107 replies to this topic

[Sir Roger Moore]

No he's not the most energetic of villains but then with his own personal army under his control he doesn't have to be and indeed it would be strange, given his age, if he was. Just like Hugo Drax in Moonraker his considerable wealth and extensive contacts means he doesn't have to dirty his own hands in dealing with any situation or anyone for that matter. The likes of Karl Stromberg and Hugo Drax are perfectly suited villains for the story and style of Bond films they feature in and accusations of laziness or the like just because they don't have a physical fist fight with Bond are strange complaints indeed.

[Iceskater101]

I am going with.. Stromberg. 

 

He is the weakest part about The Spy Who Loved Me. 

[dtuba]

I would say Koskov but I love TLD so much it feels wrong for me to do so. So, I will go with YOLT Blofeld ( I find him whiny, annoying, and not at all scary like in TB/FRWL) and Stromberg (Who is this old guy sitting on ugly furniture eating crab and pushing buttons? What is his back story? Why does he do it? Aw, who cares.)

Edited by dtuba, 17 May 2014 - 03:03 AM.

[Guy Haines]

Stromberg's backstory was dealt with at some length in Christopher Wood's novel "James Bond, The Spy Who Loved Me", and is at least as detailed as those of Ian Fleming's other villains if not more so. Fish fancier, parent murderer, coffin robber, a swindler who assassinates his business rivals and then takes over their shipping businesses. Physically reminiscent of the Blofeld from the film of YOLT, which makes me wonder if Wood had Donald Pleasance in mind when he wrote the novel.  An all round wierdo who loathes his own species with a passion, his backstory would have been potentially fascinating on screen, but the script didn't have room for it. I don't blame Curt Jurgens for this - he played the part as it was written for the film.

[Orion]

Koskov and Whittinger in The Living Daylights. Two dull characters with a dull scheme that leave no lasting impression.

[hilly]

Dominic Greene...
Max Zorin had some dreadful lines ("you amuse me, Mr Bond"), but Christopher Walken just about pulls it off..
Charles Gray as Blofeld...what the f*** were they thinking...?

[Colossus]

No he's not the most energetic of villains but then with his own personal army under his control he doesn't have to be and indeed it would be strange, given his age, if he was. Just like Hugo Drax in Moonraker his considerable wealth and extensive contacts means he doesn't have to dirty his own hands in dealing with any situation or anyone for that matter. The likes of Karl Stromberg and Hugo Drax are perfectly suited villains for the story and style of Bond films they feature in and accusations of laziness or the like just because they don't have a physical fist fight with Bond are strange complaints indeed.

 

Hugo Drax was quite possibly the very best villain Moore faced. Yes even Scaramanga i'd dare say. The actor was equally adept at playing the good guy, and was actually MORE fascinating than to me anyway than the title bad guy in Day of the Jackal.

[Grard Bond]

I wouldn't call an exellent actor like Edward Fox "the little bad guy", who was terrific in Day of the Jackal. But yes, they both wore equal to each other.

[FlemingBond]

Charles Grey's "Blofeld" from DAF.

He isn't remotely believable as either Blofeld or a character anyone would fear.

[Colossus]

I wouldn't call an exellent actor like Edward Fox "the little bad guy", who was terrific in Day of the Jackal. But yes, they both wore equal to each other.

 

He was excellent but … here's just the CC'd part from my blog where this is …talked more about:
 

 

In other movies too it is a tougher thing to pull off but ultimately more rewarding for the good guy to be more interesting than the bad guy. In The Day of the Jackal (1973), there is an assassin who is tasked with assassinating the French president in 1960s Paris. He is a suave and debonair villain who looks like an aristocratic English gentleman who does his task without grimace but cold precision and smooth double faces, smiling at the people he meets and even seducing aristocracy. However his facade is when he does his evil deed with a bland face killing a weapons provider with a swift hand stroke whom he was just smiling to before or seducing a lady and then killing her in bed off offscreen. He is like a James Bond gone wrong, and appears to be the title star of the movie. However opposing him is a stocky looking Detective Lebel hired to stop him.

He is very plain and oafish looking compared to the debonair sleek Jackal. He is quickly tasked by the French ministers and placed as head of the investigation. He is a by-the-books type of good guy who merely tries his best to stop him and has a brainy straightforward way of speaking like he is a walking investigative brain. However he is simply the more interesting. Because he is all about his work and all about the establishment, and there is no actual way of showing him off whatsoever. There are some moments where he is not driving around on the trail of the Jackal or convening with the cabinet members where he looks like he is sleeping like a log in bed before getting a call, or feeding birds near his house that shows his simpleness and this by itself is charm. What exactly does this person do when he is not tracking a dangerous assassin? He hs a humbleness which is fascinating. When on the job he appears like a calculating brain. He spends time in his office with an assistant which quickly becomes garbaged because of his tenacity. Then when following the Jackal’s footsteps at each location he quickly takes charge of the scene. In the hotel in which the lady is killed by the Jackal he assumes leadership by instantly telling people what to do and questioning others. He scurries along each scene and meticulously and formally acts in each way. This by itself makes him more fascinating. The Jackal from the outset is built up as the cool one, while Lebel is the underdog. This is usually the structure of these type of movies, but in this Lebel seems to be so on the ball that his nonchalant manner reveals himself to be every bit a match for the Jackal by the end who gives as good as he can get. He has a bumbling exterior but all his actions are those of a person who is a computer with human antennae able to sense his environment.

[glidrose]

Charles Grey's "Blofeld" from DAF.
He isn't remotely believable as either Blofeld or a character anyone would fear.

If they wanted to go camp they should have hired Vincent Price. Gray is too smug and hammy. Again, as another villain he would have been quite good but totally miscast as Blofeld.

[Grard Bond]

This afternoon I watched QoS again. Yes, I'm pretty sure that Green is the worst villian in the whole series. He's very badly written and absolute no match for 007! 

[Guy Haines]

Regarding "The Day Of The Jackal" mentioned above, the original movie is one of my favourite non-Bond thrillers. Even though you know the outcome it is still crafted in such a way that you think The Jackal just might assassinate De Gaulle. (Apollo 13 is another movie which works that way for me - the outcome is a matter of record, but you wonder throughout if the astronauts will get back to Earth)

 

When Michael Lonsdale was announced as Drax in late 1978 my first thought was "who?" Then I caught up with his performance as Claude Lebel in "Jackal" and couldn't quite picture a man playing a diffident and rather clumsy detective as Bond's next adversary. I needn't have worried. Moonraker isn't my favourite Bond film, but one of its strengths is Michael Lonsdale as Drax. He plays it straight, but with the odd dry witticism. It's almost as if he's the villain from an earlier Bond era who's wandered into the wrong film. He might have made a great Blofeld.

 

As for Edward Fox as The Jackal - an upper class expert killer. He's Bond gone to the very bad - what Bond could have been if he'd taken a really wrong turn. Fox created a compelling and dangerous character. 

[dtuba]

Stromberg's backstory was dealt with at some length in Christopher Wood's novel "James Bond, The Spy Who Loved Me", and is at least as detailed as those of Ian Fleming's other villains if not more so. Fish fancier, parent murderer, coffin robber, a swindler who assassinates his business rivals and then takes over their shipping businesses. Physically reminiscent of the Blofeld from the film of YOLT, which makes me wonder if Wood had Donald Pleasance in mind when he wrote the novel.  An all round wierdo who loathes his own species with a passion, his backstory would have been potentially fascinating on screen, but the script didn't have room for it. I don't blame Curt Jurgens for this - he played the part as it was written for the film.

That's all well and good for the novel, but the producers could have maybe put a little bit more of this onscreen, as opposed to ...not much at all.

[Guy Haines]

I agree with you, dtuba. There should have been more time for Stromberg's backstory, as Christopher Wood created an unusual villain for his novel of the film. But the films have never had much time for that in general. I can think of few Bond movies where we learn much about the bad guy beyond M's briefing to Bond, and a little bit as the villain (inevitably!) has 007 in his power temporarily and can't resist revealing a  bit about himself and/or his evil scheme. The introduction of Doctor No on screen is the classic example - whereas with the likes of Stromberg, Drax and Blofeld, we know hardly anything about them, on screen at least.

[dtuba]

I agree with you, dtuba. There should have been more time for Stromberg's backstory, as Christopher Wood created an unusual villain for his novel of the film. But the films have never had much time for that in general. I can think of few Bond movies where we learn much about the bad guy beyond M's briefing to Bond, and a little bit as the villain (inevitably!) has 007 in his power temporarily and can't resist revealing a  bit about himself and/or his evil scheme. The introduction of Doctor No on screen is the classic example - whereas with the likes of Stromberg, Drax and Blofeld, we know hardly anything about them, on screen at least.

With Fleming's villains, we have the luxury of knowing more about them - or at least the book version of them - prior to their screen appearance. Stromberg was the first villain that appeared out of thin air (although LALD's Mr. Big/Kananga varied considerably from the original source).  

[Guy Haines]

That's what I liked about Mr Fleming's novels - he took the time to craft the characters, especially the villains. He'd sometimes spend a whole chapter on them - for example, chapter five of Thunderball - "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" - which is devoted almost entirely to building up the character Blofeld. By the end of it we readers know almost everything about him. And Christopher Wood did the same with Stromberg in his novel. Whereas in the film, we know he lives in a submersible house, has sliding works of art, feeds pretty underlings to sharks and has a giant steel toothed sidekick who in turn orders about a stocky bald one. Oh, and at some point we learn in passing that he's a shipping magnate - or depending on your point of view "one of the principal capitalist exploiters of the West."

 

I suppose in film there isn't time for a proper backstory. Joseph Wiseman related his character's in Doctor No, we got some hints about Goldfinger, but most Bond villains in the films rise without trace and, inevitably, fall from grace.

[Mr_Wint]

Whereas in the film, we know he lives in a submersible house, has sliding works of art, feeds pretty underlings to sharks and has a giant steel toothed sidekick who in turn orders about a stocky bald one. Oh, and at some point we learn in passing that he's a shipping magnate - or depending on your point of view "one of the principal capitalist exploiters of the West."

That is still alot, isn't it?
Plus, Stromberg does not like to shake hands and he is not renowned for his patience. On top of that, Stromberg has, not just one but two extensive speeches with Bond. And they give us some hints about his character.

"I'm somewhat of a recluse. I wish to conduct my life on my own terms, and in surroundings with which I can identify. That is the privilege of wealth."
"To me, this is all the world. There is Beauty, there is ugliness, and there is death."
 
Backstory is overrated on film. And if a book adds more depth, fine. That is a good reason to write the book in the first place.