It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
IMO it's all down to the casting of General Whittaker. Joe Don Baker is only fit to play a sleazy low rent villian, when what this role requires is an actor with more gravitas and intensity, who can convey true megolomania. A Rod Steiger / George C Scott / Gene Hackman type
Koskov on the other hand is meant to be a cunning, slippery character and Jerone Krabbe does a good job of that
While Andreas Wisniewski as Necros is one of my all time favourite henchmen
More a henchman.
Blonde and physically imposing. Where did they get that idea...
It could have been easily avoided by writing Koskov as affable at the beginning, instead of a buffoon. Like Krabbe played Nichols in The Fugitive in only a few years later.
Yes, this absolutely. Any of those would have been great, Joe Don Baker was brilliant but it needed someone a bit larger. James Coburn often pops into my head, but all of those suggestions work great too.
Brad Whittaker was for me, meant to be a dangerous Figure, for someone who was a high ranking Military Official, he was meant to be calculating, strategic, and cunning, without showing it (Joe Don Baker tried to make the character too showy, too obvious), he was ambitious and not whimsical.
Whether it was intentional or not, it was a bad idea, because Koskov lacked menace. He didn't have to be Count Dracula, but some degree of restraint and gravitas would have helped. I mean he's a general, for crying out loud! He should have had some gravitas, some aura of authority.
It was trying to be grounded because it got a new Bond and they want to make it distinctive from the previous ones, on the other hand, they wanted to contain the elements of the Moore Era to play it safe because around that time, there's still the 'Roger Moore as Bond Magic' going around (can't blame them, Moore stayed in the Bond role for a very long time, almost a decade, longer than Connery's, 12 years (1973-1985), only Craig have beaten him with 15 years, 2006-2021), they don't want to repeat what happened with OHMSS where the people got alienated because it's so different from the Connery starred Bond films.
This is one of my observations upon just rewatching TLD (just now), I've realized that Brad Whittaker and Koskov just fits the movie alright but somehow they lacked menace for the reasons that they need to suit the style of new Bond which is serious, but at the same time, they also need to follow the trends and qualities of the Moore Bond villains to avoid alienation from the audience (they need to retain a lighthearted feel and tone).
The film had no identity at all, 30% are the film dealing with the style of the new Bond, but 60% are the film following the Moore Era footsteps.
Even Dalton was struggling to deliver the one liners (he often fell flat at some) as those are fitted perfectly for Roger Moore.
I think had the film settled for what it's aiming to be, I think it would've benefitted both Brad Whittaker and Koskov, Licence To Kill had achieved this, because the film had a clear direction of what it's aiming to be unlike TLD.
And with also the case of Brad Whittaker, when did EON achieved the 'dangerous and menacing General' villains? Excepting Gogol, I personally don't find any of the bad Generals threatening and menacing: General Orlov (OP) was too whimsical to be taken seriously, Kamal Khan is much more better, the same for General Ourumov (GE) where the character was a bit one dimensional and lacked gravitas (maybe could've been better had they found an alternate actor to play him, Gottfried John didn't make the character convincing and threatening for me, Sean Bean and Famke Janssen overshadowed him in every aspect), and Brad Whittaker is no different.
Baker works as Whittaker. He's a doofus. Full of bloviating bluster and snake-oil charm. Reminds me of a certain president....
Koskov being a snivelling shill fails the character and subtracts his menace, but it does give the awesome Pushkin one last hurrah.
This is more to do with the audience than the producers. They've been served a decade of Roger Moore. Having Dalton go full on Dalton in TLD probably struck them as too early.
It is fun, though and it's something in its corner. All Brosnan bar Goldeneye and all of Craig prioritise seriousness and it fails. LTK was also tremendous fun despite its darker tone. Think Goldeneye is the last to get the balance right.
Also, give GE a rewatch just for John. He's excellent, and displays a great deal of range. From his impetuous execution of a subordinate to the lurid attraction he clearly has to Ontatopp's Severnaya bloodlust.
His denouement probably lets him down but John did a brilliant job.
I agree, TLD was a playing it safe type of film to introduce the new Bond by not having to alienate the audiences, I think lesson was learned after what happened to OHMSS, as this was just the second time that another actor would replace another actor who have played the character for a long time, although it affected some characters though, like Brad Whittaker and Koskov, because they have to play two angles: to match the style of the New Bond and to keep in line with the qualities of the Moore Era Bond villains.
Even if we recast Brad Whittaker, the problem was in the writing of the character, the same for Koskov, just realized it from my latest rewatch of TLD, Joe Don Baker seemed alright within the film, the problem was how the character was supposed to be.
I think SPECTRE balanced the humor and seriousness well, Craig/Bond comes off as lighthearted with his dialogues/lines, and so his interactions and fight scenes with the villains: Bond doing a farewell hand signal towards Hinx and his men in Austria, the train fight scene, and Bond parachuting after escaping the car or the scene with the little Fiat, it's one of the things why I'm fond of SPECTRE a bit.
I think SPECTRE featured my favorite Craig's portrayal of Bond, just liked him in it, he came full circle with the role that he have given it many angles aside from seriousness and he sold it well, the film may have many flaws, but Craig's performance was really great, even prefer it to NTTD.
And yes, I may give GE a rewatch for that, it's been a while since I've seen GE, so maybe my perception of John would change after a rewatch, thanks. 😊
Yes; I was waiting to bump them myself until I finished all the films in my ongoing Bondathon. Check the OP username on the Moore / Connery threads and then their discussions if you’d like to get a head start.
EDIT: Here are the direct links:
https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/3393/the-pierce-brosnan-era-rankings/p1
https://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/8823/the-daniel-craig-era-rankings/p1
https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/8455/the-timothy-dalton-era-rankings#latest
Where to see the full image of it, that poster looked interesting to me.
Maybe they could use that poster again for Bond 26, I'm hoping and wishing 😁.
To emphasize it more:
Thanks @LucknFate been too busy this year so I'm rarely active in this forum 😅, at least I'm contributing now again, thanks, I will check it out.
Isn’t the drivers name…Charlie?
It’s never established that his name isn’t Charlie. As far as I know.
But is it ever established that his name IS Charlie?
I dunno, but ever since I was 5 or 6 I always thought it was strange that Bond is calling this random guy by "Charlie" when we hardly ever see him use names. It's kinda been something that's been on my mind for years, so I just wondered if it was a common, colloquial name for a worker/driver around that time.
Aye, Rog was just being a dick winding him up
If that's the answer that's hilarious and a very underrated moment.
Thank god I'm not the only one, I always thought it was a American colloquialism because Bond was in New York.
I think if it was a general shout out it would have been "Buddy" at least here in North America. As a service provider I have been called Buddy and Chief. I am not a fan of the use of Chief. Almost detest it as much as Bond hates being called "Old Man".