Bond and the octopus.

schaduwoog

I'm reading Doctor No at the moment. I thought it will be cool to see Bond in the movies fight with the octopus. So use this scene in a movie. I know we saw a lot of octopus in pirates of the c.. and we don't like to see CGI in a bond film but i would like to see this beautiful scene in a movie.

what about you?

Loeffelholz

Actually, blueman and I are the two biggest proponents of the octopus making an appearance in the Bond films. If they ever get around to recreating Dr. Shatterhand's Garden of Death (from the YOLT novel), we figure that might be a good place to have a body of water guarded by this fearsome critter B-) In our opinion, a great unmined nugget of Fleming gold... :007)

schaduwoog

yeah i would love to see the Garden of Death in a movie. That will make a suspenseful piece of film! Good idea to combine the garden and the octopus.

slinger

I haven't gotten to YOLT novel yet but, would Dr. Shatterhand be a good unused villain for a new movie? "Shatterhand" sounds like a good Bond title.
By the way, would love to see the octopus scene used in a film.

schaduwoog

I really like the YOLT novel. Indeed Shatterhand is a good name. For a villain, maybe for the movie.

j.blades

I'll try not to spoil anything for those that havent read it yet, and i really hope you get around to it evetnually but shatterhand is a alias thats all i'm going to say.

youknowmyname

j.blades wrote:

I'll try not to spoil anything for those that havent read it yet, and i really hope you get around to it evetnually but shatterhand is a alias thats all i'm going to say.

I don't think that gives anything away, it's nice and oblique.

I too would love to see the octopus scene and the Garden of Death. I just wonder what the Garden of Death would look like in world as it is today...could Quantum or Mr. White be responsible for such a place? It seems a major return to villain megalomania would have to take place before the Garden of Death would make much sense...let alone a big octopus.

Loeffelholz

youknowmyname wrote:

j.blades wrote:

I'll try not to spoil anything for those that havent read it yet, and i really hope you get around to it evetnually but shatterhand is a alias thats all i'm going to say.

I don't think that gives anything away, it's nice and oblique.

I too would love to see the octopus scene and the Garden of Death. I just wonder what the Garden of Death would look like in world as it is today...could Quantum or Mr. White be responsible for such a place? It seems a major return to villain megalomania would have to take place before the Garden of Death would make much sense...let alone a big octopus.

Well, it would be a GREAT third act "reveal" in any Bond picture... -{

7289

Certainly the "garden of death" is a crackpot idea - perfectly suitable as the last refuge of a fellow like Shatterhand. As mentioned above, it hardly fits in with the agenda of Quantum.

Shatterhand could be an interesting villian if the YOLT novel were actually used for the screenplay, it would be a nice break from the rogue Bond going around the world avenging himself. The irony is that YOLT gains alot of traction in the last part of the novel from the theme of "revenge".

I for one wouldn't mind seeing the octopus, but it would have to be CGI, and I don't think the technology is quite "there" yet. I also don't think the "pusfella" would work in a "garden of death"..... they eat alot of them in the Far East. It would be like havng Bond attacked by a cow!

Loeffelholz

I kind of like the notion of a crackpot at the head of Quantum...why not? Crackpots certainly run enough countries... :v

blueman

Guys, it's a squid in DN. And yes they should tie to the Garden of Death from YOLT, in fact I'm excited that others are having this idea, makes me think there's hope for it to fall into EON's collective brainpan. Squid! Squid!

I think my ardor for filming the squid scene (also a bad guy walking through a poisonous garden in a medieval Japanese suit of armor) is that it's so quintessentially Fleming: fantastic, morbid, deadly, weird. EON has gone for the fantastic at times in a big way, but shied away from a lot of the darker Fleming content or cuted it up. The danger is something like that coming out naff, but as written the squid scene makes my stomach fall somewhere down around my ankles. The Garden of Death might be tougher to pull off, but if it could be done - and done right, like Fleming wrote it, an entire castle grounds - just wow.

Seems like EON is always trying to come up with good set piece ideas, there's two good ones that go great together, just waiting for them to go there. Squid!

Barry Nelson

As usual I am on the outside looking in, I did not care for the Garden of Death from YOLT, I found it ludicrous and I hope it never sees the light of day in a Bond film. Bond wrestling with sea creatures has also never appealed to me,

Loeffelholz

Barry Nelson wrote:

As usual I am on the outside looking in, I did not care for the Garden of Death from YOLT, I found it ludicrous and I hope it never sees the light of day in a Bond film. Bond wrestling with sea creatures has also never appealed to me,

A perfectly understandable and reasonable opinion. For my own part, I think that (as with everything) it's all in the execution...

I thought the scene in the DN novel was riveting, and the Garden of Death was bizarre and nightmarish enough to be engaging in what was essentially James Bond's final great gasp of excitement in the Fleming Era. I'll generally tend to agree about Bond vs creatures (Exhibit A: Roger Moore unflappably defeating a gigantic plastic snake with a poison inkpen syringe in MR )...but I honestly think that---with today's CGI technology, and a properly terrified James Bond (Craig can do this), such a setpiece/scene can virtually redefine the 'deadpan spoofing' to which the late great Bond screenwriter Richard Maibam referred...and bridge that elusive gap between the silly Dinner Theatre Bond^TM of the '70s/'80s, and the too gritty/grim (for some) Bond of the present day.

Just a thought -{

Barry Nelson

Loeffelholz wrote:

Barry Nelson wrote:

As usual I am on the outside looking in, I did not care for the Garden of Death from YOLT, I found it ludicrous and I hope it never sees the light of day in a Bond film. Bond wrestling with sea creatures has also never appealed to me,

A perfectly understandable and reasonable opinion. For my own part, I think that (as with everything) it's all in the execution...

I thought the scene in the DN novel was riveting, and the Garden of Death was bizarre and nightmarish enough to be engaging in what was essentially James Bond's final great gasp of excitement in the Fleming Era. I'll generally tend to agree about Bond vs creatures (Exhibit A: Roger Moore unflappably defeating a gigantic plastic snake with a poison inkpen syringe in MR )...but I honestly think that---with today's CGI technology, and a properly terrified James Bond (Craig can do this), such a setpiece/scene can virtually redefine the 'deadpan spoofing' to which the late great Bond screenwriter Richard Maibam referred...and bridge that elusive gap between the silly Dinner Theatre Bond^TM of the '70s/'80s, and the too gritty/grim (for some) Bond of the present day.

Just a thought -{

And you are welcome to it. -{
What I didn't like about the Garden of Death was the image of the villian in a suit of armour. In my mind, the villian became a goofball. I like my villians sinister, but at least a little sane.

I will say, Connery looked convincingly terrified when the shark swam by him in Largo's pool in TB. Of course, that's because the shark really did swim by him. Pity the poor set hand who opened the wrong door, I bet Connery gave him an earful.

Loeffelholz

Barry Nelson wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Just a thought -{

And you are welcome to it. -{

As always, much appreciated!

The line is ever blurry, IMO, between sane and silly when it comes to a villian in an escapist piece. To me, Telly Savalas danced at the edge of the precipice of absurdity when he swapped poetic quotes with Diana Rigg in OHMSS...and certainly Bond baddies throughout the franchise have had their moments.* As with the choice of Bond actor, everything is just so personal in its application...but I'm a Fleming man, and the Garden of Death might just be the man's final exclamation of escapist thrill-making---with an unhinged supervillian luxuriating in his own villainy (to paraphrase Kingsley Amis). I just think it'd be a shame to leave it on the shelf when they've assuredly found the nerve to portray double-taking pigeons and underwater tie-straightening.

^{*Charles Gray's Blofeld in drag mercifully withheld from consideration...}

7289

I for one am embarrassed that I failed to recall Dr. No had a pet squid NOT an octopus!

As another die hard "Flemingist" TM, I would love to see IF's scenarios translated to the screen. I think it is important to point out to those who disdain malevolent sea critters and a shubbery of poison plants, Commander Fleming frequently switched back and forth between hard boiled thrillers and borderline sci-fi.

For the more fantastic IF ideas to really work they would need to be taken seriously. As we all know EON frequently has lacked the "equiptment" to make a serious Bond. Even the revered Casino Royale '06 was borderline with Le Chiffre's Donald Pleasance scar, and QOS was right on the line with the "dogfight".

Could Shatterhand in Japanese armour be seriously scary....you bet! But the whole movie would have to be set in the same dark, "lost weekend" tone as the YOLT novel, which is really the last part of the SPECTRE trilogy which has Bond in a downward spiral that ends with his apparent death.

So while I would like to see the SQUID and the Garden of Death.... I think at this point I am just crossing my fingers that things will somehow come together for Bond 23. I'd be happy with DC and maybe another snapshot of Vesper!

youknowmyname

Barry Nelson wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Barry Nelson wrote:

As usual I am on the outside looking in, I did not care for the Garden of Death from YOLT, I found it ludicrous and I hope it never sees the light of day in a Bond film. Bond wrestling with sea creatures has also never appealed to me,

A perfectly understandable and reasonable opinion. For my own part, I think that (as with everything) it's all in the execution...

I thought the scene in the DN novel was riveting, and the Garden of Death was bizarre and nightmarish enough to be engaging in what was essentially James Bond's final great gasp of excitement in the Fleming Era. I'll generally tend to agree about Bond vs creatures (Exhibit A: Roger Moore unflappably defeating a gigantic plastic snake with a poison inkpen syringe in MR )...but I honestly think that---with today's CGI technology, and a properly terrified James Bond (Craig can do this), such a setpiece/scene can virtually redefine the 'deadpan spoofing' to which the late great Bond screenwriter Richard Maibam referred...and bridge that elusive gap between the silly Dinner Theatre Bond^TM of the '70s/'80s, and the too gritty/grim (for some) Bond of the present day.

Just a thought -{

And you are welcome to it. -{
What I didn't like about the Garden of Death was the image of the villian in a suit of armour. In my mind, the villian became a goofball. I like my villians sinister, but at least a little sane.

I will say, Connery looked convincingly terrified when the shark swam by him in Largo's pool in TB. Of course, that's because the shark really did swim by him. Pity the poor set hand who opened the wrong door, I bet Connery gave him an earful.

By very definition I would argue Bond villains are never sane, but always sinister.

blueman

7289 wrote:

As another die hard "Flemingist" TM, I would love to see IF's scenarios translated to the screen. I think it is important to point out to those who disdain malevolent sea critters and a shubbery of poison plants, Commander Fleming frequently switched back and forth between hard boiled thrillers and borderline sci-fi.

For the more fantastic IF ideas to really work they would need to be taken seriously. As we all know EON frequently has lacked the "equiptment" to make a serious Bond.

youknowmyname wrote:

By very definition I would argue Bond villains are never sane, but always sinister.

Yep, yep, yep and yep. The best Fleming villains were nutjobs, they'd just found a way to also be lethal (like the evilest of history's real-life villains...).

That was one thing I appreciated about QOS more than any Bond film in a long time, I thought they got the balance just right with Amalric's Greene, very Fleming IMO, also reminded me of Gert Frobe's performance in GF, the barely-contained violence under a silky/smarmy veneer.

Napoleon Plural

It's hard to do CGI and water, that's the problem. I suppose Titanic is a bit of an exception, but you know what I mean.

blueman

Hard, but not impossible.

EON has a history of creating the improbable, usually quite well. The technology has been there for a while, they just need to do it (IMHO).

7289

blueman wrote:

That was one thing I appreciated about QOS more than any Bond film in a long time, I thought they got the balance just right with Amalric's Greene, very Fleming IMO, also reminded me of Gert Frobe's performance in GF, the barely-contained violence under a silky/smarmy veneer.

Excellent observation!

blueman

7289 wrote:

blueman wrote:

That was one thing I appreciated about QOS more than any Bond film in a long time, I thought they got the balance just right with Amalric's Greene, very Fleming IMO, also reminded me of Gert Frobe's performance in GF, the barely-contained violence under a silky/smarmy veneer.

Excellent observation!

Oh I think there's a lot of Fleming-type stuff in QOS - not much "classic cinematic Bond" as EON has re-imagined him, but that's fine by me. :007)

Barry Nelson

blueman wrote:

7289 wrote:

As another die hard "Flemingist" TM, I would love to see IF's scenarios translated to the screen. I think it is important to point out to those who disdain malevolent sea critters and a shubbery of poison plants, Commander Fleming frequently switched back and forth between hard boiled thrillers and borderline sci-fi.

For the more fantastic IF ideas to really work they would need to be taken seriously. As we all know EON frequently has lacked the "equiptment" to make a serious Bond.

youknowmyname wrote:

By very definition I would argue Bond villains are never sane, but always sinister.

Yep, yep, yep and yep. The best Fleming villains were nutjobs, they'd just found a way to also be lethal (like the evilest of history's real-life villains...).

That was one thing I appreciated about QOS more than any Bond film in a long time, I thought they got the balance just right with Amalric's Greene, very Fleming IMO, also reminded me of Gert Frobe's performance in GF, the barely-contained violence under a silky/smarmy veneer.

Totally disagree, Fleming villains were self assured megalomaniacs that were confident in their superiority and in their plot. Greene was a little mouse of a man trying to portray confidence, but in reality lacking any inner strength. Did anyone think Greene could stand up to Bond, I didn't. When Goldfinger walked into the room he owned it, when Greene walked in, no one noticed. One of the most common criticisms of QOS was the forgettable villain. Even Greene's diabolical plan, controlling Bolivia's water supply, is small. Small plot for a small villain.

7289

I found Greene menacing in a psychotic way. He certainly puts down both Bond and Camille at the party. Greene reminded me of a sucessful Norman Bates. Thankfully, we are spared the EON villian's trademark facial scar, hump, bald head and cat.

Prehaps Greene is too subtle. For instance, he never finishes his story about how he took an iron to one of his mother's students. Presumably off camera he drowned poor Fields in oil. It is only at the conclusion in the staircase fight at the Perla de los Dunes, that his violent nature emerges. I sure cringed when he started swinging that axe!

The whole Enviormentalist Wacko / steal the water part, seems suitably ambitious. The Boliva project was only part of Quantum's overall scheme, which reeked of world domination and control.

No he wasn't Goldfinger, Greene was more of a Rosa Klebb / Kronsteen villian. I for one was glad to see EON/Forster take a step back from the absurd to a more "real world" evil.

Gert Frobe's Goldfinger will always be THE Bond villian, but to top that preformance/casting without mucking it up and spoofing themselves is going to take some real creativity.

Red Indian

Greene was a great villain. Like Le Chiffre, they both had that reptillian quality (their eyes and mouths) that Fleming wrote of!

blueman

Perhaps the next film can simply feature the squid as the main villain? Too much?

Bella_doc

7289 wrote:

I found Greene menacing in a psychotic way. He certainly puts down both Bond and Camille at the party.

Yes, he's certainly the Queen of Putdowns. )

7289 wrote:

Greene reminded me of a sucessful Norman Bates. Thankfully, we are spared the EON villian's trademark facial scar, hump, bald head and cat.

Prehaps Greene is too subtle. For instance, he never finishes his story about how he took an iron to one of his mother's students. Presumably off camera he drowned poor Fields in oil. It is only at the conclusion in the staircase fight at the Perla de los Dunes, that his violent nature emerges. I sure cringed when he started swinging that axe!

The whole Enviormentalist Wacko / steal the water part, seems suitably ambitious. The Boliva project was only part of Quantum's overall scheme, which reeked of world domination and control.

No he wasn't Goldfinger, Greene was more of a Rosa Klebb / Kronsteen villian. I for one was glad to see EON/Forster take a step back from the absurd to a more "real world" evil.

I don't think his problem was that he was too subtle. After all, Le Chiffre was all civility until the threat of imminent death and Bond's lack of cooperation pushed him over the edge, and he was still an effective villain overall. No, Greene's problem IMO was that he was just a bit too smarmy and oily (heh) to feel really threatening; and then when he let loose he crossed the line from crazy megalomaniacal Bond villain to manic psychotic villain, which is not the same thing. Sure, he was scary --and I certainly found him to be an effective villain at the time-- but upon reflection it's more the type of 'scary' that creeps under your skin and unsettles you because you know it could burst out Alien-like at any moment, as opposed to the 'scary' that comes with being powerless before a massive, hulking force of pure deranged evil. Umm, if that made sense at all... it's the menacing evil within vs. the big evil without. I guess in that sense Greene's oleaginous persona fit in very well with QoS's theme of the enemy within, so, er, it worked out after all I suppose. An interesting experiment for sure.

Though it would certainly be something if EON could pull out an updated version of the patented take-over-the-world type villain, only this time instead of Jonathan Pryce style hamminess taking the care to make him/her truly scary. After all they rejuvenated the formula with Bond, so why not with the classic Bond villain?

As for the proposed mano-a-mano with the octopus/squid... I don't know, it's pretty out there. I haven't got to that book yet, though I can imagine Fleming's writing of the scene being very effective, however I'm not sure it would work on screen. Between the Pirates' humanoid octopus and all the lazy blue-tinted CGI of nearly every action movie these days, I can just imagine it being a confusing bunch of quick cuts and close-ups of a wet squid. And that's beside the inherent lack of satisfaction of seeing our hero wrestle with a scion of impersonal nature -- it just doesn't feel very Bond (TM) without a fight to the death pitting Bond's skills and wits against those of a tenacious baddie, and of course the sense of personal satisfaction that comes with triumphing over said nasty human. Bond v. Squid could be interesting but audiences may not be invested in it, is what I'm saying. {:)

7289

The ultimate "tenacious baddie" of Dr. No was the squid, his lair was at the end of Dr. No's torture tunnel, and the ten armed beast was supposed to rip Bond from head to toe. Squid even in CGI would be more effective than another "Stamper" or "Jaws"!

Fleming put lots of creepy "things" in Dr. No, especially the centipede. In fact alot of Dr. No is Bond versus Bugs! Lensing these scenarios would likely contain alot of CGI if done these days. It could be done well if the critters weren't over exposed and thus subject to the OTT CGI in films like "Priates" series.

But in Dr. No, after the squid - there is no final "confrontation" with the villian. Bond just "dumps" on him and it's over.

blueman

I think the problem with Fleming-type villains these days is scope - Fleming shied away from anything manifestly meglomaniacal (sorry Barry, I don't even think Blofeld in OHMSS qualifies, Fleming made him syphilitic and and already partially nutso). The more common Fleming villains - Le Chiffre, Drax, Klebb, Goldfinger, Largo, Dr No, etc - had smaller plans but were all still shaded by psychosis, bigger than life but with some dangerous side effects. It's what made them villains, they certainly were not "normal" or balanced in terms of their mental health, lol! Fleming had a great sense of this big yet rotten type of character, and had them go after appropriately scaled nefarious plans.

EON, when they upped the stakes to taking over the world, lost that verisimilitude IMO, it's just too naff and somebody (well, Cubby and Harry) didn't like the messy undercurrents - even Savalas in OHMSS gets no incipient insanity to chew on, M writes off his motive as snobbery and the film leaves it at that (if there's one thing I miss in that film, it's Blofeld's deteriorating mental health, without it Savalas comes across as near-petulant in some scenes). I think it's taken EON going back to Bond's roots with the reboot to rediscover Fleming's balance with the baddies. I like Le Chiffre and Greene as components of Quantum, very curious where EON goes next this great throwback thread.

Napoleon Plural

blueman wrote:

Perhaps the next film can simply feature the squid as the main villain? Too much?

"Now that's a fine idea! (hic!)"

schaduwoog

blueman wrote:

Guys, it's a squid in DN. Squid!

You're right. I believe in the dutch translation, it's called an 'octopus' so i just translated it


..and the snakefight in MR was bad... but the idea was good.

I think that us 'novel guys' would like to see it, but that the 'normal' audience will see it as 'over the top'.