Bond 22 is officially entitled. . .

Cafe Society
21

Well, given that Bond is saving the world (or a significant aspect thereof) from horrific death, calamity, chaos, and despair, no I don’t think campy humor is appropriate. Plus, the “humor” SUCKED. It was god awful. I didn’t think the humor was funny when I was 10. It didn’t get any funnier since.

The humor was a total failure, and it detracted from the serious portions of the movies. A lot. In fact, most of it made no sense in the context of the movies. For example (no spoiler boxes on a 70’s film), let’s look at Live and Let Die. I actually thought this had some real potential, but they scattered the plot too much to really make something of it.

However, at the end, Bond battles the villain over a pool filled with sharks. That right there pretty much raises the camp factor to 11. Bond then shoves a air pill (or something) into the bad guy’s mouth. Despite having an open mouth and nothing AFAIK to actually trigger the damn thing, this causes him to blow up like a balloon.

:dubious:

He then floats up to the ceiling and… pops on a stalactite.

:dubious:

Thre is nothing left except a few bits of confetti.

:dubious:
And that’s not covering the other nonsense. This was a movie with blatant supernatural elements, defintely not Bond material. In Moonraker, Her Majesty’s Government had a plattoon of laser-wielding space marines! In A View to a Kill, the entire plot starts because the bad guy wasn’t satisfied with wiping out Silicon Valley, he also has to cheat at horse-races! :rolleyes:

Oddly enough, saving the lives of people who’ve been brutally wounded or are sick with life-threatening illnesses just doesn’t tickle my funny bone. Medicine really isn’t funny. At all. House manages it by being cruel and sacrastic, and I still don’t like the show.

But you are right about something. It is a matter of taste. And yours is terrible! :wink:

Just kidding.

But to the point, this kind of movie-making is done. The campy Bond films ran out of steam (and then were dragged out over and over) and the more adventurous Brosnan flicks replaced them. Those started jumping the shark, action-wise, so they brought in the more serious Daniel Craig style.

Let me put it this way: when the they made THREE Austin Powers movies pretty much just straight-up mocking the entirety of Bond, and especially the Roger Moore years, it’s time to quit. This kind of thing has been done for years and years and years (remember Get Smart?) and the concept needs a time-out.

22

I’m with Argent Towers on this one. I think that at some point a franchise becomes nothing more than a name the studios can use to make money by depending on ‘brand loyalty.’ I think the Bond films are now such a franchise. Not that they’re bad movies, but that they’ve become indistinguishable in execution from any other number of action movies.

And I think Quantum of Solace is a crappy title, even for a Star Trek film.

23

I won’t defend Moonraker against well-founded criticism for its ignoring of the laws of physics, but with all due respect to our friends in London, those were U.S. Marines.

24

But they weren’t sharks. With lasers. In space. And that’s why that movie sucked.

25

Absolutely - nailed it in one. All you have to do is compare a Moore film to a Connery film and you can see the difference immediately. Were there light moments in Connery’s films? Absolutely. Were there double-taking pigeons* in Connery’s films? Absolutely not! And the more movies Moore made, the worse it got. The first couple aren’t nearly as bad as the later ones.**

There is some pretty heavy shit in the Fleming novels, and the trend in that direction for the new movies is a welcome exploration of that side of Bond.

On the other hand, “Quantum of Solace” sucks as a title.

  • I don’t remember the exact film here, but one of the Roger Moore lamefests had Bond coming ashore (in Venice, I think) from underwater in a convertible sub/hovercraft thing. As he comes out of the water, he understandably causes quite a commotion, including a close-up of a nearby pigeon doing an incredibly fake-looking edited double-take. Get it? Even the pigeons are surprised!! I remember thinking: WTF, is this a cat litter commercial!?!? Ugh.

** Don’t even get me started on the “love affair” between Jaws and that nerdy girl in Moonraker. Gyeah, that whole thing was an abomination!

26

Surely they’ll need to dumb that down for American audiences.

27

007 in…I’m a Little Bit Lonely! Coming soon to theaters everywhere.

Daniel

28

Spoonful of Sugar

There’s already a theme song.

29

I think it is in Octopussy where Roger Moore goes swinging along vines in a jungle and they added in a Tarzan yell. That moment caused me to despise Roger Moore as Bond, even more than Moon Raker did. I won’t even get into my feelings about the Jaws character.

30

It’s funny how much talk there was in the early days of filming about Craig being a terrible Bond.

Like this article: Page Not Found | Tickets to Movies in Theaters, Broadway Shows, London Theatre & More | Hollywood.com

“Large, fleshy ears.” Band name!

31

Slightly relevant, the action in the novel Moonraker got started because the bad guy, in addition to planning to strike London with a nuclear missile, cheated at bridge!
I didn’t like Casino Royale for (among other reasons) its claim to show Bond at the beginning of his career, while Craig had a lot of the “I’m too cool for you” aspects of Roger Moore, coupled with M’s Yosemite Sam-ish frustration at him. That’s the kind of cockiness one can assume after becoming established, not before.

32

I haven’t watched a Bond movie since Roger Moore, but I have to say that I love the story and the title “Quantum of Solace”. As I understand it, the term was invented by Fleming (at the time when the idea of quanta was just entering the public consciousness) to indicate that there was a specific minimum amout of comfort/love/human contact that a person needs in order to survive. I often think about situations that I’ve been in in terms of my quantum of solace. I was totally shocked the other day to see the term listed among Yahoo’s top ten searches, and mildly disappointed to discover that the reason was the new Bond movie, rather than a wider acceptance of Fleming’s concept.

As I understand it, the movie will have nothing to do with the original story. Since I’m probably not going to see it, it doesn’t really matter to me, except that now the phrase will never have a chance to become accepted with the original meaning.

33

“Bond 22” would be a good title. “22” is sort of a macho sounding, brash word that also echoes the duplication of the “007” moniker.

34

Thank you for reminding me of that, thus making me want to shoot myself in the balls. ARG!!!

35

One might argue that such cockiness/confidence is necessary to become established in such a dangerous, think-fast-or-die business.

One might argue that it’s just a persona he assumes.

One might also argue that Bond is just a cocky bastard who hasn’t earned it (M might think something like this).

36

Yeah, it’s kind of a catchy number.

37

Which is stupider: the Tarzan yell in Octopussy, or the use of “California Girls” in A View to a Kill?

38

It does seem like a somewhat awkward name and doesn’t at all make me think of James Bond, but on the other hand, I have finally acclimated somehow to The Phantom Menace, and Barack Obama.

39

Goldfinger, anyone?

40

Heh, forgot about that. He cheated at Gin Rummy, as I recall, and later tried to cheat at golf.