30 replies to this topic

[gibraltarmonkey]

Watched The Living Daylights last night for the first time in ages and it left me confused (doesnt take much)
Can someone give me a brief outline of what is going on

Bond is ordered to kill Pushkin, but doesnt believe he would carry out a Death To Spies op, but says if it has to be done he will do it. Does he plan to kill him even though he has doubts. We all knoe Bond can diobey orders. Does the Death to Spies tag given by M (found in Gibraltar) make Bond doubt his feelings about Pushkin.

He soon discovers Koskov is up to something dodgy. Does Bond think at this point that Pushkin is being set up?

Next Saunders gets Killed and 007 goes and confronts Pushkin, is he is really now thinking that Pushkin is guilty? is he really going to kill him
God its doing my head in!!!!Sorry for the long note

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]Bond does not believe that Pushkin is in charge of the plot, and takes the assignment because he knows that any other Double-O would simply kill Pushkin without checking things out.

Bond never really believes Koskov.

And no, Bond doesn

[gibraltarmonkey]

Thanks for the response, think i am analysing it all too much. Such a great film, I had forgotten how good it was.

[Blofeld's Cat]

And Pushkin tells Bond that the "death to Spies" plot was an old NKVD (as it was known back then) operation in the days of Beria who headed the organization in the early 50s.

[Skudor]

The film makers did do their best to make it look like Bond intended to kill Pushkin, which muddles the plot a bit. Bond puts on an act where there is really no audience to play to.

[Qwerty]

Thanks for the response, think i am analysing it all too much. Such a great film, I had forgotten how good it was.

Welcome to the CBn forums also, gibraltarmonkey.

[Byron]

The film makers did do their best to make it look like Bond intended to kill Pushkin, which muddles the plot a bit. Bond puts on an act where there is really no audience to play to.

Maybe so, but i think the "interogation' scene is one of if not the best scene in the complete series.

[Skudor]

The film makers did do their best to make it look like Bond intended to kill Pushkin, which muddles the plot a bit. Bond puts on an act where there is really no audience to play to.

Maybe so, but i think the "interogation' scene is one of if not the best scene in the complete series.

Absolutely. It's a quality Bond scene.

[Gobi-1]

I can actually follow the plot up the point where Koskov and his thugs make the drug deal with the diamonds. I have a hard time grasping what's really going on at that point.

[JimmyBond]

The film makers did do their best to make it look like Bond intended to kill Pushkin, which muddles the plot a bit. Bond puts on an act where there is really no audience to play to.

He was putting on a show for Pushkin. He had to make Pushkin believe he intended to kill him, so he could see if his instincts were right.

I can actually follow the plot up the point where Koskov and his thugs make the drug deal with the diamonds. I have a hard time grasping what's really going on at that point.

I think Koskov intended to use the down payment to aquire more guns for the Russians, but when they cancelled the order, Koskov decided to buy drugs instead, as another means to make money.

[Vanish]

I can actually follow the plot up the point where Koskov and his thugs make the drug deal with the diamonds. I have a hard time grasping what's really going on at that point.

Same deal here. I always follow the film perfectly up until that specific point in Afganistan, and while Dalton's musing about Koskov using the downpayment for whatever is was, I become blissfully ignorant of any further twists and turns - I just go along for the ride at that point.

[DaveBond21]

LOL, me too.

The Bond movies are normally between 2hrs 4 mins and 2 hrs 20, and are just a bit too long when it comes to plot sometimes (especially in the case of TLD, Octopussy and DAF).

[the doctor]

when i first saw TLD i found the plot hard to work out plus i guess the fact that i was fairly young at the time (10 or 11) didnt help. i really disliked it at the time but after i watched it a few more times i started to grasp it better and now its probably my 3rd or 4th favorite

[Double-O Eleven]

Same deal here. I always follow the film perfectly up until that specific point in Afganistan, and while Dalton's musing about Koskov using the downpayment for whatever is was, I become blissfully ignorant of any further twists and turns - I just go along for the ride at that point.

Yeah, by the time they reveal Koskov's scheme involving diamonds/arms/drugs in the Afghanistan sequence, it's pretty much a throwaway. You're mainly interested in Bond escaping with Kara and getting back at Koskov's scheming than any of Koskov's actual plans to make money. Still, it is one of the few weaknesses of what is otherwise a superb Bond film that the villains's plan is plain obtuse. Live and Let Die's heroin-raising and free-samples scheme was also an uninteresting "Let's make lots of money" scam that wasn't the easiest to get revved up about.

But...there is something to be said for Bond movie when it is Bond, the girl, and the ally who carry the film, and not the villains.

Edited by Double-O Eleven, 13 September 2006 - 07:08 AM.

[DaveBond21]

Spoilers re TLD





Does anyone else think that it would have been good to see Koskov killed on screen, rather than off screen and then put in the diplomatic bag??

[gibraltarmonkey]

Yeah I think if it was Brosnan or a Craig Bond he would have been shot as soon as he entered the room. Dunno if he would do that in front of Pushkin but maybe they should have changed that scene a little. After all due to Koskov several British agents are dead so he deserves it.

[Gobi-1]

Koskov should have never survived the explosion caused by the airplane crashing into his truck. There's no reason for him to survive as he has nothing left to contribute to the plot and his miraculous survival is one of the most Wile. E. Coyote moments of the series.

[dinovelvet]

Koskov should have never survived the explosion caused by the airplane crashing into his truck. There's no reason for him to survive as he has nothing left to contribute to the plot and his miraculous survival is one of the most Wile. E. Coyote moments of the series.

Yeah he should have died there, it would have been appropriate. The whole plot of the film stems from Koskov's personal greed; he's desperately trying to catch up with the plane to get his drugs back - his greed is driving him, and his greed puts him in the path of an incoming plane. Its the classic Fatal Flaw in his character.
Bond still had Necros and Whitaker to deal with, and Whitaker is presented as the "big showdown" villain at the end. Koskov's role in the plot is over at that point, why bother saving him just so he can show up at the end and...do nothing? Koskov's final appearance is somewhat confusing as we don't really know what happens to him. Does Pushkin have him killed, or just sent home for trial, or what?

A better scenario might have been - you know after Bond kills Whitaker, a random soldier comes in and is about to kill Bond when Pushkin arrives and shoots him. How about instead of the soldier its Koskov, who gives Bond the Villain Speech, is about to shoot him and then Pushkin comes in and kills Koskov.

[Tiin007]

I have a question.

Didn't the Russians believe that Koskov actually defected to the British? Or at least that he's a rogue general? Pushkin certainly acts that way. But then why, towards the end of the movie, does Koskov still act like he's an active Soviet general? How can he just go to the Russian airbase in Afanistan and talk with his Russian comrades as if nothing ever happened? Wouldn't Pushkin have told everyone about Koskov?

Also, I disagree with most of you about Bond in Pushkin's hotel room. I think that after Saunders was killed, Bond either lost all rational thought (wasn't thinking clearly because his friend was just killed) or he actually believed Pushkin/Russia was operating under Smiert Spionam and was responsible for Saunders death. Whichever scenario is the case, this would make his actions in Pushkin's hotel room genuine, rather than him putting on an act for Pushkin. Then, after Pushkin assures Bond that the Russians "had nothing to do with it", Bond regains control of himself and realizes that he was right to originally be suspicious of Koskov and that Pushkin is innocent. Even though you guys probably don't agree with this, I think it still makes sense.

[dinovelvet]

I have a question.

Didn't the Russians believe that Koskov actually defected to the British? Or at least that he's a rogue general? Pushkin certainly acts that way. But then why, towards the end of the movie, does Koskov still act like he's an active Soviet general? How can he just go to the Russian airbase in Afanistan and talk with his Russian comrades as if nothing ever happened? Wouldn't Pushkin have told everyone about Koskov?

If I remember correctly, the hotel room conversation between Bond and Pushkin amounts to them both not knowing what Koskov is up to, exactly. That's why they agree to stage Pushkin's death, so K. can go on with his plan...presumably Pushkin also agrees to "keep quiet" about K. and not let anyone know that K. is under suspicion. Or, who the hell knows

[ACE]

I agree that TLD was a complex caper with a few storytelling elements lacking.
Time and shifting geopolitics have not been kind to it ("Hey, mom, why're Al Queda the good guys?", "Hey, morm, what's a 'Soviet Union' - is that like sex with napkins?"). However, I saw it at the cinema 2 weeks ago and it blew me away again. It looks fabulous and Dalton was superb! I think DC will be Dalton #2, but with a better script, better direction and higher budget. Dalton is my favourite Bond.

This is a part repost of a previous post with my analysis of the story.

American Brad Whitaker is league with Soviet General Georgi Koskov. Koskov is ostensibly using funds procured to buy hi-tech arms from Whitaker for use against the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to secure the Soviet presence there.

Their plan is this:

1) A down payment of $50 million of Soviet funds is made in secret accounts to Whitaker. The money is meant to be used to purchase hi-tech arms

[Tiin007]

[quote name='ACE' post='606607' date='13 September 2006 - 18:40']
I agree that TLD was a complex caper with a few storytelling elements lacking.
Time and shifting geopolitics have not been kind to it. However, I saw it at the cinema 2 weeks ago and it blew me away again. It looks fabulous and Dalton was superb! I think DC will be Dalton #2, but with a better script, better direction and higher budget. Dalton is my favourite Bond.

This is a part repost of a previous post with my analysis of the story.

American Brad Whitaker is league with Soviet General Georgi Koskov. Koskov is ostensibly using funds procured to buy hi-tech arms from Whitaker for use against the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to secure the Soviet presence there.

Their plan is this:

1) A down payment of $50 million of Soviet funds is made in secret accounts to Whitaker. The money is meant to be used to purchase hi-tech arms

[dunmall]

To answer your second question just before landing in Afghanistan Koskov says that the Russians believe he is on a secret mission on behalf of General Pushkin, (also I take it that Koskov and the air base commander have some history together so perhaps he is also doing a friend a favour)

[Double-Oh Agent]

[quote name='ACE' post='606607' date='13 September 2006 - 15:40']
I agree that TLD was a complex caper with a few storytelling elements lacking.
Time and shifting geopolitics have not been kind to it. However, I saw it at the cinema 2 weeks ago and it blew me away again. It looks fabulous and Dalton was superb! I think DC will be Dalton #2, but with a better script, better direction and higher budget. Dalton is my favourite Bond.

This is a part repost of a previous post with my analysis of the story.

American Brad Whitaker is league with Soviet General Georgi Koskov. Koskov is ostensibly using funds procured to buy hi-tech arms from Whitaker for use against the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to secure the Soviet presence there.

Their plan is this:

1) A down payment of $50 million of Soviet funds is made in secret accounts to Whitaker. The money is meant to be used to purchase hi-tech arms

[dinovelvet]

1) When Koskov reinstituted Smiert Spionam, was it officially in play? Was it authorized by the KGB or did he just have a couple of men kill some foreign agents and leave the Smiert Spionam notes without the knowledge of the KGB?

No, it was just Koskov's plan. Again, in that hotel room, Bond mentions Smiert spionam and Pushkin has no idea what he's talking about. He says that operation has been dead for 30 years (or something). I think Koskov used the name Smiert spionam because he knew the British (including Bond) would recognize it and take it seriously.

This is a good thread...we should do one for that other 80s confusing plot, Octopussy!

[ACE]

1) When Koskov reinstituted Smiert Spionam, was it officially in play? Was it authorized by the KGB or did he just have a couple of men kill some foreign agents and leave the Smiert Spionam notes without the knowledge of the KGB?

No, it was just Koskov's plan. Again, in that hotel room, Bond mentions Smiert spionam and Pushkin has no idea what he's talking about. He says that operation has been dead for 30 years (or something). I think Koskov used the name Smiert spionam because he knew the British (including Bond) would recognize it and take it seriously.

I agree with dinovelvet. The ressurected Smiert Spionam was all a ruse. And only put into play when Pushkin starts nosing around. Remember, Koskov is a high-ranking KGB man with influence and resources directly under his command.

I think Dunmall already answered your other question, Tiin007. The Russians believe Koskov defected but when Bond questions him on this in the plance to Afganistan, Koskov will say (and remember, he thinks Pushkin is dead!) that he was on a secret mission to misinform the West.

Thanks for reading my rather anally-retentive post! My full review is here

[Arch Stanton]

TLD is one of my favorite Bond's and though it took several viewings I came to the same conclusions as ACE's posts. It all makes for a really great plot once you understand it. Some of the smaller scenes are some of the best in the series when put in the right context context; I especially like the scenes with Bond pretending to Kara to be Koskov's friend and the hotel room scene with Pushkin.

Edited by Arch Stanton, 15 September 2006 - 02:17 AM.

[Tiin007]

Thanks for your responses, dinovelevet and ACE.

Wow, after all these years I finally fully understand TLD!!

[Yellow Pinky]

I agree that TLD was a complex caper with a few storytelling elements lacking.
Time and shifting geopolitics have not been kind to it ("Hey, mom, why're Al Queda the good guys?"

Technically I think the question would be "Hey , mom, why're the Taliban the good guys?" since it's Afghanistan.

[ACE]

Technically I think the question would be "Hey , mom, why're the Taliban the good guys?" since it's Afghanistan.

Oh, I know, Yellow Pinky, but that was too accurate for the level of ignorance I was looking for. My original version was even more politically incorrect.