO, while Renard is not great, Elektra King is excellent.

dr. evan-gelist

Whittaker should have been played by George Peppard as you can visualise him in that crossed with his A Team role.

Silhouette Man

dr. evan-gelist wrote:

Whittaker should have been played by George Peppard as you can visualise him in that crossed with his A Team role.

Yes, but Peppard was a really stuck-up actor - full of himself and his own self-importance. Come to think of it - perfect for the role of Whitaker!!!

Silhouette Man

I've been thinking about this one again - especially about Brad Whitaker.

What sort of uniform does Whitaker wear? Is it of US extraction, I wonder? We do know that he was expelled from West Point for cheating.

Thunderpussy

I always assumed as he had been a mercenary , it was a uniform of his own design.. Rather how
Many dictators always make their own uniforms and awards.

Silhouette Man

Thunderpussy wrote:

I always assumed as he had been a mercenary , it was a uniform of his own design.. Rather how
Many dictators always make their own uniforms and awards.

Yes, it must be something like that. Wasn't he called 'Major', but it was implied he had no rank as he never finished his training at West Point. Do mercenaries have ranks? I don't think so.

Thunderpussy

I think Idi Amin awarded himself the Victoria Cross. once again I'm assuming but I think
Mercenaries use whatever former rank they had, and usually only train and advise, not actually
Take part in the fighting.

Barbel

Silhouette Man wrote:

Wasn't he called 'Major', but it was implied he had no rank as he never finished his training at West Point.

No, don't recall him being called "Major", but Pushkin certainly says he was expelled from West Point.

Silhouette Man

Barbel wrote:

Silhouette Man wrote:

Wasn't he called 'Major', but it was implied he had no rank as he never finished his training at West Point.

No, don't recall him being called "Major", but Pushkin certainly says he was expelled from West Point.

Thanks. Must be my imagination then.

Sergeant Staff, his ADC, calls Whitaker "the Chief" when Pushkin comes to see him. Perhaps I'm getting him confused with 'Colonel' Tamil Rahani from the Gardner novels ROH and NLF.

Andy007

It's a shame that TLD doesn't provide the villains of high quality needed. It's still a cracking film and being a Dalton fan rank it higher than many in the series. But if truth be told there is a lack of epic feel to the villains. Whittaker is given too little screen time, and comes across as a whacky, eccentric general but little menace. The end scene with him trying to kill Bond had genuine tension, and was dangerous for Bond but it's hardly up there with some of the other showdowns with Bond's enemies. Koskov was a trickly little customer and well played in the sense he was charming and could fool you. But ultimately the guy spends most of his screen time hugging and kissing everyone. It's a bit silly and he certainly can't be taken 100% as a threat to Bond.
So Necros the henchman is who we're left with, and even his showdown with Bond isn't totally satisfying. He tries to strangle Bond from behind in the back of a plane but before we see a fight break out or anything from Bond, the plane opens up & they botg nearly fall out. It's more of a struggle to hold on, than a fught for survival (if you analyse it properly). Bond has the edge on position and gets a good punch or two in, ultimately winning but part of me wishes we'd seen a FIGHT, not a struggle on a plane?! However it is a thrilling scene and brilliantly done.
But where are Bond's fights in TLD? Almost non existant. It's a real shame because Dalton was a class act in that department. But TLD robs us of those scenes. They could easily have been written in. The story should always build towards some good fights. Apart from the jailer scene there's barely anything. Fortunately we see far more fighting in LTK. We get to see Bond in physical action.

caractacus potts

Sillhoutte Man wrote:

What are our collective thoughts on these two villains - 'Major' Brad Whitaker, arms dealer and the KGB General Georgi Koskov in The Living Daylights. Are either of them convincing as credible James Bond villains. As there are two 'big bads' here, does the Bond villainy get rather diluted as a result. There was a similar experiment with Prince Kamal Khan and General Orlov in Octopussy, but that seemed to work better and Khan probably had more screen-time than Orlov did.

From Russia With Love proves a Bondfilm can work with two principal villains. Thunderball also, because I think Volpe is not subordinate to Largo. In both these films we know the real big baddy is the as-yet-unseen/unnamed Blofeld. Still, in each case good actors giving scenery-chewing performances and have well defined roles within highly memorable plots.

The Living Daylights is much more rambling and shapeless to begin with. After the bit from Flemings story it is difficult to follow any logic linking the various scenes together, and at the end I cant say what the whole story was really all about. If the scenes do connect, they don't add up to an overall plot. A bit like For Your Eyes Only, in that its really a series of overlapping episodes in the life of James Bond linked by some common characters, but the connections are sloppier in tLD than FYEO.

philpog

I really like Koskov and Whitaker, though a lot of that has to do with my fondness for Jeroen Krabbe and Joe Don Baker, both of whom are terrific actors.

Koskov isn't very intimidating, but I like that he starts off as seemingly foolish and harmless before his true colors are revealed.

I love TLD. It's hard for me to find fault with it.

Gassy Man

In the spirit of my "projecting a conclusion without any convincing evidence" posts on a few other threads, imagine that Koskov and Whitaker are romantically involved with each other. Now, go back and watch the film again.

heartbroken_mr_drax

^ I guess it's difficult based on the Byzantium plot that they're just a bunch of desperados who are in the end - laughably pathetic. That's not a criticism because it plays into the whole idea that smiert spionam is taken so seriously by MI6 and the whole folly of taking in Koskov as a defector. The whole thing largely plays against MI6 and the villains and plays well to Bond and Pushkin.

Whitaker gets a lot of flak as a villian. I can see why because he's largely a joke, but I like the way he plays the character. He's not menacing and he's not scary - but a nutter who isn't getting things his way - but joining another nutter, he nearly does. Whitaker reminds me of Trump. In the world of film, it's amusing.

Barbel

My theory is that very frequently there is a version of a romantic triangle involving Bond, the or a Bond girl and the villain. Examples are legion- Bond/Domino/Largo is pretty obvious, but Bond/Solitaire/Kananga, Bond/Paris/Carver, Bond/Bibi/Kristatos, Bond/Tracy/Blofeld and many others exist.
Therefore since there's a Bond/Kara/Koskov triangle, as well as 007 having a grudge against Koskov for his fake defection making his organisation a laughing stock, Koskov is the villain of TLD whether Whitaker outranks him or not. Koskov and Bond know each other, they have a relationship (initially bordering on friendly, until Bond sees what the score is) whereas Bond and Whitaker don't meet till the ending.
In FRWL, Blofeld outranks Klebb but Klebb is the main villain (she lusts unsuccessfully after Tania, and 007 never meets Number One in the film). In OP Kamal lusts vainly after Octopussy and he and Bond clash in classic Fleming situations (gambling, over dinner), while Bond and Orlov have one conversation. Orlov's death doesn't end the film- Kamal's does. He's the villain.

Desert Kris

Hmmm, by the standards of a JB movie villains, they're pretty generic. My opinion of Whittaker is kind of informed by his character in the first two Brosnan movies; I never could get the hang of Wade, he's annoying and he's Not Leiter. So, having seen TLD after GE and TND, it's like he's the same guy, but gone wrong. I like it when Bond dispatches him, in the way that Bond smiles in Casino Royale when he detonates the would-be bomber.

As for Koskov, I just like him. He's so hapless and hopeless unless you get him going on orchestrating an international scheme. I think it's interesting that he's strictly not a fighter, and there just isn't going to be a physical fight with him because he'd fall over if you flicked his nose. Even after the end I like him. It's kind of fun that you have this guy who after setting up all kinds of international problems, you give him a big hug of affection...and then cart him off to some posh prison. Never let him out, mind. But maybe he'd be fun to visit and share a drink and a card game once in a blue moon.