http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... index.html

The title for the next Bond flick is Quantum of Solace





Okay.

What the fuck? That doesn't even make sense. Can the word Quantum be used in any way, shape or form to make sense in that title? Is it a unit of measurement? Is it some conjugation of 'quantity' that I'm not aware of?

Thursty, help me out here.

And people thought The Phantom Menace was bad.

Seriously, though, the previous film rocked, so they could call it "Bond Bones Busty British Babes," and I'd watch it.

(Actually, that would get me even more interested. :P )

To answer your question, Ipsy, the first definition of "quantum" in most dictionaries--as a noun, that is--is something usually along the lines of "quantity or amount."

Actually, here's the film where you will be seeing the Bakula cameo. He's going to leap into Bond, and comic high jinks are going to ensue.

I'd watch it.

(Actually, that would get me even more interested. :P )

Blame Ian Fleming.

He came up with it.

Some strange something leads me to believe the prequels are about to get slammed.

FYI, some stuntman and then Craig got hurt, but Craig's fine, or something. I read it a week ago... I think.

Stunts?

What are those?

Things digital doubles do.

(That's what I was supposed to say, right?)

Thurston McQ wrote:Things digital doubles do.

(That's what I was supposed to say, right?)

Oh yeah, cartoons!

I remember watching those!

Quantum of Solace.

It's a trailer!

Well, damn.

Looks like there will be a lot of punching and stuff in this one.

It seems they're going with a continuity thing.

Set up SPECTRE in film #1, thus giving Bond a personal reason to fight them in film #2.

To my knowledge, I don't think this has ever been done in the Bond series. The actions (and plot) in one film clearly affect the actions (and plot) of the next.

It only makes sense. Casino Royale clearly revived the franchise, and I'm glad they're bucking the franchise's trend of pretending like it never happened.

There sure is a lot of punching and stuff, too!

Corporal Hicks wrote:Looks like there will be a lot of punching and stuff in this one.

It seems they're going with a continuity thing.

Set up SPECTRE in film #1, thus giving Bond a personal reason to fight them in film #2.

To my knowledge, I don't think this has ever been done in the Bond series. The actions (and plot) in one film clearly affect the actions (and plot) of the next.

It only makes sense. Casino Royale clearly revived the franchise, and I'm glad they're bucking the franchise's trend of pretending like it never happened.

There sure is a lot of punching and stuff, too!

** POW **

The first Daniel Craig Bond was marginally ok. I rented the DVD, and was mildly entertained by it. I was more entertained by The Transporter.

Seems that QoS is also taking ques from the Bourne flicks.

Didn't Bond go "rogue" during the first movie? How many times are they going to need to explore that direction?

Magnum wrote:The first Daniel Craig Bond was marginally ok. I rented the DVD, and was mildly entertained by it. I was more entertained by The Transporter.

Seems that QoS is also taking ques from the Bourne flicks.

Didn't Bond go "rogue" during the first movie? How many times are they going to need to explore that direction?

How many times can Mike Meyers make a midget joke?

I'm glad they're starting to inject continuity into Bond films. However, Judy Dench is still M, and she's been M since Goldeneye. That negates the continuity right there. Doesn't it?

I've always held the theory that not only is 007 a codename, but so is James Bond as well. I used that to explain why he's different every so often. Something in Casino Royale (other than the fact that it's the first novel) put a kink in my neat little continuity, but it's been a while since I saw it, and I can't remember what it is.

Well, Casino Royale's Bond was a reboot much in the same way Batman Begins' Batman was a reboot.

Christian Bale obviously isn't carrying over George Clooney's Batman, just like Craig isn't carrying over Brosnan's Bond.

Even plot-wise, Casino Royale was Bond's first mission. Under those circumstances, we don't know about SPECTRE and neither does he.

In fact, I want to believe they are setting up something fairly epic (maybe not necessarily in QOS) somewhere down the line.

SPECTRE were the primary villains of Connery Bond years, yet there was never any real weight behind the conflict, other than of course one side was good and the other side was bad.

What I think is happening here is that they are truly setting up a real reason for Bond and SPECTRE to be at such odds with each other.

Of course, I also like how they developed SPECTRE as a global terrorist organization that is able to operate in the modern world.

So far we have just seen their pawns, and since Blofeld isn't in the new film (I presume) we're still going to see pawns.

----------------------------------

Gah, I guess what I'm saying is that I like that Bond is carrying the scars from his previous mission now. Technically, as an agent, he is supposed to forget about it.

They're actually lending some emotional weight to an invincible guy that runs around kicking butt. I like that.

That's a viable, reasonable explanation.

Thank you.

I think the weight of the death of Emma Peel in OHMSS carried over . . . when the writers could be bothered to remember it had happened. It was acknowledged, at least, that Bond had married once, and it was used to "explain" his inability to get too strongly attached to women.

Thurston McQ wrote:I think the weight of the death of Emma Peel in OHMSS carried over . . . when the writers could be bothered to remember it had happened. It was acknowledged, at least, that Bond had married once, and it was used to "explain" his inability to get too strongly attached to women.

But Bond's girls never drove the plot of any of the other films. Pussy Galore didn't show up in Diamonds are Forever and so on...though I will grant you that OHMSS is certainly a different take on it all, but I'm pretty sure most every person in the entire world has never seen it.

Still, the point is nothing Bond ever got himself into ever seemed to come back and haunt him.

In fact, now that I think back on it, From Russia with Love was the only time Bond's actions from the previous film (Dr. No) instigated actions in the new film.

Other than that, it was the same Bond (played differently by each actor, of course) vs new madman.

Each film was a new mission, but over time (and especially if you've watched them more than once) it gets harder & harder to believe that all of that chaos wouldn't have some sort of adverse reaction on Bond.

I don't know the first thing about QOS. I know what I saw in the trailer, and that's about it. It has a lot of punching, but it gives just enough taste of what they're aiming at plot-wise for us to guess that this is more of a continuation...or dare I say sequel, than it is a brand new Bond adventure.

OHMSS is the one and only with Lazenby, right? I've seen it.

I see what you're saying, Hicks, and I agree. That's cool.

Casino Royale would be a reboot if they recast M. They didn't, though, so it's some sort of weird alternate reality from the Brosnan-era films. That or Brosnan-Bond was killed and now they've got new-Bond.

From what I remember of Batman Begins no one from the Burton or Schumaker films came back, right? So, I don't think it's quite the same.

Ipsilon wrote:OHMSS is the one and only with Lazenby, right? I've seen it.

I see what you're saying, Hicks, and I agree. That's cool.

Casino Royale would be a reboot if they recast M. They didn't, though, so it's some sort of weird alternate reality from the Brosnan-era films. That or Brosnan-Bond was killed and now they've got new-Bond.

From what I remember of Batman Begins no one from the Burton or Schumaker films came back, right? So, I don't think it's quite the same.

I think Judi Dench is an exception to all rules.

You're talking about M though.

That character, male or female, hasn't changed since Dr. No..

Kind of like Q. Desmond Llewelyn played the character up until he died, and he played the same character in every film...but just because he is in Moonraker doesn't make it the same as Goldfinger.

Retaining Judi Dench has zero overall bearing on the story, characters, or tone of the films, other than that her name is in the credits. They may have made her a little bit more feisty in Casino Royale, but she's hardly there to serve as a bridge to the Brosnan films, thats for sure.

Yeah, Q is the other one.

No, I'm not saying it's intentional. It's just why I can't wrap my brain around a total reboot.

Ipsilon wrote:No, I'm not saying it's intentional. It's just why I can't wrap my brain around a total reboot.

Its story, characters, tone, etc bear nothing in resemblance to the Brosnan Bonds (or any of the other ones, for that matter).

So they re-recast Judi Dench as M. That is your only hangup?