How to improve the villans in TLD?
Number24
NorwayPosts: 22,334MI6 Agent
Many of us enjoy Dalton's first Bond movie, including me. But many also think the villans aren't among the strengths of the movie. Both Whitaker and Koskov come across as too goofy and not treathening enough. How could one or both of the characters be changed? Could a change in actors have helped? I just read that Lee van Cleef, best known for playing the Ugly in "The good, the bad and the ugly" was on a short list to play Whitaker. He certainly looked steiking and he was a great villan against Clint Eastwood, but his roles since the 60's Are unimpressive. Any thoughts?
Comments
A change in actors might have helped, but I think a clearer and larger scale villain scheme would have made things better.
I think Koskov could've stayed roughly the way he was, but Whitaker should've changed. Make him a former special forces officer who was thrown out of the military for corruption and now was under suspicion of war crimes. Then give him a scene or two where he gets to be cruel. A younger and fitter actor who was more of a physical threath to Bond would also be nice. I've thought about Stella Skarsgård, but he was young and probably to much like Necros.
I just had an idea! Why not do like they did in GE and cast someone who could've been Bond as the villan? James Brolin nearly was Bond in Octopussy, he's American and couldn't have been to expensive at the time.
The villains are a bit too broad in their playing. With nobody quite being top dog, they could have done more with the interpersonal rivalries between the three (including Necros) - maybe one could be up to something the other doesn't know about. They're crying out for the flavour of 80s movies like Lethal Weapon 1 or even Rambo - sort of cool shades, gum chewing even, holding a rifle at 90 degrees, kind of cool villains as raw and cynical as hell. In comparison, this trio don't quite match the script's occasional hardness. That guy who drives the Land Rover in the pre-credits, now he looks like a hard nut.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Here's now to improve the villains:
1) While all villains in the Craig-era were very well cast, Skyfall was the last time any of them were given great material for their performance. Waltz is absolutely the right choice to play a Bond villain, but his screen presence was minimal and his dialogue was nowhere near as engrossing as his predecessors. I say precisely the same thing for Rami. Give the cast a good script for the villain. Spectre and No Time To Die didn't offer this given the emphasis on Bond's personal life.
2) Return to having Bond actually killing the villain. Bond didn't kill the head villain until No Time To Die. Before then, the villain was either killed by a third party, committed suicide, or was incarcerated. Did anyone else find it strange that when the time for Bond to actually kill a villain is in the film he died?
CraigBond kills Silva in SF.
Oh true, forgot that one.
It was just so perfunctory and blunt. But yes, he does.
Meanwhile, he kills Blofeld by accident.
I too would like Bond to engage in more and better "boss fights" at the end of the movies.
I was disappointed at how Bond kills Safin; a bit of a fight and then he shoots him while he's on the ground. Here are three ways his death could have been better:
Obruchev's death being used for Safin instead (being kicked into the pool and eaten by the acid or nanobots or whatever)
Thrown into one of his deadly plants in the poison garden.
Killed in the missile strike along with Bond.
I like the two first suggestions, especially the first one. The third one would cheapen the death of the person who actually dies in that scene.
Bond killing the villain is only "cherry on the cake" IMHO. As a proof, I rank FRWL, OHMSS and FYEO in my top 6, while I consider a movie like SF (Silva is killed by Bond) as the worst Bond film ever made since 1962.
Nothing can replace a good plot. No matter how the bad guy dies. If the story is terrible, a cool final scene will not save the movie. Do you see my point ?
I see your point, and it's a good one. But it would be nice to see Bond win a long, tough fight with the main villan near the ending again. LTK is a good example of this.
in another thread someone suggested Kara should have got to kill Koskov. Her situation is similar to Tatiana or Domino, she is the one who has been most harmed by the villain, and her story would have dramatic closure. As it is, her story hangs unresolved. (FYEO is similar except gangster Colombo does the deed, sparing innocent Melina the guilt of a murder)
The death scene of the big baddy is one of those ritualistic elements of the Bond formula, without which the story seems incomplete, or at best a variation from the norm. Done properly, it should be both spectacular, and in some way ironic, invoking the villains own actions earlier in the film.
I disagree about Kara. Koskov set her up to be killed by Bond to make his "defection" more convincing, but Koskov also has two 00-agents killed in the PTS.
I guess, but he doesn't get killed at all, does he? Tells you something that I can't really remember, I mean I can, he goes off 'in the diplomatic bag' but it has no emotional heft.
Koskov is too much the loveable rogue, his crimes don't hit home, we don't see him kill anyone or order anyone killed really, or do we? Maybe Saunders, but again, for me the film is crying out for that hard nastiness we see in cheaper looking Hollywood action flicks of the time.
I occurred to me that TLD is a more romantic film than usual and more about Bond himself. In these films, the villain's death may overshadow things at the end, and close things on a nasty note that might seem inappropriate or would affect the tone. When would Koskov die? It's hard to go from that to lovey dovey romantic scenes at the end. Likewise, we don't make much of Kristatos' death in FYEO, or really any of them in the Craig films, it almost seems glossed over there, as if Bond is mainly fighting himself.
You could make the case that Dalton's Bond is all severe and serious in this and it's Kara who then lightens him up but if so it doesn't quite work for me. The script really isn't that bad.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I agree the movie needs a nasty scene or two two show how bad the villan(s) are. I don't really mind Koskov being goofy and loveable rogue who (maybe) survives. The problem is having two goofy villans. I think Whitaker should've been the really evil one. I've already suggested using a more physical actor (James Brolin?) and make him a disgraced ex-US special forces officer who was sacked for corruption and under investigation for war crimes. Early in the movie he demonstranter the weapons he's trying to sell for general Pushkin on his big and advanced shooting range. For realism he even uses live targets (Emplyees he's unhappy with?) like in FRWL.
When Bond comes back for the final fight they do it on the automated firing range w/CQB house. What do you think?
Does he really practice on live targets? I don't recall that. Or does he just mention that he does? Surely Pushkin wouldn't be impressed with that boast, seeing as Pushkin is not meant to be such a bad guy.
Yeah, two goofy villains make Dalton's serious approach seem a bit off balance. They're having more fun than him.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I think it's only mentioned that SPECTRE practices on live targets in FRWL. I too think Pushkin would be disgusted if Whittaker practiced/demonstrated the guns on live targets.