Quantum of Solace, though it is unrelated to the Fleming short story of that title in the collection For Your Eyes Only.
Wikipedia article here: Quantum of Solace - Wikipedia
Sir Rhosis
That would mean that Bond 22 is officially the Bond movie with the lamest title ever.
It doesn’t sound too bad if you add “A” to the beginning. “A Quantum of Solace”
It’s still better than Octopussy.
There was a piece on NPR last week about it- totally different than every Bond movie. A “quantum of solace” is the bare minimum of feeling one has for another person, it’s about Bond dealing with losing love. ALTMI (at least, that’s my impression).
^^^I’ve read that definition as well. It’s not an expression I’ve heard (outside of Fleming). Was it a popular expression in the UK back in the day?
Sir Rhosis
Missed the edit window: Here’s the official site with a couple photos of Craig, the villain and the “Bond girl.” http://www.007.com/
I could imagine Austin Powers using it in a pick up line, but not anyone else.
Deja Vu, this is the 2nd thread about this title. I think it’s a great title, perfect, not lame at all.
I wish you’d get over the fact that the silly, campy Bond you knew is dead. It’s been reborn and thank the stars. All your bitching is not going to bring back the campy factor. You’ll always have those movies to watch.
What about “Risico”? Will no-one think of poor little neglected “Risico” ?
“Risico” has already been filmed. It was one of the sub-plots in For Your Eyes Only.
I know. And Property of a Lady was mixed into Octopussy. And The Hildebrand Rarity lent some elements (well, the name of a character and his yacht) to License to Kill.
I think my very first post to this board was about ol’ Jimmy.
The one girl looks like Sophie Marceau.
I think it sounds like a ‘Harry Potter’ book…
I also think it’s a weak title but the new generation of Bond Films has me full of confidence it will be amazing. Daniel Craig, second best Bond IMHO.
Ian Fleming’s James Bond 007 in: Goblet of Fire!
::Cue movie poster of Daniel Craig flying out of Schloss Hogwarts on a WASP, shooting Robbie Coltrane in the leg::
Eh…it’ll sell.
I know you wish I’d get over that. Everyone does, so I’m used to it by now. But that hasn’t got dick to do with my opinion that the title is lame. Even if I thought the movie were great, I’d still think the title was lame. You’re taking my dislike of the direction that the Bond franchise has gone in, which I’ve discussed in other threads, and dragging it into this one.
Hey, I liked the campy, Roger Moore era Bond as well (slight bias as my uncle was the special effects supervisor for most of them) but prefer the new style, Daniel Craig era Bond far better and still think this is a weak title even though it’s basd on a Fleming short story. A weak title is a weak title whatever your Bond allegiances IMHO.
Equipoise, first of all I want to say that I always like your posts and I’m not trying to get personal here. That said, I notice that your location says “lady in Chicago.” While you don’t have to be a woman to prefer the new beefcake Bond (many men are Craig-worshippers too) I really think that the casting of Daniel Craig is a pretty blatant effort on the part of MGM to try to reel in the bucks from female audiences.
This is an effect of a larger issue in pop culture, which is (in my opinion) that the “sexy gentleman” is out (and has been for a long time,) and the “beefcake brute” is in when it comes to sex appeal. Tom Wolfe has a great essay in one of his collections entitled “The Sexy Gentleman” which is a case study of Cary Grant as the last of a dying breed of the kind of suave hero whose attraction came more from his genteel demeanor and elegant style than from his machismo. Now, I’m all in favor of badass action heroes (I love lots of cheesy 80s action movies, Schwarz., Stallone and all the usual suspects, plus newer guys like Tom Jane and Adam Baldwin from Firefly).
I think MGM knew that the Pierce Brosnan Bond (which was sort of a slightly more rugged version of the Roger Moore Bond) was not really appealing to female audiences. They realized that in order to draw the ladies, they needed to have some big beefcake stud, and as you can easily see from the immense amount of discussion about Daniel Craig’s hotness from women, this tactic succeeded. Casino Royale was a hit, and the Quantum Paradox Conundrum of Solitude will probably be one too. I know I’ll be seeing it, because it’ll probably be a good action movie like CR was. A good action movie. But not a good Bond movie, from the standards of the Bond movies that I grew up watching with my dad and my friends.
It bothers me that so many people are so opposed to the campy, goofy Bond movies. I always viewed them as a mixture of action and comedy. They weren’t to be taken seriously. That’s the point! There’s a place for those kind of movies! We’ve already got all the beefcake, rough and tumble action movies you could shake a stick at, so why can’t we have just one campy, fun, light-hearted spy series?
It’s like if they took Scrubs and decided to turn it into a super-serious, high intensity medical thriller show, removing all the humor from it. We’ve already got a million serious doctor shows, for Christ - what’s wrong with just one doctor show that’s light-hearted and fun?
I hope I’m making my point clear here. I realize everyone has different tastes in movies. A lot of people don’t go in for the campiness of the old-style Bond movies, and that’s fine by me - it’s all a matter of taste. I just have a lot of nostalgia for all the old Bond movies that my friends and I would watch at sleep-overs, loving that distinctive mix of humor, action and incredibly sexy women that only Bond could deliver. Maybe me saying this is proof that those older movies were more “immature” - but hell, that’s just how I liked them.
Just what I came here to say. And if Craig is as good in this one (as I have no reason to doubt he will be), he just might edge ahead of ol’ Sean in my book.
I believe it’s because they weren’t really intended to be like that, Sean Connery in Dr No was closer to Daniel Craig than any of the Roger Moore era films were to either of them. I think that Bond films descended far too deeply into Hollywood blockbusters (All of Pierce Brosnan’s films) and that the Craig era films are a breath of fresh air - the franchise has to adapt to it’s audience and I welcome the change. Don’t forget that I’m not anti-camp either, my heart belongs to Roger Moore as Bond even though he’s not really anyone elses favourite but every dog has it’s day and it’s time to change. You need to role with the punches and move on dude.