6 Comments

  1. I agree, Quantum could be very good indeed.

    My main problem with it, honestly, is the title. It comes from a short story in Ian Fleming’s For Your Eyes Only (the third, following “From a View to a Kill” and “For Your Eyes Only”), which apparently isn’t a spy story and hardly features Bond at all. There are actually six other books in Fleming’s original titles, beginning with Live and Let Die, before you get to Quantum of Solace. I realize there are likely copyright and financial issues related to which books they can adapt, but if they’re not actually adapting Quantum, and they’re just adopting the next available name in the Bond franchise, why bother? Why not come up with a better title?

  2. @Fred: I kind of like the title. I can’t explain why. But I have little issue with the fact that the movie’s only vaguely at best related to the story, because, well, if one wants to be so technical, Bond is from the Cold War, so any movie after that violates the adaptation . . . and suchlike.

    @Grey: does that mean you haven’t seen Casino Royale yet? Get thee to a Blockbuster!

  3. I have no problem with it being, at best, tangentially related to the books. Everything I posted above was gleaned from Wikipedia; I’ve never read the books, nor even seen most of the movies. But I figure, if that’s the route you’re going to go, why even bother using one of Fleming’s titles, much less an obscure, not very action-movie-ish, title?

    But I really liked the new Casino Royale, and the trailer for this looks good, so I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt.

Comments are closed.