Quantum of Solace http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7206997.stm Yeah, Sean Connery is rolling over in his grave I know he's not dead, it's a joke people!
Why is he rolling around in his grave, exactly? It's not a bad title, and it's based on a Fleming one, at that.
I think it is a bad title, I don't like it. And it's a Flemming story that has very little Bond in it.
Ok. Still haven't seen Casino Royale yet, so don't know how good or bad Daniel Craig is. Don't know that this one would hold any interest to me either.
I dug "Casino Royale" for the reboot element--it wasn't the Bond I love, but I get that the franchise needed a lil' freshening up. But I'm not sure I want to see Bond in a revenge film. I was happier when he ordered a martini and nailed a cocktail waitress to get over his dead girlfriends.
Which means that the two dumbass writers who made Date Movie, Epic Movie, and Meet the Spartans will probably make fun of this year's movies too. But the Bond title sounds interesting. Quantum of Solace...well, it sounds less ridiculous than Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. That's a mouthful of a title.
Nothing is a better title than "Octopussy." It gave me a way to slip that word into casual conversation in polite society.
How can you not like a name like "Octopussy", even if it doesn't refer to a movie starring the likes of Jenna Jameson.
I could be called The Phantom Batman and Robin Nemesis for all I care, it'll still be one of the best films of the year if its half as good as Casino Royale was.
Thats because as long as people keep going to see it, they will keep doing it. Like Scary movie, they were all awful, awful films (IMO) I see where the topic starter is coming from, it doesn't sound very Bond. I never saw Casino Royale, I saw some clips and just didn't like Craig's Bond. Roger Moore and Sean Connery are where my moneys at. Also, long titles are good, i.e: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Not as long as Indy, but still longer than most.
I'm giving Craig one more chance. There was a reason Casino Royale was not made into an official Bond movie for 40 years...it was boring. To me...Craig looked like one of the chimps from "monkey movies" in a tux, but whatever. Prove to me you're Bond you vanilla gorilla. Get out of your own situations without the help of anything other than your ingenuity and definitely not your boring ass woman 3 times in a row. And please no more useless villains whose only semi-evil thing was introduce Bond's dangly bits to a rope knot or long card games straight out of God of Gamblers. The new title...baffles me to say the least and if it is kind of a revenge movie...I really hope they don't go the Licence to Kill route and have him be all Seagal on everyone again. I like how Judi Dench said in that article that her relationship with Bond in this film will be "pretty prickly". Well, that's the way it's been for 3 movies or so with her now...how is that any different? Her little diatribes and mood swings with Bond are beginning to try my patience. I'm just glad they're saying that this one will have twice the action of Casino...cuz the lack of action coupled with the running time in that movie was brutal.
What about "Don't Be a Menace to Society While Drinking your Juice in the Hood?" That was a horrible movie. More Daniel Craig Bond is good, no matter what they call it. -Tony!
Bond has been on a revenge kick before, after his wife is killed in On her Majestys Secret Service he goes around in the beginning of Diamonds are Forever kicking all kinds of shit looking for Blofeld, the one responsible for her death. Which was pretty intense. I could care less about the title, I mean I would prefer something different but I really enjoyed Casino Royale, so I'm looking forward to this.
i hope this isn't a letdown. i liked casino royale's more down to earth style. well, sort of down to earth. there were no secret hideouts in volcanoes anyway.
