Details here. I loved Casino Royale, so am looking forward to this – but if they’re just starting to work on it, won’t the release be in Nov. of '09, not this November?
“Quantum of Solace?” Could they possibly have picked a more awkward, pretentious, and totally uncool name?
Maybe I’m speaking too soon, but that title alone makes me lament the new direction they’re taking the Bond movies in: “Serious” which translates, in my opinion, to “pretentious.” Bond is supposed to be campy. That’s where the fun comes from, for God’s sake.
It’s true that Brosnan’s latter days as Bond completely sucked. I understand if they wanted to erase those shitty years and go in a different direction. Why couldn’t they have gone back to the classic days, then, when the fun in the movie came from a witty and entertaining Bond personality, lots of comic relief, and beautiful women? That’s what the Bond movies are all about - and don’t give me all that about “staying true to the original books.” The books are one thing, the character of Bond established through cinema is another entirely.
I hated Casino Royale. It was too serious, too much like The Bourne Identity and other beat-em-up, billy-bob-bad-ass boneheaded action movies, and nothing like the fun and slightly campy Bond movies that I grew up loving.
Flame away. I know it’s going to happen. I’m generally very agreeable and try to see the good in everything - I’m not one to be contentious or pushy when it comes to matters of taste, not as bad as I was when I was younger anyway - but I’m sticking to my guns on this one. There are already a million blood-and-guts hard-assed serious action movies. Those are cool. I LIKE them. But Bond doesn’t need to be part of that. I’d dig a Max Payne movie, for instance. Or some adaptations of classic detective novels, a revival of film-noir mixed with serious action. That’d be all good.
But Bond is not supposed to be like that. I, for one, am very frustrated with this “cold-blooded killing machine” that they’re making him into.
I didn’t remember it until I read the Wikipedia article. One presumes it will have little relation to the Fleming story. Who survived CR for Bond to take revenge upon?
It does sound a bit like a Battlestar Galactica episode, doesn’t it? 
The Living daylight was the last good Bond-movie in my mind.
I read the article as saying that they are already filming; it’s the title that’s just been decided on. Doesn’t seem to me that Nov '8 is out of the question, which would be great! I love Daniel Craig as Bond.
Did you grow up watching Roger Moore as Bond?
One of my brothers is a big 007 nut, and has all the movies. Roger Moore is the only one that fits your descriptions of Bond as fun and campy, and to be honest, he’s not believable to me as anything other than a dandy.
Sean Connery had some tongue-in-cheek moments, but he could also clearly be a hard-ass. As much as I like him, a lot of his “lighter” moments involve him doing something that would be considered sexist these days, so no repeats of his exact style are going to happen. Timothy Dalton - the cleft in his chin drives me nuts, and besides, he always struck me as trying too hard to be something he wasn’t. Pierce Brosnan… eh, he’s a pretty boy, much better in roles like The Thomas Crown Affair. Daniel Craig is IMO great, because he comes the closest to Sean Connery’s portrayal, and he the role FITS him… he wears the character like a skin. So what if he’s not reeling off one-liners? It’s a much more interesting character this way.
SPECTRE?
I think it’s a fantastic title, it’s unique, interesting and mysterious, but it also means something very specific. It’s from a Bond story, so fans should like it. It makes sense to me right now, but it’s also the kind of title that will become very clear after the movie is seen, so good for the filmmakers for picking what might be one of the most perfect titles in Bond history.
I loved Casino Royale, so I can’t wait for this one.
The good news is (as carnivoriousplant noted) that the title is from an Ian Fleming short story.
The bad news is that the short story was Fleming experimenting with a James Bond story that had nothing to do with his usual espionage stories. In fact, Bond is the audience in “Quantum of Solace,” not an actor.
So I think the director or producer chose… poorly.
Well, if it’s anything like “A View to a Kill”, the movie will have almost nothing in common with the story. So I’m not sure the title really matters. Except that I hope that the meaning of the title somehow comes clear in the movie. In the short story, this man acts cruelly towards his wife because she had not shown him even the tiniest bit of respect - she denied him a “quantum of solace”.
I’ve just heard Daniel Craig interviewed on BBC radio. He says that the new film picks up where the last left off. They have discovered a huge criminal organisation, which Bond with be trying to bring down. The title was discussed – he explained as: if a relationship no longer has that “Quantum of Solace” then it is time to end it and move on, but Bond never got that far because the love of his life was taken from him. I think he also said it wasn’t a revenge movie, but also said he’d better stop talking about it.
Other stuff in the interview:
There will be an iconic scene with the new Bond girl in a hotel room; Craig has been spending even more time in the gym, since he now knows just how physically demanding the role the role is; no swimming trunks.
I interpreted “no swimming trunks” to mean that Bond wouldn’t be wearing swimming trunks when he comes out of the water.
Not that I’m gay, you know.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
There is a picture of Mr Craig, somewhere out there on the internets, where he is not wearing swimming trunks. Not from this film, though. 
:smack:
Could we discuss something important, like whether this film will feature that dinky little .25 Beretta or the long barreled Colt? :rolleyes:
WHAT??? It should be a Walther PPK in .380!!! I bought one JUST so that I could own Bond’s pistol.
Here’s a Wikipedia link. I thought the PPK 7.65 was the same as .32 Auto, not .380. Like the .25 Beretta, you could empty the .380 mag into a guy and he would beat you to death with a bar stool while he bled to death. 
Damn, my ignorance has been cleared. I always thought he had the .380, not the .32.
I still like my .380, even with your meany comments!
Are we still talking about when he comes out of the water?