In a world of global warming, terrorist plotting and fuel prices that threaten to overtake nagging mothers-in-law as the primary cause of stress in life, it’s nice to know that there are some things that can be counted on to be there for us, year in, year out.
Super Bowl.
Christmas.
Letterman
And the guy who has gotten more mileage out of a tuxedo than anybody in the recorded history of time, with the possible exception of Dean Martin.
Bond.
James Bond.
Yes, kids, the new 007 flick is due in a multi Cineplex near you by the end of the year.
And from all reports it will be chock a block full with all of the features we have come to expect and celebrate, the delightful, and necessary, ingredients we have savored since 1962.
Beautiful women.
Rip roaring action.
Beautiful women.
Suspense and danger.
Beautiful women.
World domination and/or maniacal megalomania.
But who the hell cares?
There will be beautiful women.
It’s James Bond, for M’s sake.
Not so fast, though.
There’s a problem this time around.
Oh, the plot sounds interesting enough, picking up at the end of “Casino Royale” with Mr. Bond devastated by the betrayal of his sweet patootie, Vesper Lynd. And said plot is based on an actual story written by the actual Ian Fleming as part of the actual Bond novel, “For Your Eyes Only” (which was not one of the better Bond movies, by the way, but then that gets me into a whole rant about how Roger Moore was Simon Templar, the Saint, and I never could stomach him as B, J, B.)
The problem is the name of the movie.
It’s the name of the story from the Fleming novel. (For those of you who didn’t get to grow up reading the actual Fleming novels surreptitiously in English class like I did, For Your Eyes Only was actually a collection of short stories as opposed to one long narrative…take that to your Trivia Night and no thanks is necessary). And I suppose that gives the title its “validity”.
Like I said, though.
There’s a problem.
The title is…wait for it…”Quantum Of Solace”.
No, that’s not a typo.
That’s the name of the new James Bond movie.
“Quantum of Solace”
All right, let’s get right to the heart of the matter. First of all, besides the fact that it sounds less like the snappy title of a Bond movie than it does a character in a Star Trek movie (“….the Klingons and the Cardassians refuse to call a truce and any hopes of peace are all up to our new Federation ambassador, Quantum of Solace….”), the title is going to cause problems on a couple of levels.
Most obvious, I would think, is that given the dumbing down of the culture in the past few years, many avid movie goers are going to want to know “uh…what the hell is a kwantom of soul ace”?
Next, I’m a little surprised at the choice because the Bond folks haven’t been churning out money makers for over forty years by being dense when it comes to marketing chops. And giving any movie, let alone a Bond movie, a title that even the most erudite among us will have trouble pronouncing, let alone defining, isn’t exactly what I would consider branding genius.
But, all of that aside, I have a bigger problem with it for a personal reason. As a composer and lyricist myself, I have long been both a fan and admirer of much of the music that is so much a part of the Bond experience.
And although the “theme songs” have paled a little in recent years (Shirley Bassey singing “Goldfinger” versus Madonna droning “Die Another Day”? It’s Bassey by a knockout in the first round), even the most challenging Bond films have always managed to at least not embarrass themselves when it came time to putting title to music and lyric. Hell, they even managed to have a pretty good chart hit with one of the least likely to succeed Bond titles, “Thunderball”.
But, “Quantum of Solace”?
The titles of the James Bond films have, historically, been as much a part of the snap and excitement as any piece of the story itself, creating the initial imagery we carry with us into the theatre, waiting for the story to unfold.
Goldfinger. From Russia With Love. Live and Let Die. Diamonds Are Forever. Tomorrow Never Dies.
And I’m sure the latest film will draw in the faithful for all the reasons outlined earlier.
But, I think the creators have made a serious tactical error.
Because it’s not going to be a complete Bond experience without a great Bond theme song.
Somebody should have noticed that nothing rhymes with “solace”.
On the other hand, I think I can bring my considerable skill to bear on the issue and give them a hand…for some big bucks, naturally.
Of course, I’ll need a little re-write of the script to include a flash back sequence.
Super Bowl.
Christmas.
Letterman
And the guy who has gotten more mileage out of a tuxedo than anybody in the recorded history of time, with the possible exception of Dean Martin.
Bond.
James Bond.
Yes, kids, the new 007 flick is due in a multi Cineplex near you by the end of the year.
And from all reports it will be chock a block full with all of the features we have come to expect and celebrate, the delightful, and necessary, ingredients we have savored since 1962.
Beautiful women.
Rip roaring action.
Beautiful women.
Suspense and danger.
Beautiful women.
World domination and/or maniacal megalomania.
But who the hell cares?
There will be beautiful women.
It’s James Bond, for M’s sake.
Not so fast, though.
There’s a problem this time around.
Oh, the plot sounds interesting enough, picking up at the end of “Casino Royale” with Mr. Bond devastated by the betrayal of his sweet patootie, Vesper Lynd. And said plot is based on an actual story written by the actual Ian Fleming as part of the actual Bond novel, “For Your Eyes Only” (which was not one of the better Bond movies, by the way, but then that gets me into a whole rant about how Roger Moore was Simon Templar, the Saint, and I never could stomach him as B, J, B.)
The problem is the name of the movie.
It’s the name of the story from the Fleming novel. (For those of you who didn’t get to grow up reading the actual Fleming novels surreptitiously in English class like I did, For Your Eyes Only was actually a collection of short stories as opposed to one long narrative…take that to your Trivia Night and no thanks is necessary). And I suppose that gives the title its “validity”.
Like I said, though.
There’s a problem.
The title is…wait for it…”Quantum Of Solace”.
No, that’s not a typo.
That’s the name of the new James Bond movie.
“Quantum of Solace”
All right, let’s get right to the heart of the matter. First of all, besides the fact that it sounds less like the snappy title of a Bond movie than it does a character in a Star Trek movie (“….the Klingons and the Cardassians refuse to call a truce and any hopes of peace are all up to our new Federation ambassador, Quantum of Solace….”), the title is going to cause problems on a couple of levels.
Most obvious, I would think, is that given the dumbing down of the culture in the past few years, many avid movie goers are going to want to know “uh…what the hell is a kwantom of soul ace”?
Next, I’m a little surprised at the choice because the Bond folks haven’t been churning out money makers for over forty years by being dense when it comes to marketing chops. And giving any movie, let alone a Bond movie, a title that even the most erudite among us will have trouble pronouncing, let alone defining, isn’t exactly what I would consider branding genius.
But, all of that aside, I have a bigger problem with it for a personal reason. As a composer and lyricist myself, I have long been both a fan and admirer of much of the music that is so much a part of the Bond experience.
And although the “theme songs” have paled a little in recent years (Shirley Bassey singing “Goldfinger” versus Madonna droning “Die Another Day”? It’s Bassey by a knockout in the first round), even the most challenging Bond films have always managed to at least not embarrass themselves when it came time to putting title to music and lyric. Hell, they even managed to have a pretty good chart hit with one of the least likely to succeed Bond titles, “Thunderball”.
But, “Quantum of Solace”?
The titles of the James Bond films have, historically, been as much a part of the snap and excitement as any piece of the story itself, creating the initial imagery we carry with us into the theatre, waiting for the story to unfold.
Goldfinger. From Russia With Love. Live and Let Die. Diamonds Are Forever. Tomorrow Never Dies.
And I’m sure the latest film will draw in the faithful for all the reasons outlined earlier.
But, I think the creators have made a serious tactical error.
Because it’s not going to be a complete Bond experience without a great Bond theme song.
Somebody should have noticed that nothing rhymes with “solace”.
On the other hand, I think I can bring my considerable skill to bear on the issue and give them a hand…for some big bucks, naturally.
Of course, I’ll need a little re-write of the script to include a flash back sequence.
Featuring George “Wallace”
1 comment:
OK...ya got me...I registered, and am currently typing my first B-L-O-G (it only took me until '06 to get a cellphone, so this is actually progress).
On Hillary: ballzy? Yes, and thats a good thing. Not afraid to get her hands dirty and make things happen, but the thought of having to listen to that nails-on-the-chalkboard voice for four years?!?!?! I'd rather dry shave my butt and squat in a bowl of gin.
On Bond: any more disparaging comments about Madonna, and that will be the last you ever talk to your daughter-in-law. You just made the list, buddy.
On other: how many soldiers have died in the three days I've had to look at Heath Ledger's ugly mug? And they get the bottom fold of A12. Sometimes I hear the global warming/apocalyptic/doomsday fears and I think, hell...BRING IT ON!
Post a Comment