27 replies to this topic

[Righty007]

I finished watching The Living Daylights (1987) yesterday and I could not tell whether the "Main Villain" was Georgi Koskov or Brad Whitaker. Can somebody clear this up for me?

[Genrewriter]

I say Koskov. He's the one who planned the arms deal, he set up Pushkin and most likely got Whitaker involved. For me the chain of command in the film is as follows: Koskov employs Whitaker and Necros as an arms supplier and hitman, respectively. Whitaker and Koskov use Necros but there is a partnership between Whitaker and Koskov, hence Koskov deferring to Whitaker on his turf. One could reasonably expect Whitaker to do the same if the situation were reversed.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Koskov is the main villian. He's unconventional because he starts out presumably good. His plot to scam money from Russia is similiar to the Iran-Contra scandal that was going on at the time the film was made and I think that's the inspiriation for the script. I liked the film. It was a breath of fresh air.

[License To Kill]

Yah, Koskov.

[Turn]

You guys are forgetting something. Bond always destroys the main villain. Koskov was the exception and basically a shyster trying to get away with whatever he can. Besides, he defers to Whitaker all the time, not the other way.

Whitaker is a pretty rotten villain, though. He never even leaves his place. Blofeld could get away with this, he can't

[ChandlerBing]

There were villains in this movie? Where? Koskov kept going around trying to stick his tongue in Bond's ear, Buford Pusser was nothing more than a dumb *** frustrated redneck general wannabe who should have been a villain in a Michael Dudikoff, Golan Globus movie from that same time period. And then you have Grant--I mean Necros, who when the chips were down was nothing more than a snivelling, whining, bawling, "Puh-lease, don't kill me!" wussie boy. Of course, you have Dalton in the mix, and you have a whole lot of wussy boys. If Diamonds Are Forever was the gayest Bond movie, than The Living Daylights is the wussiest.

[Kingdom Come]

I thought the main villain in The Living Daylights was John Glen!!

Only joking.

[Jim]

None of it would have happened had General Pushkin not wanted to buy the guns off Whitaker in the first place, in order to kill quite a lot of people and extend the Soviet empire.

Ergo - arguably, General Pushkin is the villain; the others just take advantage of his villainy, and build on it.

Ah, The Living Daylights - there's so much in it. Cold War enemy's enemy philosophy. What's a hero? What's a villain? What has Bond saved at the end of the film? Are we just acting out individual and temporary political theories? Ambivalence abundant. This is not a world of driven snow heroes and blackhearted villainy. Fantastic.

[ray t]

the 'main villian' in daylights is the core writing group that gave us not one, but TWO, relatively weak villians.

neither portrayed true menace. neither had screen presence. both were all too comical.

the living daylights would have been a top quartile bond movie if just one of them was as malicious or heinous as any one of the crop that came out of FRWL or Thunderball

barry's score was exquisite, the plot -allthough convoluted for conventional audiences- was intruiging and fresh, the cinematography was beautiful, and dalton was top notch. but a bond movie is only as good as its villians...TLD could have been so much more...

[Genrewriter]

After watching it today, I think I have found the solution, maybe. They key to finding the main villain is getting a sense of the story.

At some point, Pushkin had Whitaker make an order for weapons which we can assume has been done before through Koskov. This puts Koskov above Whitaker in terms of that particular job.

Whitaker is most likely employing Necros since he orders him to kill Pushikin if Bond doesn't.

As to the po9nt about Pushikin being the main villain, I think it makes sense that at some point he was with it all the way but got cold feet for whatever reason. He communicated it to Koskov but not Whitaker, leaving Koskov as the man with vital information. Koskov decides to set up Pushkin and use Whitaker to make some money off a drug deal, hence the diamonds.

I think that this proves Koskov is the primary villain. He gets everybody together and sets up the situations.

[DLibrasnow]

The main villain in TLD??

That would have to be Timothy Dalton.....stole that movie from Pierce Brosnan...

[ray t]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
The main villain in TLD??  

That would have to be Timothy Dalton.....stole that movie from Pierce Brosnan...

well...if ya gonna that route, NBC becomes the primary villian:D

[ChandlerBing]

And NBC canceled Star Trek, so now you have a wideranging conspiracy! Wait, they also canceled Quantum Leap and JAG, too. Oh, I'm mad now.

[booyeah_]

I know I'm alone here but I don't think Whittaker was that bad of a villain. He was underdeveloped but the idea of a military obsessed illegal gun dealer was clever and had a lot of potential. If Joe Don Baker was given more screen time, Whitaker would be more memorable and TLD would be even better.

[Qwerty]

Neither of them are worthy enough to be a Bond villain. Too bad to, because if Whitaker was developed a little bit more and given some actual screen presence, he could have been quite menacing. Koskov is just too nice.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Jim
Ah, The Living Daylights - there's so much in it. Cold War enemy's enemy philosophy. What's a hero? What's a villain? What has Bond saved at the end of the film? Are we just acting out individual and temporary political theories? Ambivalence abundant. This is not a world of driven snow heroes and blackhearted villainy. Fantastic.

Well that's the whole point isn't it? Exactly -- it's a remarkably ambivalent film, precisely because the mid-late 80s was a very ambivalent time for traditional views on the Cold War, US foreign policy, Russians, etc. What's remarkable to me about TLD is precisely the fact that there IS no clear, coherent menace that Bond has to fight. Koskov is a selfish, charming, greedy hedonist; Whitaker is a pretentious greedy gunfreak. Neither are ideologically driven nor have any interest whatsoever in any plans involving conquering the world. Only Necros has some sort of ideological bent, and he just seems to be using Whitaker and Koskov to further his own agenda.

Koskov is a favorite villain of mine because he's so damned NICE and accessible and friendly and charming. Yet he has absolutely no compunction against devising others' deaths or sending his hapless mistress off to Siberia. I love the beginning scenes with Koskov and Bond---I like that sense of a friendship between them.

So who's the main villain in TLD? I don't think there is one. Koskov comes the closest---tho Jim's argument about Pushkin is a good one. Which further enhances the film's terrific ambivalence. Pushkin has at least some responsibility but you ROOT for the guy! Any long-running series needs *variety* to remain interesting and TLD provides that much-needed difference.

[Triton]

Do we even need a "main villain" in this film? General Georgi Koskov and Brad Whitaker are clearly involved in a conspiracy and Koskov wants to get James Bond involved to kill KGB head Leonid Pushkin so the conspiracy is not uncovered. Why does one have to be the master of the other? Why is it necessary to know?

You can ask the same question of Octopussy (1983), is it General Orlov or Kamal Khan who is the main villain of that picture? And this was during the Cold War, not after it.

But it begs the question, does every James Bond villain need to be a meglomaniac living in a hollowed out volcano or similar lair?

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Triton
Do we even need a "main villain" in this film? General Georgi Koskov and Brad Whitaker are clearly involved in a conspiracy and Koskov wants to get James Bond involved to kill KGB head Leonid Pushkin so the conspiracy is not uncovered.  Why does one have to be the master of the other? Why is it necessary to know?
You can ask the same question of Octopussy (1983), is it General Orlov or Kamal Khan who is the main villain of that picture? And this was during the Cold War, not after it.  
But it begs the question, does every James Bond villain need to be a meglomaniac living in a hollowed out volcano or similar lair?

Not at all, that's why I like the TLD villains. They're just a couple of corrupt, amoral, selfish, greedy guys. And I love Koskov's charm.

But back to the overall question about who's the main villain... The whole conspiracy and goals of the villains is, as everyone's noted, very convoluted. I've never tried to make sense of it myself, but last weekend while resting from my 5-hour blackout trek to Brooklyn (and after the power had come back on), I watched videos, including a couple of Bond films (OHMSS, TSWLM, GE and TLD). And for the first time watching TLD I tried to make some sense of what exactly the villains are doing in the film. Here are a couple of points I noted:

* When Whitaker finds out that Bond has killed Pushkin, he says "now we can move. I'll signal Amsterdam to ship the diamonds." Note: So they've been waiting for Pushkin to die to begin their opium-diamond trade with the Afghans.

* Whitaker was supposed to have received the opium from the trade that Koskov made with the leader of the Snow Leopard Brotherhood in Afghanistan. Presumably, Koskov and Whitaker were to share the opium take from the S.L. Brotherhood.

* Bond tells Shah that British intelligence has uncovered a plot by a Russian general Koskov to purchase American hi-tech weapons that can be used against his men. Question: Has this part of Koskov's mission been approved by Pushkin?

* The Snow Leopard Brotherhood sells opium to Koskov who comes with the diamonds to pay for the opium.

* Bond tells Shah about Koskov: "Before leaving, he arranged for the Russians to buy a large quantity of hi-tech weapons. He's using the down payment to buy this opium instead. He can turn a huge profit in days and still provide the Russians with their arms." Presumably, by "before leaving," Bond means "before leaving Russia."

* Shah is assisting the S.L. Brotherhood in meeting the Russians and making the opium-diamond trade. We see later in the scene the leader of the S.L. Brotherhood tossing a bag of payment to Shah, and hear a noise coming out of the bag that sounds like coins or diamonds. Note: This scene shows Russians (and Necros) secretly meeting with Afghan rebels to make a purely mercenary trade. Presumably, Soviet leaders would consider this treason.

* Koskov wants to fool British intelligence into killing Pushkin. He specifically asks for Bond because of his marksmanship (according to Saunders). Note: Had he been successful in this, he presumably would return to his position in the KGB with all the profit he'd made secretly with Whitaker, and probably be promoted to Puskin's job. Or would he stay in the West?

* Necros seems the only one among the villains with any ideological bent. Presumably, his share of the profit will be put toward his own attempts at "world revolution."

It's all very confusing....

[Triton]

It's complicated, but if you are paying attention it's NOT confusing.

What do people want, a villain wearing a black hat twirling his moustache with a big V on his forehead? Or a woman wearing a black hat with a big V on her forehead?

Whatever...

[Dunph]

The question is not "who is the villain?", rather "who is the main villain?"

I always took it to be a gang of villains, with Whitaker overseeing the operation.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jaelle

Necros seems the only one among the villains with any ideological bent.  Presumably, his share of the profit will be put toward his own attempts at "world revolution."

Necros is a comparatively sympathetic henchman, and I like that. He's far from a decent guy, but he's not in it for his own financial gain like Koskov and Whitaker, and neither is he a sadist like Dario, Stamper, Mr Kil and others.

I like his extraordinary ability to mimic any accent (although given his amazing command of English and impersonations at Blayden, it's odd that we later on hear him speak less-than-perfect English, with a thick Russian accent, when talking to Koskov and Whitaker), and his obvious high intelligence. And if I were female (or gay) I'd probably be panting at the sight of Andreas Wisniewski.

While we're on the subject, does anyone but me think that Wisniewski somehow looks very different in DIE HARD (which was released the year after TLD)? (He plays the terrorist sent to confront Bruce Willis - "The fire has been called off, my friend", "You won't hurt me.... you're a policeman, there are rules for policemen" - whom Willis manages to wrestle down a flight of stairs, breaking his neck and stealing his shoes (which turn out to be too small for Willis' feet).) Okay, he's playing a different character, in a different film, but to me he looks oddly unrecognizable from TLD in a way that I can't quite put my finger on. No huge changes to his appearance, such as long hair or a beard, but his face looks very different in a strange way.... anyone know where I'm coming from here?

[Dunph]

I think I do. The glasses (I think I recall him wearing) altered his appearance and he seemed to have put on weight, unlike his perfectly postured and toned Necros. In Die Hard, he looked a lot like he did in Mission: Impossible.

Am I close?

[Jayboy]

I'd say Whitaker. He seesm to organize the deaths and weapons for the opium. He also uses Koskov and Necros like they are his agents, if you watch the seen at his Tangian retreat, Whitaker summons them to see him and then the way whitaker eats in front of them to and the whole conversations seems to expose whitaker as the leader

[ChandlerBing]

The redneck was the villain, believe it or not. He was the last one to bite the bullet and meet his waterloo. This movie has really poor villains, and for me, it's the worst of the Dalton movies. I hate it when Necros is basically turned into a blubbering idiot when Bond has him--finally--
"Please don't kill me!"

My idea of a Bond villain is for him to basically be giving Bond the finger right up until the end. You know, screw you, that kind of thing. These are supposed to be bad guys. I guess some actors or writers, or whoever, decide they want to make them more human and sympathetic, but I don't care for it when it comes to Bond. It comes down to a Bond villain only doing his evil deeds because his parents didn't give him that puppy he wanted for Christmas. Who cares? Get a Robert Shaw and a Chris Walken in there, and you know they're bad, they're evil, and if you have a good Bond in there, you have a good opportunity for a great clash between the good guys and the bad guys.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Loomis
Necros is a comparatively sympathetic henchman, and I like that. He's far from a decent guy, but he's not in it for his own financial gain like Koskov and Whitaker, and neither is he a sadist like Dario, Stamper, Mr Kil and others.  
I like his extraordinary ability to mimic any accent (although given his amazing command of English and impersonations at Blayden, it's odd that we later on hear him speak less-than-perfect English, with a thick Russian accent, when talking to Koskov and Whitaker), and his obvious high intelligence. And if I were female (or gay) I'd probably be panting at the sight of Andreas Wisniewski.

I don't know why so many people diss Necros for being a poor imitation of Red Grant. Yes, he has obvious similarities with Grant but so what? How many different henchmen/villains can you invent for 20+ films? I think Necros is far, far scarier and more memorable than any of the Brosnan era henchmen. I barely remember any of them and never found them terribly menacing or scary.

And, yes, Necros' motives are not purely mercenary, but that makes him more dangerous because he has an ideological agenda. And believe me, Loomis, when Necros comes out of that swimming pool, he gets very much noticed in this household! I don't know any woman who's seen him in that scene and not said something like "Wow!"

While we're on the subject, does anyone but me think that Wisniewski somehow looks very different in DIE HARD (which was released the year after TLD)? (He plays the terrorist sent to confront Bruce Willis - "The fire has been called off, my friend", "You won't hurt me.... you're a policeman, there are rules for policemen" - whom Willis manages to wrestle down a flight of stairs, breaking his neck and stealing his shoes (which turn out to be too small for Willis' feet).) Okay, he's playing a different character, in a different film, but to me he looks oddly unrecognizable from TLD in a way that I can't quite put my finger on. No huge changes to his appearance, such as long hair or a beard, but his face looks very different in a strange way.... anyone know where I'm coming from here?[/B]

Yes he does look different from TLD. Looks like he gained weight, or like he just came out of some hellhole somewhere.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by ChandlerBing
The redneck was the villain, believe it or not.  He was the last one to bite the bullet and meet his waterloo.  This movie has really poor villains, and for me, it's the worst of the Dalton movies.  I hate it when Necros is basically turned into a blubbering idiot when Bond has him--finally--
"Please don't kill me!"

He doesn't say that. He says "No! Please!", but I get your point. So he screams while flying thousands of feet to his death. That's meant to be an audience-satisfying moment, one in which you finally see this totally impenetrable, impassive killer get his comeuppance.

My idea of a Bond villain is for him to basically be giving Bond the finger right up until the end.  You know, screw you, that kind of thing.  These are supposed to be bad guys.  I guess some actors or writers, or whoever, decide they want to make them more human and sympathetic, but I don't care for it when it comes to Bond.  It comes down to a Bond villain only doing his evil deeds because his parents didn't give him that puppy he wanted for Christmas.  Who cares?  Get a Robert Shaw and a Chris Walken in there, and you know they're bad, they're evil, and if you have a good Bond in there, you have a good opportunity for a great clash between the good guys and the bad guys. [/B]

And you think the Brosnan villains and henchmen meet this criteria??? Trevelyan, ok. Great villain, no question. Robert Carlyle in TWINE? He comes off to me as a complete whining wimp! Elektra? And the henchmen in Brosnan's films? I can barely recall a single one as being anything than just part of the furniture.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Dunphboy007

I think I do. The glasses (I think I recall him wearing) altered his appearance and he seemed to have put on weight, unlike his perfectly postured and toned Necros. In Die Hard, he looked a lot like he did in Mission: Impossible.

Am I close?  

Originally posted by Jaelle

Yes he does look different from TLD. Looks like he gained weight, or like he just came out of some hellhole somewhere.

He looks a wee bit chubbier in DIE HARD - as though he still has puppy fat. He looks younger, too, and I think his character is supposed to be fairly fresh out of university. And, yes, there's the glasses, but there's still something different about his face and his expressions that I don't think any of those things quite explain. I'd seen TLD many times before I first saw DIE HARD, and I didn't recognize Wisniewski as the same guy who'd played Necros. Maybe it's just me and my eyesight, though.

I don't think his look in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE is at all similar to his look in DIE HARD, though. He looks (and moves and acts) much more like Necros in M:I, albeit a Necros grown older and with long hair.

Oh, and to claim that Necros is a wimp, a blubbering idiot or some such is, frankly, preposterous.

[ChandlerBing]

Well, we all have our opinions, don't we?