73 replies to this topic

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'm just going to quote the wise and esteemed Ed, here:

"Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale). Psychotic billionaire looking to destroy the world with nerve gas and repopulate it. Obssessed with space. Stromberg Lite."

Ta-daaa!!!

[Skudor]

Regarding Drax: he's probably my favourite Bond villian.

You know, Skudor. If I could just get you to see that the LOTR series is essentially flawless, and that BRAVEHEART is free of sin, I think we might be best friends.

Drax has always been a favorite. In fact, I’ve got him as my absolute favorite in my profile… er, dossier, er… thing. Bond’s got a lot of great baddies to face; Kananga, Goldfinger, LeChiffre and OHMSS Blofeld are all pretty esteemed in my book as well, but Drax I think is just the most delicious. He hits the Bond baddie bulls-eye when he tiptoes up to that line of OTT, but doesn’t cross it. (In his character and dialogue alone, I mean. His devilish plan involving outer-space is silly and unfortunate, but beside the point here.)

I could agree on the wording 'LOTR is mostly flawless and generally a great achievement'

Braveheart is, as far as I can recall, a pretty decent flick that pulls on the heartstrings etc. Its major flaw is a Himmleresque relationship with the truth. Sure it may be a 700 year old truth, but there's just no need for it.

As to Drax - I think it's all due to Michael Lonsdale, the palace transferred stone by stone from France to California and those nasty looking dobermans. And the piano. He's got plenty of strong competition, but to me he's the best.

[Judo chop]

"Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale). Psychotic billionaire looking to destroy the world with nerve gas and repopulate it. Obssessed with space. Stromberg Lite."

Merely an illusion brought forth by the fact that Stromberg came first in the series.

Had the making of those two films been flipped... it would be universally clear that Drax is the better villain.

He is. Better.

I could agree on the wording 'LOTR is mostly flawless and generally a great achievement'

I will continue to pray for your soul.

Braveheart is, as far as I can recall, a pretty decent flick that pulls on the heartstrings etc. Its major flaw is a Himmleresque relationship with the truth. Sure it may be a 700 year old truth, but there's just no need for it.

Fair enough. I respect your stance.

As to Drax - I think it's all due to Michael Lonsdale, the palace transferred stone by stone from France to California and those nasty looking dobermans. And the piano.

...and dialogue. He's got some of the sharpest lines of any villain in the series, IMO.

"...some harm..."

"...English humour..."

"...nasty habit of surviving..."

[Blonde Bond]

Drax is a better villain.

One; He's going to wipe out the whole human population, not just New York and Moscow.

Two; After the deed 'would've' been done, he would uphold the law from the space. HIS law. What he deems right and what he deems wrong.

Three; He believe in a healthy chest, yet he's not in a tip-top shape himself.

Four; He's French. (or is he German like in the book, that I haven't yet read ?)

[Publius]

If they had managed to get David Bowie for Zorin in AVTAK, Christopher Walken would have made a great Whitaker. Or if they could have, Jack Nicholson.

Wow. You're really shooting for the stars there Publius. In light of what we got with "John Doe" Baker, I'd have been happy with a Gary Busey.

Since the part of Zorin was written with Bowie in mind and he was even offered the part (before anyone else I believe), I don't think it's a stretch to consider him for that. And since Walken was clearly up for playing a Bond villain, I don't see how it's a stretch to suggest him for a different one than he actually played.

I only threw Nicholson in there as my ideal for what Whitaker should have been like. I doubt EON could have landed him, but then again even he ended up as the Joker two years later.

[Judo chop]

If they had managed to get David Bowie for Zorin in AVTAK, Christopher Walken would have made a great Whitaker. Or if they could have, Jack Nicholson.

Wow. You're really shooting for the stars there Publius. In light of what we got with "John Doe" Baker, I'd have been happy with a Gary Busey.

Since the part of Zorin was written with Bowie in mind and he was even offered the part (before anyone else I believe), I don't think it's a stretch to consider him for that. And since Walken was clearly up for playing a Bond villain, I don't see how it's a stretch to suggest him for a different one than he actually played.

I only threw Nicholson in there as my ideal for what Whitaker should have been like. I doubt EON could have landed him, but then again even he ended up as the Joker two years later.

I was only referring to your mention of Nicholson, and I'm not sure why you're confused since you feel that he would have been 'ideal' and probably unattainable. That's pretty much the point I was making (though I added the sub-point that I see such a wide gap of talent between the likes of Nicholson and Baker that even an annoying and predictable Busey would have found a place to sit).

[Mister E]

What is your opinion on Brad Whitaker, the main villain of TLD played by Joe Don Baker? I feel he is an underrated and overlooked villain. He may not be intimidating or menacing, and he does not have a megalomaniac plot, but actually that's what makes me like him more! Whitaker and Koskov's plan is complex and intriguing. Unfortunately, Koskov gets too much screen time while Whitaker is not shown much. He deserved more screen time as the main villain. I also like his swaggering Texan personality and obsession with war and weapons. And his death is also great. I love his line "you've had your eight, now I'll have my eighty."

He's basically the American, Republican Koskov. Still dull as dishwater just like all the villians and plot in the film.

Edited by Mister E, 19 August 2008 - 10:28 PM.

[Publius]

I was only referring to your mention of Nicholson, and I'm not sure why you're confused since you feel that he would have been 'ideal' and probably unattainable. That's pretty much the point I was making (though I added the sub-point that I see such a wide gap of talent between the likes of Nicholson and Baker that even an annoying and predictable Busey would have found a place to sit).

Well, "shooting for the stars" made it sound like you thought even Bowie and Walken were out-of-Bond's-league suggestions, but now I know what you meant.

And given that Baker ranks just above Gloria Hendry and Talisa Soto in the talent department, I don't think we should even compare him to other possibilities.

[Donovan]

Roger Ebert I think had a good line about the success/failure of a Bond film from a creative standpoint. They're only as good as their villains. I like TLD, primarily -- if not exclusively -- because of Dalton. But it's such a dumb story and the Whitaker and Koskov characters are such giggling goofballs they bring the film down to a 1960s Batman level. All the traits you can name for great screen villains...threat, menace, imposing, diabolical, megalomania, intelligent, memorable...are all absent from Bradley Whitaker.

[Turn]

Roger Ebert I think had a good line about the success/failure of a Bond film from a creative standpoint. They're only as good as their villains. I like TLD, primarily -- if not exclusively -- because of Dalton. But it's such a dumb story and the Whitaker and Koskov characters are such giggling goofballs they bring the film down to a 1960s Batman level. All the traits you can name for great screen villains...threat, menace, imposing, diabolical, megalomania, intelligent, memorable...are all absent from Bradley Whitaker.

They aren't good villains, but I don't agree they are like a 1960s Batman level. The villains of DAF and AVTAK yes, but not Whitaker and Koskov. They aren't really that much worse than a Kristatos on the other levels you mention.

I wouldn't call it a dumb story, really, either. For once it's not a stop WWIII or someplace to be destroyed or recover an important piece of hardware. It's more of a straight-laced spy story, which was refreshing for the time and still is in that it was the last film in the series not to have a personal element hanging over it the way the last 6 had and QoS will.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I liked Whitaker. He's not in my top 10 Bond villains, but I still liked his character. He had some good lines too. I also like the little touch of him being pissed off and uneasy following his meeting with Pushkin and vigorously ripping open his lobster at dinner. Also, I liked the bit about his having been expelled from West Point for cheating. He's a wannabe soldier who couldn't quite cut the mustard and so turned himself into a successful arms dealer so he could continue to play out his military thrills.

[Safari Suit]

The 60s Batman villains were great, and don't deserve to be lumped in with a dullard like Whitaker. Camp before tedium, always.

[Mister E]

I wouldn't call it a dumb story, really, either. For once it's not a stop WWIII or someplace to be destroyed or recover an important piece of hardware. It's more of a straight-laced spy story, which was refreshing for the time and still is in that it was the last film in the series not to have a personal element hanging over it the way the last 6 had and QoS will.

I think it was an unessecarily convoluted story that was anti-climatic. Koskov and Witaker were just doing some bad things, a big drug deal and selling weapons. Absolutely nothing felt like it was at stake. The only part of the plot I liked was General Pushkin being framed and reviving the SMERSH name.

Edited by Mister E, 24 August 2008 - 12:49 AM.

[DR76]

I liked Whitaker. He's not in my top 10 Bond villains, but I still liked his character. He had some good lines too. I also like the little touch of him being pissed off and uneasy following his meeting with Pushkin and vigorously ripping open his lobster at dinner. Also, I liked the bit about his having been expelled from West Point for cheating. He's a wannabe soldier who couldn't quite cut the mustard and so turned himself into a successful arms dealer so he could continue to play out his military thrills.

I agree. Whitaker is not one of my top favorites. He reminds me of the Hai Fat character from MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN - the catalyst for the entire story, but with a little more presence. And the finale with him and Bond is one of my favorite Bond/villain confrontations.

I think it was an unessecarily convoluted story that was anti-climatic. Koskov and Witaker were just doing some bad things, a big drug deal and selling weapons. Absolutely nothing felt like it was at stake.

Actually, to prevent themselves from being found out by Pushkin was at stakes. That's why they needed Bond and MI6 to kill the Soviet general for them . . . so they could continue their operation.

Edited by DR76, 24 August 2008 - 03:46 AM.

[Mister E]

Actually, to prevent themselves from being found out by Pushkin was at stakes. That's why they needed Bond and MI6 to kill the Soviet general for them . . . so they could continue their operation.

True, but that really didn't make the plot any more interesting. Koskov and Witaker should have done something more alarming. It didn't have to be WWIII but arms and drug dealing was a yawner.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I liked Whitaker. He's not in my top 10 Bond villains, but I still liked his character. He had some good lines too. I also like the little touch of him being pissed off and uneasy following his meeting with Pushkin and vigorously ripping open his lobster at dinner. Also, I liked the bit about his having been expelled from West Point for cheating. He's a wannabe soldier who couldn't quite cut the mustard and so turned himself into a successful arms dealer so he could continue to play out his military thrills.

I agree. Whitaker is not one of my top favorites. He reminds me of the Hai Fat character from MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN - the catalyst for the entire story, but with a little more presence. And the finale with him and Bond is one of my favorite Bond/villain confrontations.

I agree. I think the Bond and Whitaker final confrontation is great. "You've had your eight, now I'll have my eighty."

[john.steed]

I liked Whitaker. He's not in my top 10 Bond villains, but I still liked his character. He had some good lines too. I also like the little touch of him being pissed off and uneasy following his meeting with Pushkin and vigorously ripping open his lobster at dinner. Also, I liked the bit about his having been expelled from West Point for cheating. He's a wannabe soldier who couldn't quite cut the mustard and so turned himself into a successful arms dealer so he could continue to play out his military thrills.

I agree. Whitaker is not one of my top favorites. He reminds me of the Hai Fat character from MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN - the catalyst for the entire story, but with a little more presence. And the finale with him and Bond is one of my favorite Bond/villain confrontations.

I agree. I think the Bond and Whitaker final confrontation is great. "You've had your eight, now I'll have my eighty."

While TLD is one of my favorite post Moore films, I do think that Whittaker is one of my least farotie villians. However, I also love the line: "You've had your eight, now I'll have my eighty."

[Stephen Spotswood]

I hated the Brad Whittaker character. I was so glad they were getting away from that mad millionaire trying to destroy the planet somehow, with some sci-fi type headquarters nonsense. But Whitaker and Koskov were played too light. I would've prefered some no-nonsense soldier of fortune types. That would've played well with Dalton's more serious no-nonsense Bond.

As for Drax, he made Donald Plesance Blofied seem edgy and exciting.

[mrsbonds_ppk]

I watched TLD today.

I have to say that for a long time--a long time ago..I was confused as to who the real villain was in The Living Daylights. I know know though lol. Anyway I don't think Whitaker was a real true villain. He wasn't seen enough or used well enough. I do like the fact that Koskov and Whitaker were not megalomaniacs but at the same time they weren't villainous enough for me. When he was in the film I thought he was ok but not one of my favorite villains. I love the movie though.

[Cruiserweight]

Whitaker is actually my favorite bond villain.(Along with Rosa Klebb)

[Turn]

Whitaker is actually my favorite bond villain.(Along with Rosa Klebb)

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for Whitaker's being your favorite villain. Especially in light of how low most of us rank him.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

I wouldn't call it a dumb story, really, either. For once it's not a stop WWIII or someplace to be destroyed or recover an important piece of hardware. It's more of a straight-laced spy story, which was refreshing for the time and still is in that it was the last film in the series not to have a personal element hanging over it the way the last 6 had and QoS will.

I think it was an unessecarily convoluted story that was anti-climatic. Koskov and Witaker were just doing some bad things, a big drug deal and selling weapons. Absolutely nothing felt like it was at stake. The only part of the plot I liked was General Pushkin being framed and reviving the SMERSH name.

I found the plot of TLD very strong and refreshing. After the tired, by-the-numbers-Goldfinger-rehash known as A View to a Kill, The Living Daylights's complex Cold War spy drama was just what the series needed at the time. I love how the first 20 minutes of the film is a pretty faithful onscreen adaptation of Ian Fleming's TLD short story. I consider the 1987 Bond film the best of the "down to earth" 007 films of the 1980s.

Whitaker though is not one of the most memorable villains in the series.

[Cruiserweight]

Whitaker is actually my favorite bond villain.(Along with Rosa Klebb)

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for Whitaker's being your favorite villain. Especially in light of how low most of us rank him.

Co-favorite villain with Rosa Klebb
:-P
Well it really depends on the villain on how i judge them.Be it the actor who plays the part,the villains look,or their scheme. In the case of Whitaker it's his obsession with the military. The dummies designed as different military leaders,his war room with all the military toys.It fascinates me & i was never one to have conventional tastes anyway.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Whitaker is actually my favorite bond villain.(Along with Rosa Klebb)

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for Whitaker's being your favorite villain. Especially in light of how low most of us rank him.

Co-favorite villain with Rosa Klebb
:-P
Well it really depends on the villain on how i judge them.Be it the actor who plays the part,the villains look,or their scheme. In the case of Whitaker it's his obsession with the military. The dummies designed as different military leaders,his war room with all the military toys.It fascinates me & i was never one to have conventional tastes anyway.

Glad to see Whitaker get some love, Cruiserweight. He's not one of my favorite villains but he's in one my favorite films, the best Bond film since Thunderball IMHO. I firmly believe every Bond villain should have his defenders. Joe Don Baker's a good actor, though. I liked him as Steve McQueen's brother in Sam Peckinpah's 1971 rodeo western classic Junior Bonner. And he was definitely better as Whitaker than as Wade(ok in GoldenEye, dreadful in Tomorrow Never Dies).

About as diabolical and dangerous as pudding.

The word 'pathetic' comes to mind.

A horrible, unforgivable insult to Timothy Dalton's Bond is what he was.

Though it's Baker I mostly blame. I suspect Whittaker probably looked a lot better on paper.

Agree on all points. Oh, what could have been. I think this is purely casting - it seems Baker has some bizarre hold on the Broccolis. Perhaps he knows the code for their Swiss bank account...

"Bizarre hold" = talent.

Whitaker was not only an overlooked villain, but he was underused in the film. I remember being in the theater back in 1987 and scratching my head towards the end of the film because I was wondering where the swing-on-to-the-back-of-the-bike stunt, and most of Whitaker's scenes, went.

Whitaker is one of my favorite villains, and I have a feeling that if this same movie could've been made 20 years earlier, one Mr. John "The Duke" Wayne would've been perfectly cast in the role.

Interesting idea, GS. Though I have to admit I doubt at that point in his career, The Duke would've taken the role of a villain. And I doubt EON/UA would shell out the money for his salary. Would be interesting to see him play opposite Sean Connery, though. I know they were both in the WWII classic The Longest Day but I can't remember if the two of them were in the same scene together.

[Willowhugger]

Bizarrely, if he'd been named Joe Don Baker rather than Brad Whitaker then I think I'd have liked him better. He's the Anti-Bond villain in some respects. He's utter American rural creation compared to James Bond's high class sophistication.

The characterization is actually very strong that Brad Whitaker is Nouveu Riche due to his criminal activities. The fact that he's not a genuine war hero but a mercenary pretending to be a soldier helps contrast him strongly against James Bond the Ultimate PatriotTM.

Brad is also quite crazy in the ways that Bond villains should be. He's a man that admires Hitler, Atilla the Hun, and so on to the point that he has statues of himself dressed up as them. He's a play warrior and that makes him surprisingly nuanced to REAL warriors like Bond.

The only problem is that we never get to see him be menacing until the very end.

[DR76]

The characterization is actually very strong that Brad Whitaker is Nouveu Riche due to his criminal activities. The fact that he's not a genuine war hero but a mercenary pretending to be a soldier helps contrast him strongly against James Bond the Ultimate PatriotTM.

Brad is also quite crazy in the ways that Bond villains should be. He's a man that admires Hitler, Atilla the Hun, and so on to the point that he has statues of himself dressed up as them. He's a play warrior and that makes him surprisingly nuanced to REAL warriors like Bond.

The only problem is that we never get to see him be menacing until the very end.

I have to agree with this. Brad Whittaker was a pretty good character. The problem is that he wasn't utilized very much in the story. He's a lot like Hai Fat in TMWTGG. His money sets things in motion, but most of the story isn't really focused upon him.

It isn't until Bond's confrontation with Whittaker at his Tangier villa that we see how dangerous he really is. In own his way, he is just as much of a backstabber as Georgi Koskov.

[Jose]

Brad Whitaker was a somewhat decent but believable villain but still a lame one. Believable in the sense that he's based in reality and is plausible. How often does one hear about hijacking spaceships and bringing them back into a hollowed out volcano? And how often do you hear about illegal arms sales?

Anyway, Whitaker has potential to be a good villain (hehe) but is poorly executed. He's just too lighthearted. He doesn't really strike fear or disgust into the hearts of the viewers or freaks them out like Stromberg, Drax, Goldfinger, Le Chiffre, Blofeld, even Carver. Stromberg fed his assistant to a shark. Zorin mowed down his own employees with a machine gun and left his woman to die. Sanchez has a shark bite off Felix's arm and leg and he arranges to have Della raped and killed. Blofeld had Tracy killed immediately after the wedding. Le Chiffre busted Bond's balls with a knotted rope. Carver had his own wife killed. Goldfinger was about to castrate Bond with a laser. Greene drowned Fields in oil, or so I gather (or it was his bidding anyway).

Whitaker doesn't really do anything memorable or really ed up like the villains I mentioned. The gunfight between him and Bond was all right but not that amazing.

Like other people have said, that's where TLD misses- lack of good villain(s). Necros was a decent henchman though.

Edited by Jose, 11 February 2009 - 01:29 AM.

[DR76]

Anyway, Whitaker has potential to be a good villain (hehe) but is poorly executed. He's just too lighthearted. He doesn't really strike fear or disgust into the hearts of the viewers or freaks them out like Stromberg, Drax, Goldfinger, Le Chiffre, Blofeld, even Carver.

I agree that Whitaker was poorly executed. But I don't agree that he was too lighthearted. I feel that he was simply underused as a villain. His role in the plot reminded me of Ho Fat in TMWTGG. But he certainly struck fear within me when he tried to kill Bond near the end of the film. He didn't resort to ridiculous methods of killing Bond. He simply caught Bond off guard and nearly pumped a good number of bullets into the latter. Which is why I have always enjoyed TLD's ending.

Edited by DR76, 11 February 2009 - 05:48 AM.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I prefer Telly Savalas as Blofield.

I also liked Robert Davi and Benecio del Toro as his lieutenant.

[Daddy Bond]

Anyway, Whitaker has potential to be a good villain (hehe) but is poorly executed. He's just too lighthearted. He doesn't really strike fear or disgust into the hearts of the viewers or freaks them out like Stromberg, Drax, Goldfinger, Le Chiffre, Blofeld, even Carver.

I agree that Whitaker was poorly executed. But I don't agree that he was too lighthearted. I feel that he was simply underused as a villain. His role in the plot reminded me of Ho Fat in TMWTGG. But he certainly struck fear within me when he tried to kill Bond near the end of the film. He didn't resort to ridiculous methods of killing Bond. He simply caught Bond off guard and nearly pumped a good number of bullets into the latter. Which is why I have always enjoyed TLD's ending.

Agreed, but you must admit, up until that point he had done nothing of note - not that would make him appear overly menacing. Still TLD is still one of my favorite Bond's.