Radically different TLD
crawfordboon
Posts: 126MI6 Agent
It's quite well known that Sam Neill was screen-tested for the role of Bond in TLD, and though he wasn't offered the part, the thought of him in the role is quite plausible. I wish they had got Sam instead of Timothy Dalton.
This is because, although TLD took things in a more realistic direction, I feel they over-egged the pudding and ended up making Bond too edgy, too human, when he should be more sauve and generally unflappable. In a nutshell, Dalton just wasn't cool, in spite of his many positive attributes, and this is why there's a continuing debate between the Fleming purists who love him and the more theatrical-minded, myself included somewhat, who recognise that a good theory wasn't fully borne out in practice (through no-one's fault and not for any lack of effort).
If Sam had been Bond, I would have like to have seen him play the role halfway between Moore's and Dalton's interpetations, i.e. tone down the excesses and farce, but don't delve too deeply into 'human' character traits - at the same time, don't make the guy boring. Quite an ask, but I think Sam had the range to pull it off.
(I might even have considered casting Neill in AVTAK)
TLD, whilst a generally good film, harks back in style to Fleming a little too much for my liking, and the villains in particular (Whittaker and Koskov) never once appeared menacing enough to be much of a threat to Bond, and the climax is one of the weakest in the series, IMO. I would have liked to see Koskov die in the runway accident in Afghanistan: his survival was ridiculous (hit by a plane and survies with a couple of cuts) and he serves no function in the rest of the film other than be arrested. Killing him there and then would have been much more dramatic and fitting.
As for Whittaker, he doesn't even do anything until the finale. Joe Don Baker glowers and stomps around but I never thought the character was particularly credible. I would have expanded the role of Whittaker, making him the main villain, and introduced an antogonistic relationship between him and Koskov. Further, I would consider some-one tougher and more physical for the role, and give that person more action scenes (maybe combine Whittaker with Necros to achieve this). TLD, in common with 80s Bond in general, lacked larger than life villains (May Day excluded), so I would offer the role to Mr T. No, don't laugh.
The A-Team had just finished on TV, so he would have been available. And to those of you who say he can't act, check out Rocky III, where director Stallone (not the world's finest), coaxed a high energy and plausible performance from T. he has what the villains in this film lack: massive charisma, real screen presence, and physical force. With the extra resources and facilities of a Bond pic, they could have increased his ability to act convincingly through a variety of techniques such as coaching and snappier editing, so you really wouldn't know the difference. This would mean the film would not have to be camped up more than we have already allowed for Sam Neill, because the efforts on T would allow him to realisitcally be part of reasonably tough material.
And finally, I thought John Terry as Leiter sucked - no chemistry with Dalton whatsoever. I'd introduce David Hedison back, as well as have him replacing Chuck Lee (David Yip) in AVTAK, without killing him, and obviously retaining him for LTK.
Pretty 'out-there' ideas a lot of it, I'm sure the purists will puke, but before you discount it entirely, give it a bit of thought - it's always interesting to consider different scenarios and imagine how things could be worked in a different way. BTW, I am not disparaging TLD as a whole, it's a good film but like I said, there were a few elements that could have been stronger.
This is because, although TLD took things in a more realistic direction, I feel they over-egged the pudding and ended up making Bond too edgy, too human, when he should be more sauve and generally unflappable. In a nutshell, Dalton just wasn't cool, in spite of his many positive attributes, and this is why there's a continuing debate between the Fleming purists who love him and the more theatrical-minded, myself included somewhat, who recognise that a good theory wasn't fully borne out in practice (through no-one's fault and not for any lack of effort).
If Sam had been Bond, I would have like to have seen him play the role halfway between Moore's and Dalton's interpetations, i.e. tone down the excesses and farce, but don't delve too deeply into 'human' character traits - at the same time, don't make the guy boring. Quite an ask, but I think Sam had the range to pull it off.
(I might even have considered casting Neill in AVTAK)
TLD, whilst a generally good film, harks back in style to Fleming a little too much for my liking, and the villains in particular (Whittaker and Koskov) never once appeared menacing enough to be much of a threat to Bond, and the climax is one of the weakest in the series, IMO. I would have liked to see Koskov die in the runway accident in Afghanistan: his survival was ridiculous (hit by a plane and survies with a couple of cuts) and he serves no function in the rest of the film other than be arrested. Killing him there and then would have been much more dramatic and fitting.
As for Whittaker, he doesn't even do anything until the finale. Joe Don Baker glowers and stomps around but I never thought the character was particularly credible. I would have expanded the role of Whittaker, making him the main villain, and introduced an antogonistic relationship between him and Koskov. Further, I would consider some-one tougher and more physical for the role, and give that person more action scenes (maybe combine Whittaker with Necros to achieve this). TLD, in common with 80s Bond in general, lacked larger than life villains (May Day excluded), so I would offer the role to Mr T. No, don't laugh.
The A-Team had just finished on TV, so he would have been available. And to those of you who say he can't act, check out Rocky III, where director Stallone (not the world's finest), coaxed a high energy and plausible performance from T. he has what the villains in this film lack: massive charisma, real screen presence, and physical force. With the extra resources and facilities of a Bond pic, they could have increased his ability to act convincingly through a variety of techniques such as coaching and snappier editing, so you really wouldn't know the difference. This would mean the film would not have to be camped up more than we have already allowed for Sam Neill, because the efforts on T would allow him to realisitcally be part of reasonably tough material.
And finally, I thought John Terry as Leiter sucked - no chemistry with Dalton whatsoever. I'd introduce David Hedison back, as well as have him replacing Chuck Lee (David Yip) in AVTAK, without killing him, and obviously retaining him for LTK.
Pretty 'out-there' ideas a lot of it, I'm sure the purists will puke, but before you discount it entirely, give it a bit of thought - it's always interesting to consider different scenarios and imagine how things could be worked in a different way. BTW, I am not disparaging TLD as a whole, it's a good film but like I said, there were a few elements that could have been stronger.
Comments
I have a problem with Sam Neill. He's a New Zealander and occasionally a bit of a pombasher. But he is quite happy to do British productions.
My idea of hell would be Sam Neill as James Bond.
Steve, you should support my idea because then you would have got to see Mr T beat the crap out of Sam for a while and say "crazy suckah" and "I pity the fool" an awful lot.
I agree with Crawfordboon on TLD's problem being the uncharismatic Bond villain and the weak Leiter. As far as I'm concerned these two elements (plus the implausibility of having Kamran Shah provide Bond with a ready-to-use Bond right in the middle of the desert) are the only things in TLD that need improving.
I don't mind Koskov surviving the plane crash (though they could easily have made the scene more plausible by showing him jump out of the jeep a second before impact with the plane).
Whittaker's death should indeed have been more dramatic, and his character should have been drawn differenly (though I would never have cast Mr. T for that role). In general I like Bond arch-villains to have a menacing quietness and composure to them (Drax, Auric Goldfinger, etc.), rather than being over-the-top charlatans. Whittaker had no gravitas and in my opinion this diminished the film.
It would have been a lot cleaner and made more sense to have Koskov die in a fireball plane crash on the runway; it was spectacular, it fitted well into the scene, and there was no need for him to live on. His appearance and arrest at the end is his only other contribution and is just plain unsatisfying.
As for Whittaker, if he had been the Necros character on the plane, that would have been a better ending than the silly gunfight in Tangier. The whole war room gunfight felt very tagged on, simply to get rid of Whittaker - if the Whittaker character had been the protagonist on the Hercules, that scene would have been the big finale, which would have been far more fitting and memorable. From the "I know a great restaurant in Karachi" line, the film could have cut straight to the opera house scene at the end.
I'm not sure if you're point was that he's not english or that he dislikes britain...but are you forgetting that Lazenby was actually Australian? I don't have a problem with Bond choices from Australia or New Zealand (as long as they put on a passable british accent). That being said, I'd hate for an american actor to be cast as bond.
And yet he was quite happy to play Merlin (badly, in my opinion) for British television.
And I am glad he never got to play Bond.:007)
However, I don't agree that he should have been integrated into the character of Necros cos I like the henchman just the way he is. I simply would have preferred Whittaker to be more like Drax. Self-possessed and confident enough to let his henchmen and allies do the dirty work.
Finally, I would have preferred a clean kill, rather than that silly key-chain blast: maybe Bond could have used the key-chain to distract Whittaker while darting out from behind the column where he was hiding to get a clear shot: then, he could have shot him between the eyes.
Fair points all, crawford. My take:
DALTON - If you like your Bond more unflappable, then obviously Tim's not for you. I suppose Sam Neill could have worked, but I've never seen him in anything that made me think, "wow, that's Bond material." I think Dalton does well in this film. I don't like his LTK performance nearly as much.
VILLAINS - They tried the OP approach of having two main villains, but it doesn't work nearly as well. To me, it's due to the writing and the performances. Whittaker simply doesn't have anything to do. There's a hint of that spoiled child factor we saw with Pleasence's Blofeld, but basically he sits in Tangiers and directs traffic. As far as I can tell, he doesn't even provide many ideas, only money. Koskov, meanwhile, is a little too clowny for my taste. Jeroen Krabbe is entertaining to watch, but he overdoes it IMO. I completely agree with crawford that the diplomatic bag was not a fitting ending for Koskov -- again, too jokey. I like Fish's point, however, about Koskov's menace coming through his subtlety -- when he turns on Kara upon landing in Afghanistan, that's my favorite moment of his.
HENCHMAN - Necros is one of the best in the entire series IMO. He's smart, resourceful and tough (although his Members Only jacket is a bit much
LEITER - Yeah, not much there, is there? Terry looks and acts the part, but he's booooooring.
Koskov a bit too jokey: that's true. Could have toned down his performance a little, especially in the second half of the movie. But I can live with it even as it is.
Whittaker is the one that simply doesn't work, and -- given that Necros was such a memorable henchman and Koskov was present throughout much of the action -- would have worked much better, in my opinion, if he had simply been a shadowy character with barely a few lines in the script and a few minutes of screen time. Someone who could run a tight ship (like Stromberg) and even look upon Koskov's pool-side antics with dignified disdain.
tld is one of my faves but yes whittaker needed more screen time.
And as for Dalton not being cool? 3 words!
"Nothing to Declare"
I dont see him in the role either, but what does this have to do with New Zealand?
NZ was founded by the poms???!!! X-(
"Better make that two."