Welcome! Wikis are websites that everyone can build together. It's easy!

Location: Craig defends new title

Discussion: Need defending?

Keyword tags: bond 22 quantum of solace
Watch

Anonymous  (Get credit for your thread)


2 | Next
alexberg
alexberg
Need defending?
Feb 1 2008, 11:16 AM EST
It's ripped from the pages of Fleming so it should appeal to purists, but what do you think? I like it. A more sophisticated title for a new age. What do you think? 3  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    
biggaybondfan
biggaybondfan
RE: Need defending?
Feb 1 2008, 11:20 AM EST
I'm not entirely sure what it is intended to mean, but I think I like it. The old titles were getting a bit trite. Die Another Day, License to Kill, View to a Kill.....

death, death, and more death. I get it.
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
Dmeyers
Dmeyers
RE: Need defending?
Feb 1 2008, 11:29 AM EST
According to Wikipedia....(and you know wikis are never wrong - LOL)

"Quantum of Solace" is not a spy story and Bond appears only in the background. Told in the style of W Somerset Maugham, the tale has Bond attending a boring dinner party at the Government House in Nassau with a group of socialites he can't stand.
Do you find this valuable?    
Matt_Bohlmann
Matt_Bohlmann
RE: Need defending?
Feb 1 2008, 2:55 PM EST
It's a great title. I much prefer the quirky and slightly confusing Bond titles (From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Diamonds Are Forever, A View to A Kill, Tomorrow Never Dies, Die Another Day) to the one-worders (Goldfinger, Thunderball, Octopussy, GoldenEye). Plus, "Quantum of Solace" is about as Fleming-esque as a title can get. It's a step in the right direction for the franchise.

It's nice to see a movie title that isn't dumbed down for the benefit of the average moviegoer. God forbid someone might actually reach for a dictionary and learn a new word. (I'm still irritated that they felt they had to dumb down Baccarat into Texas Hold Em in Casino Royale.)
Do you find this valuable?    
Green-Arrow
Green-Arrow
RE: Need defending?
Feb 1 2008, 3:18 PM EST
I like it. It makes me feel just a teeny tiny bit better about the Bond series. It gives me a speck of optimism. An increment of relief. A wee dollop of happiness. Do you find this valuable?    
JustinAtheropinion
JustinAtheropinion
RE: Need defending?
Feb 1 2008, 4:08 PM EST
...or a quantum of solace, GA?

I like it. It's Fleming. People can learn to use a dictionary if they're so agitated about it.

Remember, "Licence Revoked" was changed to "Licence To Kill" because a marketting study found that too many Americans didn't know what the word "revoked" meant (making a stupid move because of stupidity). I also preferred the original title for TND, which was "Tomorrow Never Lies," but (so they say) was changed because of a clerical error--which doesn't make much sense to me.

Not every Bond title has to have the word "Kill" "Die" "Live" or "Gold" in it.

Now, the switch from baccarat to Texas Hold 'Em I actually thought was a good move, dramatically. Baccarat depends on the cards and the draw--there is no psychological element to it, and no sense of the bluff. Plus, you're playing against the dealer, always. The cards are important in poker, of course, but one can win just as well by playing the opponent, rather than the cards. That provides suspense. The chemin de fer games in previous Bond films never had any sort of drama to them. Bond won, and that was it. He was merely lucky or daring...not smart or clever.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
Matt_Bohlmann
Matt_Bohlmann
RE: Need defending?
Feb 1 2008, 9:02 PM EST
Ah, but Baccarat (or Chemin de Fer, which is the version Bond plays, where one of the players acts as banker) is nothing BUT psychological. The skill of the game is not to read the cards you have, but the general disposition of the shoe, the dealer's luck, the courage of the other players, and shifts in the winds of fate. It's not a game of skill so much as intuition, courage, and pure luck. There's no science to it at all -- it's pure alchemy, in which the only decision is to play or not to play. Which is why it so confounds and frustrates die-hard poker players (or analytical gamblers of any stripe), and why it is so perfect for Bond. He wins because he's Bond. Luck is his stock in trade.

When you look at the game in those terms, and especially when you have Bond and the villain sitting across from each other, sizing each other up over a game of raw nerve, it's as dramatic as it gets.
Do you find this valuable?    

Anonymous
RE: Need defending?
Feb 3 2008, 12:06 AM EST
I agree. Also, like baccarat , bridge,golf,fast cars,these were "gentlemens" games...like Fleming also played and instilled into the Bond stories. Poker would have been to "common" a game,especially in Europe at the time he wrote the books. Do you find this valuable?    
moore4ever
moore4ever
RE: Need defending?
Feb 3 2008, 1:10 AM EST
I like it, it roles of the tounge, not to long, not to short. Simple and Orginal. 1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
JustinAtheropinion
JustinAtheropinion
RE: Need defending?
Feb 3 2008, 2:20 PM EST
"Ah, but Baccarat (or Chemin de Fer, which is the version Bond plays, where one of the players acts as banker) is nothing BUT psychological. The skill of the game is not to read the cards you have, but the general disposition of the shoe, the dealer's luck, the courage of the other players, and shifts in the winds of fate. It's not a game of skill so much as intuition, courage, and pure luck. There's no science to it at all -- it's pure alchemy, in which the only decision is to play or not to play. Which is why it so confounds and frustrates die-hard poker players (or analytical gamblers of any stripe), and why it is so perfect for Bond. He wins because he's Bond. Luck is his stock in trade.

When you look at the game in those terms, and especially when you have Bond and the villain sitting across from each other, sizing each other up over a game of raw nerve, it's as dramatic as it gets."
Gotta disagree with you on this, Matt (for once). I've always found the gambling in Bond films dramatically inert, precisely because of the game played. That may be fine for a three minute scene. But to base an entire movie around it? I think the producers made the right decision, despite tradition.
Do you find this valuable?    
Matt_Bohlmann
Matt_Bohlmann
RE: Need defending?
Feb 3 2008, 3:37 PM EST
Unfortunately I think the producers decided to change baccarat to poker for the wrong reasons -- not, as you (quite reasonably) assert, Justin, to heighten the drama, but merely to pander shamelessly to poker's widespread popularity right now. I've always felt the Bond films should be setting trends, not parroting them. Stud poker would have been one thing (and right up Bond's alley), but for crying out loud, Texas Hold Em? In tuxedos? In Montenegro? Ugh.

After all, good filmmakers can inject drama into ANY game (remember Bond's backgammon showdown with Kamal?). It isn't necessary for the audience to understand the game so long as they understand the stakes and can read cinematic cues like the crowd's reaction and the dealer's comments (and of course, Mathis -- who irritated me to no end in C.R. by constantly reminding Vesper of the size of the pot). It's up to the actors and the director to SELL the drama.

Also, as long as I'm ranting on the poker in C.R., in my opinion they blew it even bigger by giving every player a monster hand on the last deal. For crying out loud, no poker game is going to end with a flush, two boats, and a straight flush (unless there are wilds in play). It would have been much more dramatic for Bond to beat Le Chiffre with a much shakier hand -- how about beating Aces and Kings with trip Deuces? Something that requires a gutsy play? Bond didn't even bait Le Chiffre into going all in -- he was the last player to bet, and went all in with an unbeatable hand. No risk, no guts, no drama.

Remember the final showdown at the end of Rounders? Now THAT was poker with some drama.

Sigh. I guess I should just be grateful they didn't change baccarat into video games, as they did in N.S.N.A. Yeesh.

PS - Don't get me wrong. I love poker. And I loved Casino Royale. I just don't like it when I order a dry martini and the bartender serves me a can of Miller Lite. :)
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
LS1Hawk
LS1Hawk
RE: Need defending?
Feb 7 2008, 9:10 PM EST
I think it's a good choice. Even though the movie will have nothing to do with the story the title came from, it's still nice to see that they're using a Flemming title. 1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
spaceflightengineer
spaceflightengineer
RE: Need defending?
Feb 13 2008, 1:01 AM EST
I find reaction to what on the surface appear to be rather cerebral or even esoteric titleage ends up fading out- I can cite "Silence of the Lambs"- people that didn't know the Hannibal L. books weren't familiar with it and it put some off. However the film was engaging and of course the title definition became clear. Pulling from Fleming titles or reference Fleming passages should be something never strayed from. I like the sentimental tip of the hat to Ian F. (In fact the new direction established with CR and Craig is the ultimate nod to IF- getting back to more serious roots).

Either that or something else.
BP
Do you find this valuable?    
rattlegator
rattlegator
RE: Need defending?
Feb 26 2008, 9:09 PM EST
"It's a great title. I much prefer the quirky and slightly confusing Bond titles (From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Diamonds Are Forever, A View to A Kill, Tomorrow Never Dies, Die Another Day) to the one-worders (Goldfinger, Thunderball, Octopussy, GoldenEye). Plus, "Quantum of Solace" is about as Fleming-esque as a title can get. It's a step in the right direction for the franchise.

It's nice to see a movie title that isn't dumbed down for the benefit of the average moviegoer. God forbid someone might actually reach for a dictionary and learn a new word. (I'm still irritated that they felt they had to dumb down Baccarat into Texas Hold Em in Casino Royale.)"
Baccarat may be more continental, but Texas Hold-Em is a hot game right now. We don't want Bond to appear dated now do we my good man?
Do you find this valuable?    
Matt_Bohlmann
Matt_Bohlmann
RE: Need defending?
Feb 27 2008, 12:08 AM EST
Au contraire! Bond should be classic and timeless, always above the fickle whims of faddism. May his tuxedo, martini, and Aston-Martin never be thought of as dated.

Everyone knows what happens when the Bond franchise bends over to the big trend of the day... "Moonraker" happens.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
CharmOffensive
CharmOffensive
RE: Need defending?
Feb 27 2008, 12:51 PM EST
lol, i liked Moonraker.

As for Quantam of Solace, it's a good title. Very Bond. I read somewhere that it's integral to the plot, other than a relationship needing a quantam of solace as Craig already said.
Do you find this valuable?    

Anonymous
RE: Need defending?
Feb 28 2008, 12:29 AM EST
"Au contraire! Bond should be classic and timeless, always above the fickle whims of faddism. May his tuxedo, martini, and Aston-Martin never be thought of as dated.

Everyone knows what happens when the Bond franchise bends over to the big trend of the day... "Moonraker" happens."
"Moonraker"- I believe with the proper editing it could be made into a better film. I find Moonraker a long way from the worst of the Moore era- but am aware I am in a small minority. However, though it'll never happen while I'm alive, I'd like to see the book adapted- right down to the period. Maybe something like a good PBS masterpiece theater or some such production venue- I'd love to see the early '50's with the ex-Nazis trying to do evil with a sub launched rocket.
BP
Do you find this valuable?    
Green-Arrow
Green-Arrow
RE: Need defending?
Feb 28 2008, 3:44 PM EST
en·tro·py (n) The natural tendency of any dynamic thread, given enough time and discursive human throughput, to ultimately devolve into a discussion of "Moonraker" Do you find this valuable?    
spaceflightengineer
spaceflightengineer
RE: Need defending?
Mar 1 2008, 7:16 PM EST
"en·tro·py (n) The natural tendency of any dynamic thread, given enough time and discursive human throughput, to ultimately devolve into a discussion of "Moonraker""
That's hilarious. One could go a step farther and substitute "Moore Era Bond Films" for "Moonraker".

BP
Do you find this valuable?    
4nym

4nym
RE: Need defending?
Mar 7 2008, 5:06 PM EST
Ian Fleming was always way ahead of his time. So is the title. It shouldn't
need defending in this context. They say they are trying to give Bond more depth, which I hope they do, since the last movie didn't have much, all-in-all.
Do you find this valuable?    
2 | Next

Related Content

(what's this?Related ContentThanks to keyword tags, links to related pages and threads are added to the bottom of your pages. Up to 15 links are shown, determined by matching tags and by how recently the content was updated; keeping the most current at the top. Share your feedback on Wetpaint Central.)
Wiki pages
Top Contributors