It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
You have to believe that the villain is Columbo. That's why Kristatos is a "nice guy".
He just wants to make money...? He's a smuggler, he deals in bad stuff: the opium is a character note, if anything. Being rich doesn't mean he doesn't want to maintain his wealth by getting more money, that's how greed works.
I don't disagree that he's a touch bland, but the motives all function perfectly.
I think his motives make straightforward sense. Unlike the baddie in the next film, but we'll get to that!
Kristatos has a bit of snobbery (and sadism) in sponsoring Bibi to win the Olympics.
Good points. I think it would have been better had Kristatos initially been depicted as more larger than life/in the mould of a traditional Bond ally. Preferably by a different actor.
As it is it’s relatively obvious he’s at least got ulterior motives in the film. I mean, oh yeah which of the two here is the villain - this sketchy looking character with a sort of devil’s moustache/beard, and a questionable relationship with an 18 year old ice skater (who for some reason he’s ‘sponsoring’) and is played by Julian Glover, an actor known for playing villains - or this other guy who we’ve not seen up until this point? Hmm…
That would be great; a really likeable Kerim Bey type. Brian Blessed maybe :)
Of course Topol does a great job in that role though, and it'd be tricky to have two. Maybe Topol playing Kristatos might've been interesting.
Bearing in mind that Le Carre quote, I do think FYEO might have been the Bond film to reveal Bond is a double agent. After all, he does seem to make it increasingly easier for the Russians to get their hands on the ATAC (why not just blow it up in the sub when you find it, James?) :)
I think Bond failing to blow up the sub would have been quite interesting and a much more tense scene. Him using a bomb to escape the coral dragging could have been cool too. More in line with the LALD novel too.
Another missed opportunity I suppose.
I wouldn't say sadism as much as grooming intentions.
It is never established if this is a one and only ATAC or whether this is simply one of many. Maybe a missed opportunity to not ramp up the stakes and make it more of a thrilling end then Bond chucking it off the cliff.
It would have to be one of many: it doesn't really make sense that the British Navy wouldn't be able to control their weapons except with one single device, especially as they made it themselves. What's the ATAC even doing on a spy trawler anyway? Isn't the boat's purpose for reconnaissance rather than command and control?
It's quite funny that this is always talked about a return to the FRWL style as the macguffin is exactly the same, except this time it's a British one instead of a Russian one.
It's interesting.
While Bond by 1981 did follow trends, it is ahead of its time with both the Gogol character and the concept of detente, which preceded Gorbachev by about a decade.
Of course, you could also say that Orlov anticipated Putin by an even longer margin. :(
I was definitely acutely aware that they went to the "Soviet Gone Rogue" well too often. But I really hadn't considered the lack of a traditional Cold War style alternative other than FYEO.
Even in FYEO, Kristatos is a contractor, not an official KGB agent. And I haven't watched the movie in a while, but I do remember there were tensions between him and the Russians.
It was proudly proclaimed as an All Time High! Bond was back in Octopussy. Competing against another Bond film Cubby felt this one needed to be special. A previous actress was back at the main female and title of the film Octopussy. We had a classic villain with Louis Jordan as the main baddie and of course Steven Berkoff chewing the scenery in a role of Orlov. Yes this film has a lot packed in and yet I wonder were there missed opportunities?
What were the missed opportunities of Octopussy?
As always a missed opportunity is a story line that didn't pay off, a character not fleshed out, maybe a role was too small given the performer. Could the sets have used a punch? Was there issues with the soundtrack?
Imagine the editing room...
- Indian stereotypes: the snake charmer, sword swallower, etc = <10 seconds
- The Tarzan yell and kitty "sit!" = <5 seconds
- The cleavage zoom = <3 seconds
- Arrival on Union Jack hot air balloon = 20 seconds?
Basically, Octopussy is less than 1 minute away from being a pretty serious Cold War spy flick. A missed opportunity for sure.
It's one movie away. We had that with FYEO.
In that it has the same evil plot as The Fourth Protocol, that's true! :D
As you mention the Tarzan bit, I do think the jungle manhunt is a bit of a missed opportunity in a way. It's quite an original idea for a Bond film (and quite Fleming-y too I think), and although there is some tension and even desperation from Roger there towards the end, I think it could have been directed as a lot more tense and been much scarier. He's literally being hunted like an animal- that's a scary idea.
I guess in terms of opportunities to flesh out characters, Kamal Khan is a problem for me in that I don't know what his motivation is. Presumably money, but why does he want to live in a world where WW3 kicks off? What will he spend his cash on if that bomb goes off? He is kind of just the villain because the film needs one, he doesn't really make much sense.
The alternative drafts are where it gets quite interesting in terms of other opportunities missed. The early versions of the script had M being assassinated, SPECTRE, Bond on the run from his own side etc. I do like OP a lot and I think the plot is great, but maybe some of those earlier scripts would have been even more exciting.
In general, a bit more time in India and with Vijay would be welcome. They lucked into quite the ally with Vijay.
With more Octopussy and Vijay time before he is killed, I'd maybe cut the climax at Kamal's palace entirely and just go from the thwarted bomb to the (impressive) airplane stunts.
I suppose they had to leave Germany so that they could film the "India"/Utah jumping out of plane canyon scenes, so it would require a stunt rewrite somehow.
I did think a slightly grittier version could have Smythe in the PTS. Smythe is a traitor who has sold the plans for the British radar device to the South American country- Bond (or 'Toro'!) breaks into the luxurious rooms Smythe is being held in, but Smythe expected a British agent to come and regrets his actions. He tells Bond where the radar is and Bond grants him the opportunity to take his own life in his large aquarium (home to his pet octopussy) rather than be taken home. Bond then infiltrates the hangar to plant the bomb on the plane, is captured etc. etc.
If I were doing a Christopher Wood-style novelisation, that's how I'd do it :D
Fleshing out the adaptation of the short story is another major missed opportunity. It could have been a great PTS, and a good motive to make Octopussy the primary antagonist.
I don't know. I love the chemistry between Bond and Octopussy and the Batman/Catwoman aspect of the relationship. We would have lost it had she been a villain: at some point her relationship with Bond would have been purely antagonistic, like Elektra's.
And for two of our antagonists to disagree over Bond does actually feel like it adds an extra dimension. For Bond films up to this point, this was actually quite complex plotting!
And it's good plotting too: if this had been a continuation novel, people would be crying out for it to be adapted into a movie as it would have a much better plot than any of the other books.
The three-way alliance is clunky and I forget what Kahn gets out of the whole thing (money?). Now I don't doubt a continuation novel with this plot would be good, but it would require long expository passages explaining what's going on, rather than a 3 minute M scene
It's really a shame that no academic has looked into the different versions of this movie's story. I wonder why Mark Edlitz didn't devote a chapter to it in his "Lost Adventures of James Bond" (but again, he didn't devote any chapter to DAF either).
The earlier drafts centred around M's death, Blofeld leading a war against the Octopussy Cult and owing a small independent state, and Octopussy herself using Tracy's death to persuade Bond to help her seem to be quite fascinating.
Regarding the antagonists, it's a shame the story didn't develop their end goal more and Kamal Khan's backstory. Once the war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact started, what would they have done next? I always assumed that Orlov was planning to take control of the USSR while Khan would have returned to his home country (since he was an exiled prince) to become the new ruler of the Afghan proxy regime backed by the Soviet Union; but again, this is never stated in the film and I think it's another missed opportunity considering such backstory would have quite close to Fleming's spirit.