Your thoughts on the Zorin Miners Massacre in AVTAK?

What are your thoughts on the Zorin miners massacre from AVTAK where Zorin and Scarpine seemingly just flood the mine and sadistically gun down each and every one of the loyal miners?

Was this simply overkill on the part of the screenwriters/director and what purpose did it even serve in the end-up?

Roger Moore is on record as saying on a number of occasions that he didn't agree with this more violent aspects that came into the James Bond films at the end of his run as Bond.

What are your thoughts on this?

Does it recall Silva's gunning down of the defenceless Severine?

Zorin was a bad guy who did bad things.

This opposes the statements that all Roger Moore's movies were so clownesque and not to be taken serious. I always found that level of violence in the RM era was pretty serious but it gets hidden away due to the different approuch of RM's 007.

And Zorin was supposed to be a psychopath who even turned on his own people, so what do you expect from such a guy? With the senseless killing he staying very much in character.

A VIEW TO A KILL is a surprinsgly dark film. May Day's backseat stranglings come to mind, too.

CJB wrote:

Zorin was a bad guy who did bad things.

Quite.

I don't have a problem with the violence in any of the Bond films, even LTK. And it's not like I'm a fan of slasher flicks or something (quite the opposite). But Fleming's books were quite violent and it is only appropriate that the films follow suit.

SILHOUETTE MAN wrote:

Roger Moore is on record as saying on a number of occasions that he didn't agree with this more violent aspects that came into the James Bond films at the end of his run as Bond.

Most of his adversaries were crime-lords, cold-blooded professional killers or megalomaniacs who were bent on mass exterminations...did he expect a tea party? I adored his take as Bond but distance myself from his personal feelings...they have no place in Bond's world.

It continues to demonstrate to audiences the extent of which Zorin is a psychopath. The laughs capitalise on this ruthlessness and it aids in raising the stakes. Bond needs to stop a madman - not a businessman - who is planning on cornering microchips.

No problems with it. It was in line with his character, on a small scale he did shoot Howe without much pause and coldly. However savage, the mine shooting was par for the course.

FieldsMan wrote:

It continues to demonstrate to audiences the extent of which Zorin is a psychopath.

Also demonstrates the extent to which Roger was now out of sync with the series and one film past his prime. Though Zorin guns down the miners, there's nothing particularly gratuitous about it. There's no blood shown, no limbs blown off. I never found it unsettling. But maybe AVTAK would have been a better film with a lead actor who was comfortable confronting that sort of villain. Moore is not only uncomfortable with the violence, but at times seems annoyed with Tanya Roberts. He'll never admit to it, but I think he was sending subconscious signals to the audience that he wasn't on board with parts of the film, yet he was taking the $4 million dollar paycheck. So go figure!

I love Roger. He was the best. But he should have bowed out after OCTOPUSSY.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I love Roger. He was the best. But he should have bowed out after OCTOPUSSY.

Or MOONRAKER.

FieldsMan wrote:

It continues to demonstrate to audiences the extent of which Zorin is a psychopath.

Whist simultaneously being complately out of place in the Bond series.

Well, given what happens with Bond right at the beginning of GE and in TND, I don't think it's completely out of place in the Bond series.

I'd say Krest's exploding head is more out of place (though it doesn't really bother me), but to each his own.

FieldsMan wrote:

Well, given what happens with Bond right at the beginning of GE and in TND, I don't think it's completely out of place in the Bond series.

Bond doesn't mow down unarmed men in GE or TND.

John Glen is on record as saying a conscious decision was made to 'up' the violence in the Bonds he directed, because as far as he was concerned they were competing with the likes of Schwarzenegger and Stallone.

SILHOUETTE MAN wrote:

What are your thoughts on the Zorin miners massacre from AVTAK where Zorin and Scarpine seemingly just flood the mine and sadistically gun down each and every one of the loyal miners?

Was this simply overkill on the part of the screenwriters/director and what purpose did it even serve in the end-up?

Roger Moore is on record as saying on a number of occasions that he didn't agree with this more violent aspects that came into the James Bond films at the end of his run as Bond.

What are your thoughts on this?

Does it recall Silva's gunning down of the defenceless Severine?

Zorin's massacree made no sense and was just plain dumb
Even pychopaths follow a certain twisted logic and there was none
It was one of the low points in the movie for me

Silva's killing Severine is quite different, it's small scale, intimate evil and he has ample justificaton, like Mr Big and Solitaire or any other villain who loses his best girl accessory to Bond

I always feel something's not right with Zorin when I watch AVTAK. He's one of the more deranged villains, but the way Chris Walken plays him just adds to Zorin's bizarreness. The way he smiles and laughs randomly, for instance before falling to his death. His machine-gunning of the miners is another one of those crazy Zorin moments. Look at his background - he's probably got plenty of bottled confusion and hate that can explode at any time. I think Zorin, rather than Trevelyan, is the more fitting inspiration for Silva, hair aside. Silva has similar unpredictable mood swings, similar confusion going on, and that eerie smile.

Seve wrote:

SILHOUETTE MAN wrote:

What are your thoughts on the Zorin miners massacre from AVTAK where Zorin and Scarpine seemingly just flood the mine and sadistically gun down each and every one of the loyal miners?

Was this simply overkill on the part of the screenwriters/director and what purpose did it even serve in the end-up?

Roger Moore is on record as saying on a number of occasions that he didn't agree with this more violent aspects that came into the James Bond films at the end of his run as Bond.

What are your thoughts on this?

Does it recall Silva's gunning down of the defenceless Severine?

Zorin's massacree made no sense and was just plain dumb
Even pychopaths follow a certain twisted logic and there was none
It was one of the low points in the movie for me

Silva's killing Severine is quite different, it's small scale, intimate evil and he has ample justificaton, like Mr Big and Solitaire or any other villain who loses his best girl accessory to Bond

Sadism requires no logic.

Seve wrote:

Zorin's massacree made no sense and was just plain dumb
Even pychopaths follow a certain twisted logic and there was none

It's pretty obvious that he's a) insane and b) killing off all the wintesses so that when his earthquake does happen, no-one can step forward and claim that it was man-made.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Seve wrote:

Zorin's massacree made no sense and was just plain dumb
Even pychopaths follow a certain twisted logic and there was none
It was one of the low points in the movie for me

Silva's killing Severine is quite different, it's small scale, intimate evil and he has ample justificaton, like Mr Big and Solitaire or any other villain who loses his best girl accessory to Bond

Sadism requires no logic.

That's where you, and many movie makers, are wrong
All these types of deviants are working to a logic that makes sense to them
A good film maker is able to illustrate that internal logic to the viewer
While bad ones use the mental instability of the character as an excuse to cover plot shortcomnigs
;)

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Seve wrote:

Zorin's massacree made no sense and was just plain dumb
Even pychopaths follow a certain twisted logic and there was none

It's pretty obvious that he's a) insane and b) killing off all the wintesses so that when his earthquake does happen, no-one can step forward and claim that it was man-made.

A pretty inefficient way of going about it, when you got a big explosion / earthquake planned which could do it for you
Also leaving bullet riddled bodies around that may be discovered later, which may lead to your plan being uncovered
IMO if he was that reckless in his behaviour and thinking, he would never have got to the position of being able to nearly succeed in carrying out his plan

I can't see how any of his actions discussed here are reckless in the sense of being careless.
He had to kill all of the witnesses that way, because they would not have stayed voluntarily in the mine until the earthquake came about.

Seve wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Seve wrote:

Zorin's massacree made no sense and was just plain dumb
Even pychopaths follow a certain twisted logic and there was none
It was one of the low points in the movie for me

Silva's killing Severine is quite different, it's small scale, intimate evil and he has ample justificaton, like Mr Big and Solitaire or any other villain who loses his best girl accessory to Bond

Sadism requires no logic.

That's where you, and many movie makers, are wrong
All these types of deviants are working to a logic that makes sense to them
A good film maker is able to illustrate that internal logic to the viewer
While bad ones use the mental instability of the character as an excuse to cover plot shortcomnigs
;)

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Seve wrote:

Zorin's massacree made no sense and was just plain dumb
Even pychopaths follow a certain twisted logic and there was none

It's pretty obvious that he's a) insane and b) killing off all the wintesses so that when his earthquake does happen, no-one can step forward and claim that it was man-made.

A pretty inefficient way of going about it, when you got a big explosion / earthquake planned which could do it for you
Also leaving bullet riddled bodies around that may be discovered later, which may lead to your plan being uncovered
IMO if he was that reckless in his behaviour and thinking, he would never have got to the position of being able to nearly succeed in carrying out his plan

I disagree. Sadism is sadism. It is its own logic. Simply demonstrating why Zorin is so deranged (the whole Nazi experimantation bit) is enough. No need to do a deep character study to justify Zorin gunning down innocents. And more to the point, no need to jettison that scene.

Manhunter wrote:

I can't see how any of his actions discussed here are reckless in the sense of being careless.
He had to kill all of the witnesses that way, because they would not have stayed voluntarily in the mine until the earthquake came about.

Reckless? careless? that's just semantics, choose what ever adjective you please to describe his actions
He could easily have missed killing some of his intended victims
IMO a man who Iis capable of putting together the organisation required to pull off this particular villains masterplan would show better attention to detail when it came to disposing of the witnesses

Seve wrote:

A pretty inefficient way of going about it, when you got a big explosion / earthquake planned which could do it for you

There were no guarantees that the earthquake would kill them. And how would you convince the workers to stay in the mines? They've been packing it full of explosives.

Seve wrote:

Also leaving bullet riddled bodies around that may be discovered later, which may lead to your plan being uncovered

It's unlikely they would ever be found. Even if they were, it's equally-unlikely that anyone would identify the cause of death as being gunshot-related, given that the mines were supposed to collapse on the, crushing the bodies.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Seve wrote:

A pretty inefficient way of going about it, when you got a big explosion / earthquake planned which could do it for you

There were no guarantees that the earthquake would kill them. And how would you convince the workers to stay in the mines? They've been packing it full of explosives..

I was thinking along the lines of tricking them into attending some sort of meeting, in some sort of dining hall or other facility under the ground that had been in use during the mining, then lock them in and gas them
IMO that would be more the sort of plan I would expect from a criminal mastermind

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Seve wrote:

Also leaving bullet riddled bodies around that may be discovered later, which may lead to your plan being uncovered

It's unlikely they would ever be found. Even if they were, it's equally-unlikely that anyone would identify the cause of death as being gunshot-related, given that the mines were supposed to collapse on the, crushing the bodies.

"Unlikely" is a word that can be used to describe most things about a Bond film...

Seve wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Seve wrote:

A pretty inefficient way of going about it, when you got a big explosion / earthquake planned which could do it for you

There were no guarantees that the earthquake would kill them. And how would you convince the workers to stay in the mines? They've been packing it full of explosives..

I was thinking along the lines of tricking them into attending some sort of meeting, in some sort of dining hall or other facility under the ground that had been in use during the mining, then lock them in and gas them

"Hey, what's widd da trick pool table?!"