19 replies to this topic

[Telly]

Maybe I missed this part when it was made clear in the movie's dialogues, but can someone clarify the exact nature of the exchange of goods between Koskov, Whitaker and Kamran Shah.
1/ Koskov provides Whitaker with Afghan opium in return for weapons (I take it Whitaker simply wants to make a profit out of this opium on the American market, but I don't think this is explicated in the film).
2/ Why does Koskov need weapons? For the Russian army to fight the mujaheddin? But why would Pushkin be opposed to that? And why would a renegade officer like Koskov unselfishly be concerned about the Russian army being well equipped?
3/ Koskov gets the opium destined for Whitaker from Kamran Shah and his mujaheddin, in return for diamonds (again, Shah probably needs the diamonds simply to finance his mujaheddin organisation; this use of the diamonds does not seem to be foregrounded in the film either).
4/ What precisely is the role of the other mujaheddin group? What is their role in the exchange?

Cheers.

[Milovy]

I don't think Kamran Shah was involved in the opium trade. It was the other mujaheddin group that was doing it. (i.e., their leader was the nasty guy about whom Bond said, "Let's hope he's not invited to dinner")

[Mr_Wint]

Brad Whitaker is an arm dealer and provides criminal organizations with weapons. Georgi Koskov is KGB but also Whitaker's allied.

Koskov orders a large amount of weapons from Whitaker. Whitaker asks for a down payment and the Russians pay him. For the money they (Koskov and Whitaker) buy diamonds. They trade the diamonds for opium and then sell the opium at a huge profit. As General Pushkin put it, "misuse of state funds".

Koskov doesn't really need weapons; it is an excuse to transfer money from the Russian government. And since General Pushkin discovered their plans they had to come up with some way to kill him (i.e. lure the British to eliminate him).

[Jim]

Maybe I missed this part when it was made clear in the movie's dialogues, but can someone clarify the exact nature of the exchange of goods between Koskov, Whitaker and Kamran Shah.
1/ Koskov provides Whitaker with Afghan opium in return for weapons (I take it Whitaker simply wants to make a profit out of this opium on the American market, but I don't think this is explicated in the film).
2/ Why does Koskov need weapons? For the Russian army to fight the mujaheddin? But why would Pushkin be opposed to that? And why would a renegade officer like Koskov unselfishly be concerned about the Russian army being well equipped?
3/ Koskov gets the opium destined for Whitaker from Kamran Shah and his mujaheddin, in return for diamonds (again, Shah probably needs the diamonds simply to finance his mujaheddin organisation; this use of the diamonds does not seem to be foregrounded in the film either).
4/ What precisely is the role of the other mujaheddin group? What is their role in the exchange?

Cheers.

What I think it's meant to be:

1. Pushkin gives Koskov money to buy arms from Whitaker.

2. Koskov does not do this. Instead, he and Whitaker connive to buy mucho diamonds in Amsterdam.

3. Koskov fakes his defection and has British agents killed, blaming Pushkin, thus drawing the British into the plot so that they kill Pushkin, who is beginning to wonder where his guns are and ask awkward questions (hence the scene in which he confronts Whitaker).

4. Koskov and Whitaker make Koskov's kidnapping look like the work of the KGB, thus making the British even angrier at Pushkin.

5. Things at a bit of a stalemate, Bond realises that the plot will only become clear if Pushkin dies; hence the staged killing of Pushkin by Bond.

6. This works, and Whitaker tells Amsterdam to "ship the diamonds"; presumably to Afghanistan.

7. In Afghanistan, Koskov uses the diamonds to buy huge amounts of opium from the Snow Leopard chap. So Snow Leopard chap ends up with the diamonds.

8. Koskov and Whitaker will sell the opium, will turn a huge profit and Whitaker will in due course provide the Russians with their weapons anyway. Unless Bond destroys the opium. In which case they will have nothing and the Russians will be really angry.

9. This is all explained in about three seconds but has taken me twenty years to understand.

10. It's still a great film.

[byline]

9. This is all explained in about three seconds but has taken me twenty years to understand.

10. It's still a great film.

*whistling, applause, applause* Thanks to everyone for the clear, concise explanations. I wasn't completely clear on all of this, either. Now I am.

[Mr_Wint]

It's really amazing how Richard Maibaum could come up with some of these storylines (like OP or TLD)! But he creates stories for an intelligent audience. There's always an extensive background story, and it sometimes feels like Bond is thrown in the middle of a chaotic plot. The main difference between Maibaum & Purvis/Wade is that the latter always let M explain the whole background story in 4 min dialogue. When Maibaum writes it is more up to Bond himself to figure out what has happened. And very simple but ingenious tools are used for this. Consider for instance the Stradivarius, "Lady Rose". It saves Bond and Kara's life, establishes a connection between Whitaker-Koskov-Kara and at the same time gives Bond a hint at how Kara became involved into the scheme. Brilliant! It is satisfying once you realize all twist and turns... even if it takes some years.

[triviachamp]

Seems to me that the complicated plots of OP and TLD are because the writers took small scale Fleming stories as a springboard for more "Bondian" plots "ripped from the headlines."

In OP they pretty much had an auction of a Faberge Egg at Sothebys as the sole thing to build a movie around. And then they had to somehow work in the name Octopussy into the story somehow.

In the Living Daylights they had Bond helping a defection by shooting a sniper and him sparing the sniper's life when he finds that the sniper is a female cellist. Not only does this have to lead into a "Bondian" movie they also make his sparing of the sniper important as well.

[Telly]

Thanks Jim and all other members for the clarifications. It's good to crack the code. And yes, it can take years of reviewings.

Telly

[Loomis]

Maybe I missed this part when it was made clear in the movie's dialogues, but can someone clarify the exact nature of the exchange of goods between Koskov, Whitaker and Kamran Shah.
1/ Koskov provides Whitaker with Afghan opium in return for weapons (I take it Whitaker simply wants to make a profit out of this opium on the American market, but I don't think this is explicated in the film).
2/ Why does Koskov need weapons? For the Russian army to fight the mujaheddin? But why would Pushkin be opposed to that? And why would a renegade officer like Koskov unselfishly be concerned about the Russian army being well equipped?
3/ Koskov gets the opium destined for Whitaker from Kamran Shah and his mujaheddin, in return for diamonds (again, Shah probably needs the diamonds simply to finance his mujaheddin organisation; this use of the diamonds does not seem to be foregrounded in the film either).
4/ What precisely is the role of the other mujaheddin group? What is their role in the exchange?

Cheers.

What I think it's meant to be:

1. Pushkin gives Koskov money to buy arms from Whitaker.

2. Koskov does not do this. Instead, he and Whitaker connive to buy mucho diamonds in Amsterdam.

3. Koskov fakes his defection and has British agents killed, blaming Pushkin, thus drawing the British into the plot so that they kill Pushkin, who is beginning to wonder where his guns are and ask awkward questions (hence the scene in which he confronts Whitaker).

4. Koskov and Whitaker make Koskov's kidnapping look like the work of the KGB, thus making the British even angrier at Pushkin.

5. Things at a bit of a stalemate, Bond realises that the plot will only become clear if Pushkin dies; hence the staged killing of Pushkin by Bond.

6. This works, and Whitaker tells Amsterdam to "ship the diamonds"; presumably to Afghanistan.

7. In Afghanistan, Koskov uses the diamonds to buy huge amounts of opium from the Snow Leopard chap. So Snow Leopard chap ends up with the diamonds.

8. Koskov and Whitaker will sell the opium, will turn a huge profit and Whitaker will in due course provide the Russians with their weapons anyway. Unless Bond destroys the opium. In which case they will have nothing and the Russians will be really angry.

9. This is all explained in about three seconds but has taken me twenty years to understand.

10. It's still a great film.

All of that makes sense, and while I more or less agree with 10., I do wonder whether it might be an even greater film if it didn't rely on its fans to explain its plot. My only other quibble is: where do you get Amsterdam from? Is it mentioned in the film? I don't think it is. How do we know the diamonds aren't from, say, Hatton Garden? I'm being very anal, I know, but if I can't split hairs about THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS on this site....

[triviachamp]

My only other quibble is: where do you get Amsterdam from? Is it mentioned in the film? I don't think it is. How do we know the diamonds aren't from, say, Hatton Garden? I'm being very anal, I know, but if I can't split hairs about THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS on this site....

It is mentioned. After hearing of Puskin's "death" Whittaker says something about shipping the diamonds from Amsterdam. I don't remember the exact line but that is what he said.

Anyway, why Amsterdam? Is it implied that the diamonds are from DeBeers?

[Loomis]

My only other quibble is: where do you get Amsterdam from? Is it mentioned in the film? I don't think it is. How do we know the diamonds aren't from, say, Hatton Garden? I'm being very anal, I know, but if I can't split hairs about THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS on this site....

It is mentioned. After hearing of Puskin's "death" Whittaker says something about shipping the diamonds from Amsterdam. I don't remember the exact line but that is what he said.

Ah, okay.

[byline]

It is mentioned. After hearing of Puskin's "death" Whittaker says something about shipping the diamonds from Amsterdam. I don't remember the exact line but that is what he said.

Quote from the DVD: "I'll signal Amsterdam to ship the diamonds."

[LadySylvia]

Brad Whittaker has been selling high tech weapons to the Soviets, with Georgi Koskov as his Soviet liaison.

However, Koskov has come up with a plan for him and Whittaker to make a even bigger profit using Soviet funds. They use the downpayment given to them by the Soviet to purchase diamonds from Amsterdam. Using these diamonds, they purchase raw opium from the Brotherhood of the Golden Crest (Kamran Shah and his men are working with the Brotherhood to earn extra profits for their own arms). They will push this opium to drug dealers throughout many Western cities. I gather that Whittaker and Koskov have been utilizing this plan for quite some time before General Pushkin becomes suspicious of them. He apparently has plans to arrest Koskov and has the latter followed.

To get rid of Pushkin so that they can continue their scheme, Koskov contacts the British and misinform them that Pushkin has revived the old "Spiert Spinom" program to eliminate Western spies. To emphasize this, Koskov has a KGB assassin kill one of the "00" agents on exercise in Gilbratar. Koskov also has to get rid of Kara Milovy, who knows about his close connection with Whittaker. He manipulates her into posing as a KGB assassin in order to "convince" the British that he truly is in danger. This is supposed to also conivince the British - namely Bond and Saunders - that Kara is a geunine KGB assassin that needs to be killed. Unfortunately for Koskov, Bond suspects that Kara is not a genuine assassin and simply scares her.

Koskov takes his plan to get rid of Pushkin one step further by faking his kidnapping by the KGB from the MI6 safehouse. He believes that this will convince the British that Puskin is a danger and have the general eliminated. MI6 assigns Bond to kill Pushkin. Again, Koskov runs into bad luck with Bond. Instead of immediately killing Puskin, Bond seeks out Kara and learns the truth that she and MI6 have been patsies of Georgi Koskov. Then he communicates with Pushkin and the pair fakes the former's death to see where it will lead them.

I'm sure that you all know what happened in Afghanistan.

[ACE]

Maybe I missed this part when it was made clear in the movie's dialogues, but can someone clarify the exact nature of the exchange of goods between Koskov, Whitaker and Kamran Shah.
1/ Koskov provides Whitaker with Afghan opium in return for weapons (I take it Whitaker simply wants to make a profit out of this opium on the American market, but I don't think this is explicated in the film).
2/ Why does Koskov need weapons? For the Russian army to fight the mujaheddin? But why would Pushkin be opposed to that? And why would a renegade officer like Koskov unselfishly be concerned about the Russian army being well equipped?
3/ Koskov gets the opium destined for Whitaker from Kamran Shah and his mujaheddin, in return for diamonds (again, Shah probably needs the diamonds simply to finance his mujaheddin organisation; this use of the diamonds does not seem to be foregrounded in the film either).
4/ What precisely is the role of the other mujaheddin group? What is their role in the exchange?

Cheers.

I agree, it is potentially confusing and not properly told.

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

[RazorBlade]

Funny I don't remember the film being this complicated. I'll take your word for it until I can watch it again.

[Telly]

In the forum General Bond Film Discussions -> Rank the JB films, Bryan Harris (see post#70) gives these (solid) criteria a Bond film needs to meet:

"[...] Memorable characterization, strong stories that have dated charmingly, interesting (even when less than assertive) female characters, an appropriate balance of humor and gravity, wonderful visual sense, vigorous and well-rounded performances from the Bond actors, strong technical craft, and obvious consideration of Fleming's original intentions."

I think the discussion we're having here on TLD's plot at least shows that the story IS strong (otherwise we wouldn't be doing what we are). As for Bryan's other criteria (for what they're worth, but at least someone spelled them out), my verdicts are:

-Mem char: Baker's excellent and funny, but Krabb

[LadySylvia]

I don't think that THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was too complicated. It was complex, but Bond had pretty much spelled it out to Kara and Kamran Shah. After that, I had no difficult in understanding what was going on when I first saw the movie.

Jeroen Krabbe's Georgi Koskov is one of my favorite Bond villains. Unlike the usual meglomaniac, Koskov is that rarity who uses his brains and charm to achieve his goals. And because he possesses both in great quantity, he strikes me as a very dangerous. Guys like Koskov have always struck me as more dangerous than the Goldfingers in the world. They're the types to will lure you into a sense of false security and put a knife into your back, while smiling.

[Telly]

Point well taken. I never looked at Koskov's character, and Krabb

[Milovy]

I thought TLD needed a stronger villain -- which is thought by many to be TLD's major weakness -- but I would be hard pressed to say which character/actor needed to be replaced. Jeroen Krabbe? No, he was too charming and funny. Joe Don Baker? He was fine too. Andreas Wisnieski (as Necros)? He was one of the better henchmen of the recent Bond years, even though he had no "special" talents, other than an unsettling facility with different accents.

The parts didn't quite add up to a strong whole in the villain department, but they're quality parts.

In fact, I think you could say that of the entire film. Something about TLD didn't quite congeal, but it wasn't for lack of solid elements. This, I think, is why many people are surprised at how good it is on a second viewing -- they don't remember it as a slam-dunk, which it wasn't, but it was still pretty solid nonetheless.

[tdalton]

I don't think that THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was too complicated. It was complex, but Bond had pretty much spelled it out to Kara and Kamran Shah. After that, I had no difficult in understanding what was going on when I first saw the movie.

Jeroen Krabbe's Georgi Koskov is one of my favorite Bond villains. Unlike the usual meglomaniac, Koskov is that rarity who uses his brains and charm to achieve his goals. And because he possesses both in great quantity, he strikes me as a very dangerous. Guys like Koskov have always struck me as more dangerous than the Goldfingers in the world. They're the types to will lure you into a sense of false security and put a knife into your back, while smiling.

Completely agreed. Koskov is certainly a very underrated villain in the franchise. Granted, he's not the best villain out of them all, but I don't think that Koskov and Whitaker are as weak of villains as they are often said to be. I've always found that the strength of TLD is that it operates, for the most part, in a relatively realistic world, and villains such as Koskov and Whitaker could very well exist without having to suspend a whole lot of disbelief in the way that one has to suspend one's disbelief when it comes to the likes of some of the other villains in the franchise.