The title for the next James Bond is...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

europop2005

Refugee
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
2,420
the... "Quantum of Solace" :huh:




Producers reveal title of new James Bond


IVER HEATH, England (AP) -- "Quantum of Solace" is the title of the new James Bond film, the 22nd Bond adventure.

The title was revealed to reporters Thursday at Pinewood Studios outside of London, where the movie is being filmed.

Daniel Craig is returning as Agent 007. He picks up where 2006's "Casino Royale" left off, with Bond contemplating revenge after his betrayal by his true love, Vesper Lynd.

Filming began at Pinewood Studios earlier this month. Location shooting is planned in Austria, Italy and Panama. Judi Dench returns as the MI-6 boss M and Mathieu Amalric ("The Diving Bell and the Butterfly") plays the villain. Additions to the cast include Ukrainian actress Olga Kurylenko as mysterious Bond girl Camille.

"Quantum of Solace" is due to open in Britain and the United States on November












oooooooooooooooook......
 
europop2005 said:
oooooooooooooooook......

Just what I was thinking.

*shrugs* as long as the film is as good as Casino Royale then I'll be happy.

I've heard rumblings that there's a trilogy planned and I'm a little sceptical of that. There will always be another Bond film, no need to force it with a trilogy that' seems to be the popular thing to do these days. I'm worried that if they intend to have one long story / arc they'll simply run out of steam somewhere in part 2.
 
They should remove the "of" and just leave it as "Quantum Solace". That sounds pretty badass.
 
:hmm:

Yes, monkeyskin, Wikipedia says Casino Royale, Bond 22 (that sounded better than this title) and Bond 23 will be the first trilogy in these movies.
 
bakula.gif




You can't keep him down!
 
Wow. That title makes me go "meh" about the whole movie. Atonement did that, too. So did August Rush.
 
:shrug: It's not big deal to me. It's the name of one of Flemming's short stories. It's not like they pulled it out of their ass. It's one of those things people will quickly get used to and won't even think about eventually. Like the Nintendo Wii or something.

All that matters is how hard this movie kicks our collective ass. :ip:
 
Lancemc said:
:shrug: It's not big deal to me. It's the name of one of Flemming's short stories. It's not like they pulled it out of their ass. It's one of those things people will quickly get used to and won't even think about eventually. Like the Nintendo Wii or something.

All that matters is how hard this movie kicks our collective ass. :ip:

Thank you, I completely agree. Although I still don't understand why they hired Marc Forster, let's hope he surprises.
 
the tourist said:
Wow. That title makes me go "meh" about the whole movie. Atonement did that, too. So did August Rush.

Atonement is a perfect title for that movie/book, just not for its marketing campaign, the ad people apparently never saw the movie since its certainly no epic romance.
 
Lancemc said:
:shrug: It's not big deal to me. It's the name of one of Flemming's short stories. It's not like they pulled it out of their ass. It's one of those things people will quickly get used to and won't even think about eventually. Like the Nintendo Wii or something.

All that matters is how hard this movie kicks our collective ass. :ip:


Are you kidding? Wii is a short and easy to remember. Compare "Quantum of Solace" to ANY previous Bond title and you will see a huge disparity. It doesn't sound iconic or engaging in any way. It's poetic, but so what?

That it is a Fleming story title only highlights the problem: it's something more appropriate for literature than for what, for all practical purposes, will simply be an action thriller. And this is coming from someone who really enjoyed Casino Royale.

And while I think the advertising and marketing industries are run by slimeballs, there isn't one person in that field that wouldn't tell you this is a horrible title for a mainstream film that's supposed to bring in big money.
 
There's always a borderline group of people that may or may not see a film based on trailers and titles. If the movie is called "Fuck, Fight and Kill", it has a better shot to grab those on the fence than "Quantum of Solace". Will I see the next Bond film even if it was called "Lance's Mom: The early years"? Yeah, pretty much, I love the franchise. But, there are others who, believe it or not, who might be new to the franchise and this title sure as hell aint gonna work on them.

That all being said, I still think it's a cool title. Just hard to market.
 
I don't give a flying fuck how marketable it is or how many people see it. It's still a new Bond film, and people who see Bond films are going to continue to see Bond films. I honestly don't think it's going to make much of a difference one way or another. Casino Royale was a bit hit, and it's going to be marketed as the new James Bond film. Whatever. If that's the concern it's certainly better than the slew of non-descriptive, cliche, lazy film titles that Brosnan appeared in. "Tomorrow Never Dies"? "The World is Not Enough"? "Die Another Day"? Please. If anything, at least this title is unique enough to catch someone's ear, even if they have no idea what it means.
 
Lancemc said:
I don't give a flying fuck how marketable it is or how many people see it. It's still a new Bond film, and people who see Bond films are going to continue to see Bond films. I honestly don't think it's going to make much of a difference one way or another. Casino Royale was a bit hit, and it's going to be marketed as the new James Bond film. Whatever. If that's the concern it's certainly better than the slew of non-descriptive, cliche, lazy film titles that Brosnan appeared in. "Tomorrow Never Dies"? "The World is Not Enough"? "Die Another Day"? Please. If anything, at least this title is unique enough to catch someone's ear, even if they have no idea what it means.

I don't care if it's marketable or not either, but, that does not mean I can't discuss if it's marketable or not. This title is a hinderance, and that's the discussion. Not my personal feelings on how much $$$ it makes.
 
I was under the impression is was a discussion on whether or not it was a "good title". But regardless, I don't think a film's title holds nearly as much influence as many people thinks it does. I mean, as long as the marketing itself stays true to the theme of the film, not like Atonement's which just completely misportrayed the film. 007 is probably, outside of probably Star Wars, one of the most well-founded and recognizable franchises in entertainment. Yet I don't think many fans would even be able to list all the actual film titles off the top of their heads. I think it's "007" and "James Bond" that sells these films anyway, not "Casino Royale" or "Die Another Day" or whathaveyou.
 
You at least want people to be able to remember the title, right? Because the average person in the street is going to forget it as soon as they hear it and go "huh"?

Mark my words, if they do keep this title (and I don't think they will), it will be on theatre marquees as "James Bond".
 
Well, if weren't going there, I have to say I don't predict this will remain the title either, just like how Rambo went through like 4 different titles before it hit theaters this weekend.
 
Lancemc said:
the slew of non-descriptive, cliche, lazy film titles that Brosnan appeared in. "Tomorrow Never Dies"? "The World is Not Enough"? "Die Another Day"?

You disliked Brosnan in the role that much?

What about Goldeneye(I only mention it because you didn't mention it)? It was the best of the Brosnan flicks.
 
I never said I disliked Brosnan, or those movies.

Just using their titles as an example. They're pretty lazy.
 
Back
Top Bottom