"You missed Mister Bond!"..."Did I?"...The Missed Opportunities of Never Say Never Again

1181921232433

Comments

  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,121
    mtm wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I go villains too- I think that, after using Chris Walken, a bigger star would have been good again. Just because I saw him in Hudson Hawk as a similarly-dressed baddie(!) I always think James Coburn would have been great as Whittaker. As it's a relatively small role I think a bigger star would have made a better impact.

    And, I do love the film as it is, but I watch Remington Steele and Fourth Protocol (from this year), and I think Pierce would have been great in it, and I suspect would have connected better with audiences. But I guess that's not a missed opportunity as such as they tried their best not to miss it! :)

    James Coburn would have been a great Brad Whitaker. I don't know if he could have done it at the time, as he was having some health problems.

    Yes good point: it's a fairly random thought of mine! :) But imagining someone with his sort of presence in it (Jack Palance? Jeff Bridges? Some more random names there :D ) works for me and kind of makes the part make more sense.
    Joe Don Baker is great, but he's almost more of a character actor than a lead villain for me.
    Folks will disagree I'm sure and that's absolutely fine of course.

    Jeff (The Dude) Bridges makes anything better. Jack Palance could have worked, as he was having a career comeback at the time. Could have worked better than Scaramanga would have for him.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,989
    They were going to a grounded film and as such the villains lost their panache. The way the script is structured the villains don't get a lot of screen time. It needed some more larger than life actor or someone who could really make an impact. Joe Don Baker is not memorable as a villain or an actor. I can really see James Coburn doing this justice. I am struggling to think of who else in the late eighties. Jack Palance was coming off City Slickers around this time. I can see him doing a better job.

    I don't buy the chemistry between Kara and Bond. While they are given romantic scenes and things to do but I never feel the love. Given Dalton was cast weeks away from shooting they cast Maryam without knowing who the Bond was, or she was cast based on Pierce. Either way I think the relationship between the two actors was lacking any sizzle or chemistry.
  • Posts: 6,825
    thedove wrote: »
    They were going to a grounded film and as such the villains lost their panache. The way the script is structured the villains don't get a lot of screen time. It needed some more larger than life actor or someone who could really make an impact. Joe Don Baker is not memorable as a villain or an actor. I can really see James Coburn doing this justice. I am struggling to think of who else in the late eighties. Jack Palance was coming off City Slickers around this time. I can see him doing a better job.

    I don't buy the chemistry between Kara and Bond. While they are given romantic scenes and things to do but I never feel the love. Given Dalton was cast weeks away from shooting they cast Maryam without knowing who the Bond was, or she was cast based on Pierce. Either way I think the relationship between the two actors was lacking any sizzle or chemistry.

    Completely disagree, its one of the strongest parts of the movie, the relationship between Bond and Kara. It's what sets it apart from other Bonds, that, and of course the use of Fleming!
    I always liked Joe Don Baker as Whitaker, certainly better here than the highly annoying Jack Wade character! Missed opportunities?, .... nah, love it as it is!
  • edited January 29 Posts: 2,954
    I’m not a fan of Kara either. She tends to come off as a bit too naive/innocent for me (or annoying, basically). I think if she’d been written to be a bit more hardened it would have had more of an impact. Not sure if an alternative actress would have helped too.

    Other than that I also agree about Whitiker - I think the casting (and character in general) could have been stronger.
  • Kara is Stacey in a better romance. We've gone past this but if Dalton was cast in AVTAK I wonder if Stacey would have been redeemed a bit.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,990
    007HallY wrote: »
    I’m not a fan of Kara either. She tends to come off as a bit too naive/innocent for me (or annoying, basically). I think if she’d been written to be a bit more hardened it would have had more of an impact. Not sure if an alternative actress would have helped too.

    I guess it's tricky as the character needs to have been conned by Koskov; to be the sniper most notably, so she needs to be quite green. I do agree she is perhaps a bit too naive though, yes. I prefer Pam in the next film; I feel like I buy her and Tim's Bond a bit more.
    Although, speaking of Kara's naivety, the bit where Bond gets silently frustrated by trying to tell her to drive the car into the plane is a great gag! :)
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,989
    I have no issues with the way Kara is written or acted. I find zero chemistry between her and Dalton. I don't buy the romance. I feel it was a missed opportunity because the casting was done in a silo without Dalton as Bond. Dalton was the back up choice and as such I don't think Maryam D'Abo was cast with him in mind. The story of the two is rather cute. I think it's great to up the romance factor. Don't think the two actors pulled it off.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,548
    I watched TLD last night, and I agree with you @thedove ... The actors didn't have pop and sizzle with each other, and I agree with @mtm that Carey and Tim were better suited.

    Last night I also felt there were scenes where Kara really did come off as annoying...
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,885
    mtm wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I go villains too- I think that, after using Chris Walken, a bigger star would have been good again. Just because I saw him in Hudson Hawk as a similarly-dressed baddie(!) I always think James Coburn would have been great as Whittaker. As it's a relatively small role I think a bigger star would have made a better impact.

    And, I do love the film as it is, but I watch Remington Steele and Fourth Protocol (from this year), and I think Pierce would have been great in it, and I suspect would have connected better with audiences. But I guess that's not a missed opportunity as such as they tried their best not to miss it! :)

    James Coburn would have been a great Brad Whitaker. I don't know if he could have done it at the time, as he was having some health problems.

    Yes good point: it's a fairly random thought of mine! :) But imagining someone with his sort of presence in it (Jack Palance? Jeff Bridges? Some more random names there :D ) works for me and kind of makes the part make more sense.
    Joe Don Baker is great, but he's almost more of a character actor than a lead villain for me.
    Folks will disagree I'm sure and that's absolutely fine of course.

    Well thanks for the permission to disagree @mtm.
    Talk about arrogant.

    The main villain should've been Koskov, with Whitaker a secondary villain. The fact that Koskov's future is left to the minds of the audience is another weakness the film has.
    Whilst it's alluded to that he will presumably be executed on return to Russia, the Bond villain should meet their comeuppance, be it via the exploding jeep at the airbase, or a similar shootout with Koskov instead of Whitaker, or perhaps both Koskov and Whitaker could've been involved, as Bond hunts both of them in Whitakers villa.
  • Posts: 2,954
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I’m not a fan of Kara either. She tends to come off as a bit too naive/innocent for me (or annoying, basically). I think if she’d been written to be a bit more hardened it would have had more of an impact. Not sure if an alternative actress would have helped too.

    I guess it's tricky as the character needs to have been conned by Koskov; to be the sniper most notably, so she needs to be quite green. I do agree she is perhaps a bit too naive though, yes. I prefer Pam in the next film; I feel like I buy her and Tim's Bond a bit more.
    Although, speaking of Kara's naivety, the bit where Bond gets silently frustrated by trying to tell her to drive the car into the plane is a great gag! :)

    Oh yeah, I think Kara definitely has a grey life and is essentially played by both Bond and Koskov. I do think that one has to have a bit more noticeable determination to act as a sniper though (I don’t think someone as innocent could ever do that) but she’s not going to be a femme fatale either. But that in itself could have been interesting. If the script had been tweaked a bit we could have seen her go from being that to a more independent character who manages to help Bond. Give her more of a satisfying arc I guess.
  • edited January 30 Posts: 731
    Kara is another Tatiana and it's fine. Not all Bond girls have to be strong and independent.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,381
    I don't think I've ever spotted a missed opportunity in TLD. It's my second favourite Bond film.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,520
    I love TLD, up until the fake death of Pushkin its almost perfect.

    I do wish the last third was a bit stronger, maybe if the action had been a bit more focused on Bond or had him in the centre of the action, rather than him trying to get the plane in the air.

    The PTS and sniper sequence is absolute peak Bond, Dalton really shines.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,885
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I love TLD, up until the fake death of Pushkin its almost perfect.

    I do wish the last third was a bit stronger, maybe if the action had been a bit more focused on Bond or had him in the centre of the action, rather than him trying to get the plane in the air.

    The PTS and sniper sequence is absolute peak Bond, Dalton really shines.

    Possibly and probably because they used the Fleming source material to the best of their advantage.
    Cubby was always good at going back to the source, and the scenes used in some of these films that use Fleming are generally seen to be the more popular.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,985
    Oh my gosh, I could not disagree more...I see tons of chemistry between D'Abo and Dalton. Her innocence plays off his rather muted sex appeal really well, better than Pam who frankly seems like too worldly a woman for him. (Even Lupe is another bird with her wing down, which works for Dalton's Bond.) I love Dalton but he is better with the intensity of the role...
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited January 31 Posts: 3,392
    My problem with Kara was she's too messed up with her thinking, I know she needs to be gullible, because her arc included her being fooled by Koskov, but she's been like that, she's like a bimbo especially in the third act.

    I think she's meant to be another Octopussy, just a bit younger, a woman who's in the grey area, although compared to Octopussy, Kara is too much naive, Octopussy may have been fooled by Kamal Khan, but she's not acting a bimbo, I think Kara was meant to be another Octopussy type, she's torn and caught between two worlds, but Kara comes off as too screwed up or childish, she's actually doesn't fit Dalton's Bond because she's too fancy, but sometimes, helpless.

    Pam fits Dalton's Bond more, both are serious, Kara is too much playful for Dalton's Bond, Kara would've been more suited for Moore's Bond, Kara comes off to me as Bibi Dahl.

    You exchange those two roles (Maryam D'Abo playing Bibi Dahl and Lynn Holly Johnson playing Kara), it wouldn't make any difference, this is just Bibi Dahl 2.0, and one could say that Koskov is just like Kristatos (she's supporting Kara in her career, fooled her, trying to play good towards Bond; Kristatos supporting Bibi Dahl in her career, trying to play good towards Bond as a fake ally, he also fooled Bibi Dahl).

    Really? This could've been easily a Moore Bond flick, than A View To A Kill was, this film fits Roger Moore more.

    And Whittaker, oh my, he's the epitome of a Moore Bond Villain: Deranged and Arrogant.
    (That line: "I'll have my 80!"), man, sounds like it came from a Moore Bond Era, Whittaker is more like a Stromberg type of villain.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,381
    D'Abo played the character brilliantly. The sheer romantic honesty really makes it work.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,885
    Couldn’t agree with you more @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷
    D’Abo is one of the best Bond girls.
  • Not pitting Dalton against a memorable villain for his debut is definitely the film's biggest missed opportunity. Having a formidable and memorable opponent would undoubtedly have allowed TLD to make more of an impression and be a bigger success at the box office. While I understand while the film is often considered more faithful to the spirit of Fleming's books, this lack of a memorable antagonist clearly sets it apart since the ability to create memorable villains was one of Fleming's great strengths as a novelist. Whitaker's fascination with military history and re-enactments is a good foundation, but it's not exploited enough to become fully memorable.

    My suggestion would have been to combine Koskov and Whitaker to create one single villain. Basically, Koskov created a fictitious arms dealer, Whitaker, several years ago to allow him to embezzle public funds. For years, he led a double life between the Soviet Union where he is seen as a morose general and Morocco where he leads a luxurious life where he engages in historical reenactments and gives free rein to his historical fantasies. Knowing he is on the verge of being exposed by Pushkin, he plots his eliminated and, for his part, plans to take on the identity of Whitaker and finally benefit from all the money he has amassed over the years.

    In my mind, such a modification would maintain the overall structure of the film, while making the villain more memorable and allowing more depth to be given to the final confrontation between Bond and Whitaker (who is now simply an alias of Koskov).
  • edited January 31 Posts: 731
    The villains are more likeable than Bond. LTK has the same problem.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,885
    The villains are more likeable than Bond. LTK has the same problem.

    I’m not sure I can agree with you on this @DEKE_RIVERS
    Koskov and Whitaker never directly murder anyone, but Sanchez is an evil bastard.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited January 31 Posts: 2,520
    Benny wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I love TLD, up until the fake death of Pushkin its almost perfect.

    I do wish the last third was a bit stronger, maybe if the action had been a bit more focused on Bond or had him in the centre of the action, rather than him trying to get the plane in the air.

    The PTS and sniper sequence is absolute peak Bond, Dalton really shines.

    Possibly and probably because they used the Fleming source material to the best of their advantage.
    Cubby was always good at going back to the source, and the scenes used in some of these films that use Fleming are generally seen to be the more popular.

    Absolutely mate. It's only when you go back and reread Fleming you realise how well Cubby brought it to screen.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,381
    Benny wrote: »
    Couldn’t agree with you more @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷
    D’Abo is one of the best Bond girls.

    Precisely @Benny
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,989
    I like your idea @Herr_Stockmann as there doesn't seem to be enough film for the both of them. Then add in that Koskov is being a double agent at the start of the film and the result is Whitaker sitting at a table eating lobster and Koskov showing off his General outift at the end of the movie. Of the two I think Krabbe was the better actor for the part and he would have been my pick for the main baddie. After TLD came out I remember reading he was up for a return in a future film as Koskov.

    I think the villains and the lack of chemistry between Kara and Bond are the biggest opportunities for me. I never believe that Kara and Bond have fallen for each other. Nothing against how either character is written. More down to the actors not having "it" that spark between them.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,989
    Well we will now move on to the next, and final film, to star Timothy Dalton. For this film the producers shook things up and Bond went on the hunt for revenge. Licence to Kill took the template of a Bond movie and threw it on its head. Gone was a briefing with M, gone was a madman bent on world domination, gone was a superhuman henchman. The producers went gritty, they went lean and they tailored things for Dalton.

    But were there missed opportunities? The film has grown to be loved and ranked quite high recently. Back at the time of release the film was seen as a miss with reduced Box Office.

    This one shall be an interesting discussion.

    What are the missed opportunities of Licence to Kill?

    855883639e461f34eaad93146c4e13a0.jpg

    Remember a missed opportunity is a poor casting choice, a story line that doesn't really go anywhere, poor character development, soundtrack choices, etc.


  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited February 11 Posts: 3,392
    Making the film more like a 'Miami Vice' style? The cinematography?

    Poor Character Development: The love triangle between Pam and Lupe that reduced Pam from a matured, serious woman to a childish, narrow minded.

    Missed character opportunity: Q being in the field, could have done more better with him.

    Lupe Lamora offered nothing either, she's just a nuisance character.

    Poor Character Development, inconsistent: Sanchez stupidity: He'd whipped Lupe with a stingray tail for betraying him for another man in the beginning, but he didn't suspected the same with Bond and Lupe, and he'd even trusted Lupe to be with Bond, not anticipating that Lupe could hook up to Bond like what she did with the man that she's with in the beginning, the same for Sanchez easily trusting Bond into his private circles without knowing him deeply or ordering his men on checking his profile, really? He's such a gullible villain, how he couldn't see that Bond was manipulating him?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,985
    What if Bond ended up with Lupe in the end?
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,381
    It's the music for me. The film had already chose its style which suits Dalton's Bond. Strangely enough, I've come to love Kamen's score, because I didn't before. But sometimes I do think the film would have felt more cinematic, had Barry scored it like he did TLD....working with two bands and incorporating the title and end credits music into the score. Imagine John Barry working with bands like Depeche Mode and New Order for LTK.
  • Posts: 2,954
    I always find there’s something missing with Lupe. She’s an interesting character, and there’s a hint that she makes quite conscious decisions in order to escape from Sanchez (ie. sleeping with Bond and blatantly revealing this to Pam). The issue for me is that similar to Kara in TLD she comes off as a bit too ‘innocent’ at times. Perhaps if it was clearer that she was playing Bond as her ‘way out’ it would have made her slightly more interesting.

    Other than that I’d say maybe Dario isn’t quite as fleshed out as he could have been. It might just be because he’s played so well by del Torro and he has such an important part during the climax (namely when he recognises Bond). I’ve always felt his gimmick of being able to do tricks with the knife is never used fully, and we could have gotten a bit more from his character.

    Other than that, I think this film made great use of a lot of opportunities.
  • SeanoSeano Minnesota. No, it's not always cold.
    Posts: 41
    To me, the biggest miss is the failure to go all the way in breaking with the convention of a Bond movie. In particular, although the Q scenes were entertaining, I think they could have made a better film without him and really forced Bond to be on his own in taking on Sanchez. Perhaps Bond could have found a local ally to help or they could have given him an angle to leverage against someone in Sanchez's operation in a similar way that Pam was trying to leverage Heller over the Stingers.

    That and they should have been willing to give Bond and Leiter a meaningful reunion at the end of the film instead of a 20-second phone call where all the loose ends are wrapped up in a bow.
Sign In or Register to comment.