Bond 22: Quantum of Solace

[Piarco]

A bit sci-fi sounding? Linkage...

[liketom]

yep a read this on the beeb website , looks like the title song might be another flop, unless they can fit that title in the lyrics

[Piarco]

Originally Posted by liketom

yep a read this on the beeb website , looks like the title song might be another flop, unless they can fit that title in the lyrics

Good point, how is that going to be worked into a song? Then again, there have been a fair few Bond theme's without the title in the lyrics, pretty much like Casion Royale...

[liketom]

Originally Posted by Piarco

Good point, how is that going to be worked into a song? Then again, there have been a fair few Bond theme's without the title in the lyrics, pretty much like Casion Royale...

i think all the bond films with long titles have had rubbish songs -

Good ones - Live & Let Die, Goldfinger, Goldeneye and some others that i can't recall at the mo

[~Shard~]

I was a bit surprised when I heard this title as well. I am very much looking forward to the new movie, as I quite enjoyed Craig in the role and Casino Royale in general, however the title sounds more like a sci-fi film then a Bond flick. Goldeneye, Thunderball, Mooonraker, Goldfinger - those are classic Bond titles - this one, well, I don't get it...

[Naimfan]

Something tells me it will go just a BIT beyond a colonial secretary telling Bond the story behind a tired old woman . . .

[Abstract]

I don't like the fact it'll have 2x more action than Casino Royale. It'll probably make the movie worse.

[sysiphus]

Without having checked out the site, the title doesn't bug me at all...If I recall correctly, the name comes from a Ian Fleming short story (it's one of the 5 in the "For Your Eyes Only" book). I'm very curious if/how it will tie into the movie, since the story was about a fellow's cheating wife and the aftermath...

Regardless, this may be indicative of a continued attempt by the studio to try to tie back into original Fleming material/ideas, which, generally speaking, worked well. Look at the Connery films--generally considered to be the best, and all worked off of Fleming stories (though Diamonds are Forever was changed LOTS...a good thing though, since the original story was rather poor (largely a reflection of a 50s-ish era older Brit's impressions of the US...not very nice).

[~Shard~]

Originally Posted by sysiphus

Without having checked out the site, the title doesn't bug me at all...If I recall correctly, the name comes from a Ian Fleming short story (it's one of the 5 in the "For Your Eyes Only" book). I'm very curious if/how it will tie into the movie, since the story was about a fellow's cheating wife and the aftermath...

Regardless, this may be indicative of a continued attempt by the studio to try to tie back into original Fleming material/ideas, which, generally speaking, worked well. Look at the Connery films--generally considered to be the best, and all worked off of Fleming stories (though Diamonds are Forever was changed LOTS...a good thing though, since the original story was rather poor (largely a reflection of a 50s-ish era older Brit's impressions of the US...not very nice).

Interesting info, I wasn't aware - thanks for that. Regardless of its title, I have no doubts the movie will be fantastic just like its predecessor.

[Naimfan]

Think of how much cooler Casino Royale would have been if it had stuck to 'Chemin de fer' instead of moving to poker!

[~Shard~]

Originally Posted by Naimfan

Think of how much cooler Casino Royale would have been if it had stuck to 'Chemin de fer' instead of moving to poker!

Yeah, but poker is what is supposedly popular right now, so gotta look at it from the marketing angle (unfortunately).

[Naimfan]

Originally Posted by ~Shard~

Yeah, but poker is what is supposedly popular right now, so gotta look at it from the marketing angle (unfortunately).

It wouldn't have mattered one whit to popularity. It would have made it more timeless . . . and might have actually helped, as people wondered "what the hell . . ." is that card game they're playing. A touch of class.

[~Shard~]

Originally Posted by Naimfan

It wouldn't have mattered one whit to popularity. It would have made it more timeless . . . and might have actually helped, as people wondered "what the hell . . ." is that card game they're playing. A touch of class.

I absolutely agree, but more times than not Hollywood doesn't think that way. They see that poker is popular right now, so hence they incorporate it. The result is, as you say, instead if it being more timeless, it will now be dated. 10 years from now when the whole poker fad has died down people will watch Casino Royale and say, "Oh hey, this must have been made when poker was popular, remember that? How trite..." It will be another thing that this decade will be remembered for, along with <sigh> reality TV.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by sysiphus

Without having checked out the site, the title doesn't bug me at all...If I recall correctly, the name comes from a Ian Fleming short story (it's one of the 5 in the "For Your Eyes Only" book). I'm very curious if/how it will tie into the movie, since the story was about a fellow's cheating wife and the aftermath...

There was a BBC video on youtube about it.. Craig talked about how the title ties in to the plot.. and it's pretty much what you just said. Bond is trying to get over Vesper.

When I first heard the title I was like wtf, but now I think it's good.

[Doctor Q]

I like movies that have titles starting with "Q".

I like the character named "Q".

I like Bond movies.

[~Shard~]

Originally Posted by Doctor Q

I like movies that have titles starting with "Q".

I like the character named "Q".

I like Bond movies.

Why do these facts not come as a surprise to me?

[dejo]

Originally Posted by Naimfan

It wouldn't have mattered one whit to popularity. It would have made it more timeless . . . and might have actually helped, as people wondered "what the hell . . ." is that card game they're playing. A touch of class.

If I remember correctly the extra features mentioned that producer Michael G. Wilson is a big fan and player of poker. That would explain the impetus to change. I would've liked to see chemin de fer as well, especially since Ian Fleming did a nice job explaining it in the novel.

[Naimfan]

Originally Posted by Doctor Q

I like movies that have titles starting with "Q".

I like the character named "Q".

I like Bond movies.

Ergo, you like John Cleese.

[~Shard~]

Originally Posted by Naimfan

Ergo, you like John Cleese.

Nothing beats some classic Monty Python and Fawlty Towers!

[Doctor Q]

I watched the And Now for Something Completely Different DVD last night. Nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean say no more.

I remember liking the movie A Fish Called Wanda, although I no longer remember much about it, other than that it was pleasantly quirky (another "q" word).

So yes, I guess I like John Cleese.

Do we know if he'll be in Quantum of Solace?

[~Shard~]

Originally Posted by Doctor Q

Do we know if he'll be in Quantum of Solace?

Good question. It was too bad that he wasn't in Casino Royale, yet I'm not sure if he would have belonged there, just due to the nature of the story, atmosphere, etc. The Bond gadgets were getting a little out of hand with the last couple movies, let's face it. That being said, it would always be welcome to see him reprise the role. As of now though, he is not listed in the credits on iMDB...

[2nyRiggz]

I like the name..its different from the rest of bond titles just as Casino Royale. I'm hoping the movie isn't all about the action and mix it up like CR did.



Bless

[Chaszmyr]

Originally Posted by Piarco

A bit sci-fi. no?

Probably not, pull out a dictionary.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by Doctor Q

Do we know if he'll be in Quantum of Solace?

"Michael G. Wilson confirmed Miss Moneypenny and "Q" are not in the film, as with Casino Royale."

wiki

[Doctor Q]

:sulks:


again



Just for that, I'm only going to see it once... or twice.