20 replies to this topic

[Gri007]

Just re watched The Living Daylights. First time I've watched it for a long time. The thing that gets me is that nothing happens to Koskov or Pushkin.

Did Koskov really have to survive the airfield attack. Seeing that he was a traitor, he could have died. Suelry Pushkin taking him away at the end of the film was very weak. It would have made no difference if he'd got killed.

And why did Pushkin survive. Was he no particular threat after all. I know Koskov had tricked the British to belive that Pushkin was psychotic, so that they would send Bond out to kill him. So Whitaker didn't have too. But surley Pushkin could have returned in later films i.e licence to Kill. or the post poned Timothy Dalton third film or even Goldeneye

[Scottlee]

I've got no problem with Pushkin surviving, but I agree that Koskov still being alive until at least the end of the movie ('diplomatic bag' = death?) was somewhat weak. It was almost like the end of a Columbo episode i.e "You've been foiled! Now put him in handcuffs and take him away!" I imagine the writers were trying to be ultra-realistic by not having every single villain die their traditional Bond-death. If that was the case however I think they got it wrong, especially when you consider just how easily they could killed Koskov in that jeep explosion.

Imagine if Largo had been simply 'arrested' by the navy at the end of TB and been promised a date with the firing squad, or similarly if Auric Goldfinger has been arrested by the military outside Fort Knox. Such turns of events would rob us of our chief pay-off, that of Bond finally turning the tables by delivering a clinical much deserved death. The only time it seemed okay to let villains get away was at the end of OHMSS, and even then I didn't think Bunt's survival was necessary. I would rather she had been blown up at the rally.

[byline]

If that was the case however I think they got it wrong, especially when you consider just how easily they could killed Koskov in that jeep explosion.

That's what I remember thinking: "How the heck did he walk away from that? And, as you and others noted, there seemed no real point to keeping him alive, except as a punchline near the end.

[Loomis]

I gather Pushkin was originally earmarked as a Dalton era regular (a la Gogol in the Moore era) and given a small role in LICENCE TO KILL, but John Rhys-Davies turned it down for some reason. No idea why Koskov survives, though (although I've no particular objection to it). Perhaps he, too, was thought good for another appearance in a future Bond flick.

[dinovelvet]

I gather Pushkin was originally earmarked as a Dalton era regular (a la Gogol in the Moore era) and given a small role in LICENCE TO KILL, but John Rhys-Davies turned it down for some reason. No idea why Koskov survives, though (although I've no particular objection to it). Perhaps he, too, was thought good for another appearance in a future Bond flick.

That's interesting, do you have any further info about Pushkin's role in LTK? I can imagine a scenario where after resigning from MI6, Bond turns to Pushkin for help in taking down Sanchez, and Pushkin probably says no!

[Milovy]

If that was the case however I think they got it wrong, especially when you consider just how easily they could killed Koskov in that jeep explosion.

That's what I remember thinking: "How the heck did he walk away from that? And, as you and others noted, there seemed no real point to keeping him alive, except as a punchline near the end.

Weren't they talking about bringing Koskov back as a recurring character for future Bond movies? Yes, that is a very odd scene and I always wondered what that overly huge, non-survivable explosion that he survived, was all about.

[dinovelvet]

If that was the case however I think they got it wrong, especially when you consider just how easily they could killed Koskov in that jeep explosion.

That's what I remember thinking: "How the heck did he walk away from that? And, as you and others noted, there seemed no real point to keeping him alive, except as a punchline near the end.

Weren't they talking about bringing Koskov back as a recurring character for future Bond movies? Yes, that is a very odd scene and I always wondered what that overly huge, non-survivable explosion that he survived, was all about.

It is pretty ridiculous...a plane crashes into a jeep, exploding into a fireball, and the guy emerges with, ooh, some soot marks on his face. Its like a Bugs Bunny cartoon or something, where a bomb will go off right in someone's face, leaving them all black and with their eyebrows humourously singed off, etc. He should have died right there and then, as he served absolutely no useful purpose from then on, we've got Whitaker as the finale villain who has the showdown with Bond.
Anyway, regarding potential Koskov future appearances, I wonder if Valentin Zukovsky was a sort of alternate version of Koskov (much like Jack Wade is basically Felix Leiter in every way but the name). Did they toy with the idea of bringing back Koskov for Goldeneye, but decided they wanted to start fresh, or Krabbe didn't want to do it, etc? Think about it, Zukovsky is pretty much the same character as Koskov - a slightly buffoonish Russian adversary who will gladly shift allegiances for a quick buck.

[Turn]

If that was the case however I think they got it wrong, especially when you consider just how easily they could killed Koskov in that jeep explosion.

That's what I remember thinking: "How the heck did he walk away from that? And, as you and others noted, there seemed no real point to keeping him alive, except as a punchline near the end.

Weren't they talking about bringing Koskov back as a recurring character for future Bond movies? Yes, that is a very odd scene and I always wondered what that overly huge, non-survivable explosion that he survived, was all about.

The way I understood it was the Pushkin character was only created because Walter Gotell, who played General Gogol, was very ill at the time TLD was being filmed or ready to be filmed and couldn't play the character. Rather than cast another actor as Gogol, they created Pushkin to replace Gogol in the script (notice his mistress has a similar name to Gogol's, Rubavitch opposed to Rublevitch or something) and he was supposedly going to be a recurring character following that.

I have no idea where he would have fit into LTK, although they could have inserted a quick scene with him, the way they did Gogol in MR, but I'm not sure the character made enough of an impression to warrent a cameo.

[tdalton]

If that was the case however I think they got it wrong, especially when you consider just how easily they could killed Koskov in that jeep explosion.

That's what I remember thinking: "How the heck did he walk away from that? And, as you and others noted, there seemed no real point to keeping him alive, except as a punchline near the end.

Weren't they talking about bringing Koskov back as a recurring character for future Bond movies? Yes, that is a very odd scene and I always wondered what that overly huge, non-survivable explosion that he survived, was all about.

The way I understood it was the Pushkin character was only created because Walter Gotell, who played General Gogol, was very ill at the time TLD was being filmed or ready to be filmed and couldn't play the character. Rather than cast another actor as Gogol, they created Pushkin to replace Gogol in the script (notice his mistress has a similar name to Gogol's, Rubavitch opposed to Rublevitch or something) and he was supposedly going to be a recurring character following that.

I have no idea where he would have fit into LTK, although they could have inserted a quick scene with him, the way they did Gogol in MR, but I'm not sure the character made enough of an impression to warrent a cameo.

I think that they probably could have worked Pushkin into a future Bond film, but I think that GoldenEye would have been a better film to feature him in. Rather than having Jack Wade as Bond's contact when he gets to Russia, I think they could have used Pushkin there instead. Storyline wise, Pushkin could have been threatened by the rise of the General Orumov and his ties with the Janus Syndicate, and passes along information to Bond and MI6 in the hopes that they would take care of the problem for him.

[LadySylvia]

Koskov's survival in Afghanistan didn't bother me. Who else would tell Whittaker about the fate of his opium?

Why would anyone question Pushkin's survival?

[Loomis]

I gather Pushkin was originally earmarked as a Dalton era regular (a la Gogol in the Moore era) and given a small role in LICENCE TO KILL, but John Rhys-Davies turned it down for some reason. No idea why Koskov survives, though (although I've no particular objection to it). Perhaps he, too, was thought good for another appearance in a future Bond flick.

That's interesting, do you have any further info about Pushkin's role in LTK? I can imagine a scenario where after resigning from MI6, Bond turns to Pushkin for help in taking down Sanchez, and Pushkin probably says no!

Sorry, no further info. It's just something I read about here on CBn a few years ago from a source that seemed reliable. No idea which thread it was on.

Knowing LTK's unfortunate penchant for silly elements among all the "grittiness", I imagine that Pushkin would have been a guest at Felix's wedding.

[Gri007]

Suppose it is difficult really to think where Pushkin could have been in LTK. Seeing that the story was different and it was a shake up in the Bond formula.

And I did think weather Zukovski's character in GE and TWINE was a Pushkin replacement. It is interesting to note that Pushkins role was originally for General Gogol. But still not to sure in the point of having Koskov surviving. It does seem rather weak.

[ACE]

Yes, Loomis, you are right. In a Starlog interview with Rhys-Davies in 1989, he mentions that he was asked to return for LTK but refused if it was just a cameo. He wanted Pushkin to be more involved in the plot.

The Michael France draft of Goldeneye has Pushkin front and centre (France wrote it for Dalton) in what became the Mishkin role.

Pushkin was a last minute replacement. Originally it was meant to be Gogol but as mentioned by Turn and Gri007, actor Walter Gotell's health prevented him returning for a lengthy shoot.

An early draft of LTK was set in China where the villains were the Snow Leopard Brotherhood mentioned in TLD (Cinefantastique Summer 1989). I guess Pushkin could have had more of a role in this script.

I took sending Koskov home "in the diplomatic bag" not to be a literal method of transportation but a euphemism to make his trip uncomfortable. I think Koskov will be dealt with severely by the Soviet authorities. Koskov might even end up hearing the repertoire of the Siberian Philharmonic Orchestra for himself.

I agree, Koskov's survival of the plane crash does not play well.

The resolution of the labyrinthine plotting is hurried and unsatisfactory, IMHO. The fact is that too many characters carry too complex a plot with not enough time devoted to their motivations and the effect of their actions. Being a wisenheimer-after-the-event, I suggest the following changes:

1) Defer the Blayden Hall snatch back of Koskov. Instead devote time to Koskov's persuasion and convincing of SIS that Pushkin has to be taken out as intercut with 2 and 3 below.

2) Cut to Whitaker's Tangier base where we seem him in huge war chamber eavesdropping on CIA/KGB reaction to escalating spy war (Necros either onscreen or implicitly taking out spies).

3) Cut to a global briefing to the NATO agents intercut with the same scene in the Soviet Union (in unsubtitled Russian) would have been an economically visual storytelling device. The machinations are given context displaying the way Smiert Spionam was affecting the intelligence apparatus, heightening the tension Koskov spoke of.

4) Koskov disappears while under Bond's protection. Bond should have had the fight in the kitchen, knocking out one of Necros' helpers. When Bond declines to kill Pushkin, M throws this failure in his face. Plus Bond is at the centre of the best fight in the film.

5) The reveal that Koskov is in league with Whitaker must be a dramatic moment.

6) Koskov and Whitaker extolling their plan to raise funds in Afganistan to fund Necros' wars of revolution in said huge war chamber in the villa with maps and tin soldiers in Africa, Asia and South America (providing a more dramatic setting for the eerie shoot out at the finale). If there

[LadySylvia]

Someone had complained about the small screen time of Whittaker in TLD. But he is not the main villain to me. For me, both Whittaker and Koskov shared the role. And both operated different functions of that role. I really cannot see Whittaker participating in a larger role - screen time that is. Despite having the Soviets as a customer (and only through Koskov was this possible), I have a hard time believing that he would even be in Afghanistan, let alone having the ability to make contact with the Brotherhood of the Snow Leopard. And I doubt that Koskov would have the financial ability or contacts to supply the Soviets with high tech weapons.

I used to have a trouble with Whittaker having less screen time than Koskov. But after coming to the realizations stated above, I no longer have a problem.

[Royal Dalton]

I took sending Koskov home "in the diplomatic bag" not to be a literal method of transportation but a euphemism to make his trip uncomfortable. I think Koskov will be dealt with severely by the Soviet authorities. Koskov might even end up hearing the repertoire of the Siberian Philharmonic Orchestra for himself.

I've always assumed they just took him out the back and shot him. Then put his body in the diplomatic bag to take it back to Russia.

[Solex Agitator]

This is a most interesting thread with well thought out ideas and scenarios that could have deepened the TLD, a Bond film in my top 5.

The result of pouring through this thread has led me surmise that a movie-tie-in novelization of this film by John Gardner might have been a terrific book.

A shame a noveliztion for this film does not exist.

I wonder if there are any fan fictions/novelizations/expansions of films that never received them...

[vavu007]

I pretty much took the "in the diplomatic bag" line as the end of Koskov too. Koskov's reaction certainly pointed that way. You can be sure if he wasn't 'put down' in Tangier, he would have been shot in some dark cellar in Lubyanka. Stealing 50 million in state funds was kind of frowned upon in the old USSR.

[LadySylvia]

I took sending Koskov home "in the diplomatic bag" not to be a literal method of transportation but a euphemism to make his trip uncomfortable. I think Koskov will be dealt with severely by the Soviet authorities. Koskov might even end up hearing the repertoire of the Siberian Philharmonic Orchestra for himself.

I've always assumed they just took him out the back and shot him. Then put his body in the diplomatic bag to take it back to Russia.

That had been my reaction when I first saw the movie. And I think you're right.

[Milovy]

My reaction was a lot different... I didn't think at all that Koskov was going to be shot. I thought he was just going to be imprisoned, although not without highly undignified treatment.

C'mon, the Soviets were as fuzzy as teddy bears in this movie. Even Koskov. He was a schemer (who showed indifference to Kara - after all, he set her up to be killed by Bond), but it's not like he actually killed anyone himself in cold blood -- hence it would be tough to imagine him being summarily executed, despite his crimes.

Then again, Koskov even so did seem to display a smidgen of feeling slightly disturbed about Kara's fate just after the defection ("Did you...?")

[Kara Milovy]

I always took "diplomatic bag" to mean death as well. A couple of years ago, I looked everywhere I could think for meaning of the phrase, for uses of it in slang, and for Bond expert's opinion, and got nowhere. Fans are divided about 50/50 on the meaning of the phrase, and I can't find any definitive etymology.

As to Koskov surviving until that point, it's dramatically necessary for him to confront Pushkin at the very end. He betrayed Pushkin.

[byline]

Then again, Koskov even so did seem to display a smidgen of feeling slightly disturbed about Kara's fate just after the defection ("Did you...?")

I took that as him wanting to be certain that Bond had killed Kara. I didn't think he cared the least bit for her, except that it would have suited his plan perfectly if Bond had killed her. Of course, things didn't work out quite the way he'd planned. . . .