I agree...I think Property of a Lady is a perfectly acceptable title...as good as The Spy Who Loved Me and Octopussy or From Russia With Love. In fact, I think it's better than Diamonds are Forever or even Casino Royale. Like Number says, it really depends on the tone of the marketing campaign. The odd thing about Bond titles is that they alway seem to not feel right to me at first, but eventually sound very natural. POAL doesn't seem odd to me at all. The Hildebrandt Rarit,y on the other hand, would take some getting used to.
I allways felt The Hildebrandt Rarity sounds like a Sherlock Holmes short story. But knowing myself, I may very well change my opinion some day ....
If they use parts of a chapter title in CR it would be great: "A whisper of hate"
I wish EON used the "a whisper of love, a whisper of hate" for one of the Casino Royale posters. I couldn't believe that they didn't. Like all movie posters, Bond posters have lacked spark for a while. After all the classic Bond posters, one would think the tradition would continue. The last good poster was the U.S. one sheet for The World is Not Enough. At least that poster was composed like a classic poster.
What's going on with my thread?! Anyway, I think Property of a Lady isn't a strong enough title for a Bond film. It was used in a clever way in Octopussy. But as an action title? Or a title with some mystery to it? I don't think so.
The season finale of Rubicon was on tonight. Truxton Spangler and his group is the best thing about the show. The smirk on Spangler's face when the plan works is great. But also how the group handles assassinations is pretty harsh. This is what Bond should have been up against in Quantum. Not some people who immediately panic or have little to no safeguards where they meet.
"Better late than never."
j.bladesCurrently? You must be joking?Posts: 530MI6 Agent
To be honest I am not fussy what the film is called, as long as its good! I see no harm in a Flemming Title being resued for a different storyline from a book. Living Daylights works for example. Quantum did not!
I am about to read the Bond short stories, but in the context of the last film, what does "The Quantum of Solace" actually mean, if anything? Surely by way of the storyline, The Solace of Quantum would make more sense, Bond on a lone vendetta against a Quantum member? ;% Have I been over analyzing this again?
Quantum of Solace means "A measure of comfort." And thats what Bond was after in QoS, trying to find comfort after the death of the love of his life. I liked the movie but, i think that by the end of CR he already had moved on, its as if they made QoS as if Bond was just putting on a facade, just pretending to be over it but, I still disagree by that change the writters made.
"I take a ridiculous pleasure in what I eat and drink."
Quantum of Solace means "A measure of comfort." And thats what Bond was after in QoS, trying to find comfort after the death of the love of his life. I liked the movie but, i think that by the end of CR he already had moved on, its as if they made QoS as if Bond was just putting on a facade, just pretending to be over it but, I still disagree by that change the writters made.
The problem with that title is there was absolutely no character development or a hint of Bond trying to cope with his life after the events of CR in Quantum of Solace. Bond was simply doing stupid action things for most of the film but all of a sudden he spares lives of Greeny and the infamous Algerian Boyfriend. This was the guy who was killing everything within his line of vision but now he can control himself ? Then there is also the problem of naming the orginization Quantum which further destroys the credibility of the title.
If they were going to have gumption to have such an esoteric title, especially for a James Bond film, then they should have the common sense to actually exploit said idea to it's fullest.
Quantum of Solace means "A measure of comfort." And thats what Bond was after in QoS, trying to find comfort after the death of the love of his life. I liked the movie but, i think that by the end of CR he already had moved on, its as if they made QoS as if Bond was just putting on a facade, just pretending to be over it but, I still disagree by that change the writters made.
The problem with that title is there was absolutely no character development or a hint of Bond trying to cope with his life after the events of CR in Quantum of Solace. Bond was simply doing stupid action things for most of the film but all of a sudden he spares lives of Greeny and the infamous Algerian Boyfriend. This was the guy who was killing everything within his line of vision but now he can control himself ? Then there is also the problem of naming the orginization Quantum which further destroys the credibility of the title.
If they were going to have gumption to have such an esoteric title, especially for a James Bond film, then they should have the common sense to actually exploit said idea to it's fullest.
I may be wrong but I don't think he was quite killing "everything within his line of vision ". In fact I think the number of people he actually killed was relitively low (Mitchell, the guy in the hotel room a few thugs here and there and Green's contact at the end). Half of those were when they were trying to kill him; plus Bond didn't even get to kill the main villain at the end He was however far too much of a liability in this film. A reckless agent who seemed (for the most part) to hinder the security service rather than help it, and far from a stealth-like professional.
I may be wrong but I don't think he was quite killing "everything within his line of vision ". In fact I think the number of people he actually killed was relitively low (Mitchell, the guy in the hotel room a few thugs here and there and Green's contact at the end). Half of those were when they were trying to kill him and Bond didn't even get to kill the main villain at the end He was however far too much of a liability in this film. A reckless agent who seemed (for the most part) to hinder the security service rather than help it, and far from a stealth-like professional.
I exaggerate but he was still killing people he didn't need to. He could have made his life easier by capturing Mitchell and interrogating Slate. Honestly, did he learn nothing from Casino Royale ? Also his recklessness got Fields killed and he is largely responsible for the death of a Special Branch Agent. And yet on the other hand, Bond seemed to know when to rescue Camille for no reason and how to infiltrate the Quantum meeting.
EON is trying to re-invent Bond but they just seem not to know what the hell they are doing. They talk in the press about how they want to make a more complex Bond and yet the recent films show that they have learned very little from past mistakes. What they should do is come up with an idea and simply FOLLOW THROUGH with it. Yes it's common sense but nobody at the house of Bond seems to get this. Daniel Craig is fine and hell, he's down right perfect for the role but he's being wasted almost as badly as Dalton.
I may be wrong but I don't think he was quite killing "everything within his line of vision ". In fact I think the number of people he actually killed was relitively low (Mitchell, the guy in the hotel room a few thugs here and there and Green's contact at the end). Half of those were when they were trying to kill him and Bond didn't even get to kill the main villain at the end He was however far too much of a liability in this film. A reckless agent who seemed (for the most part) to hinder the security service rather than help it, and far from a stealth-like professional.
I exagerrate but he was still killing people he didn't need to. He could have made his life easier by capturing Mitchell and interrogating Slate (Did he learn nothing from Casino Royale ?) and also his recklessness got Fields killed and he is largely responsible for the death of a Special Branch Agent. And yet on the other hand, Bond seemed to know when to rescue Camille for no reason and how to inflitrate the Quantum meeting.
EON is trying to re-invent Bond but they just seem not to know what the hell they are doing. They talk in the press about how they want to make a more complex Bond and yet the recent films show they have seemed to learned very little from past mistakes. What they should do is come up with an idea and simply FOLLOW THROUGH with it.
I think they're TRYING to make a more complex Bond, but "complex" in their minds seems to just mean "angry". Also, the over-reliance on action doesn't really give time for a more "complex" figure.
Does the opening car chase really suggest we are going to be watching a far more "complex" Bond?!
I think a lot of people seem to forget that Bond was NOT an out-of-control figure. In fact, far from it. He took calculated risks but wasn't (at least to me) reckless. In fact in the Goldfinger novel when Bond strangles Goldfinger it says:
I think a lot of people seem to forget that Bond was NOT an out-of-control figure. In fact, far from it. He took calculated risks but wasn't (at least to me) reckless. In fact in the Goldfinger novel, it says, when Bond strangles Goldfinger:
"for the first time in his life Bond went beserk"
Exactly. Whenever he lost control or did some measure of revenge, it was always on duty. It's why I always call bull s*** on Licence To Kill and these recent attempts to make Bond some anti-hero.
I think a lot of people seem to forget that Bond was NOT an out-of-control figure. In fact, far from it. He took calculated risks but wasn't (at least to me) reckless. In fact in the Goldfinger novel, it says, when Bond strangles Goldfinger:
"for the first time in his life Bond went beserk"
Exactly. Whenever he lost control or did some measure of revenge, it was always on duty. It's why I always call bull s*** on Licence To Kill and these recent attempts to make Bond some anti-hero.
"Property of a lady" is a Fleming Title so is Fine in my Book and I'd love to see Denzil Washington as leader of Quantum, as he's normally cast as the hero but can play a great Bad guy (Trainning day).
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I think that the Quantum concept will probably belong to Craig's Bond alone. Like someone mentioned, each new actor has his own style of enemy. Connery had the Cold War spies and SPECTRE. Moore had megalomaniacs and corrupt billionaires. Dalton had real-world, political terrorists. Brosnan had a mix of villains who all had some personal involvement with Bond's private life. Craig seems to be this vengeful agent taking on this small, but powerful shadow group. Since Craig is supposed to be the "Young Bond" and Quantum is the predecessor of SPECTRE, he will probably make short work of them thus transforming himself into the familiar Bond in Fleming's novels.
And to answer the question of who the Quantum leader should be, I think that Rachel Weisz would be a fine choice. Sort of odd because then Bond would have a female M, the token Bond girl AND a female nemesis. : ) Then "Property of A Lady" would be the only title appropriate.
I think that the Quantum concept will probably belong to Craig's Bond alone. Like someone mentioned, each new actor has his own style of enemy. Connery had the Cold War spies and SPECTRE. Moore had megalomaniacs and corrupt billionaires. Dalton had real-world, political terrorists. Brosnan had a mix of villains who all had some personal involvement with Bond's private life. Craig seems to be this vengeful agent taking on this small, but powerful shadow group. Since Craig is supposed to be the "Young Bond" and Quantum is the predecessor of SPECTRE, he will probably make short work of them thus transforming himself into the familiar Bond in Fleming's novels.
And to answer the question of who the Quantum leader should be, I think that Rachel Weisz would be a fine choice. Sort of odd because then Bond would have a female M, the token Bond girl AND a female nemesis. : ) Then "Property of A Lady" would be the only title appropriate.
I really hope that 23 ditch the lame Quantum thing (it really hasn't gone anywhere in two movies) and go with a new miission unconnected with Bond or his private life. Lets have briefing scene, maybe a cool toy or two and some uncomplicated glamour. I want to keep the toughness, limit the quips, explore Bond's character and let our man have a little fun amidst the mayhem
The gap between films will mean that most casual movie goers would need tiresome reminding of Quantum and Vesper...enough alreadyB-)
If they can get Daniel Craig down for at least two movies, then I'm cool with a new mission that's unconnected to the Quantum Group. Just like after Dr. No and From Russia with Love, Connery had Goldfinger. But they need to finish off Quantum. Leaving it after an amazing almost classic Bond film like Casino Royale would be a bad idea. Lazenby never finished off Blofeld. Craig should be the actor to finish off Quantum.
There are a few threads about possible actors being good for the Quantum Group's leader. I thought I would start a main thread for it as I believe I've found the perfect guy.
The perfect guy could be the perfect woman. Helen Mirren for me.
"Training is useful, but there is no substitute for experience."
Rachel Weisz would be fine by me. She could be a calculating evil genius...but with one flaw, she's obsessed with Bond. Obsessed with having him by her side in Quantum and as a lover. MI6 could use Bond to infiltrate and bring down Quantum by faking a defection. Oh shoot, am I getting too close to "The World Is Not Enough"...my bad. But I still think Weisz could be a good head of Quantum providing they give her some real good memorable henchman.
I don't care if he's Quantum's leader, but for a while now I've thought a perfect Bond villain could be played by Frank Langella. Think of it: the cold, measured voice, the dark, piercing eyes. . .not for nothing was this guy cast as Dracula!
Vox clamantis in deserto
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
I don't care if he's Quantum's leader, but for a while now I've thought a perfect Bond villain could be played by Frank Langella. Think of it: the cold, measured voice, the dark, piercing eyes. . .not for nothing was this guy cast as Dracula!
Good call!
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Langella is indeed a great call - if in doubt watch his sinister underplaying in The Box.
....having read these replies and other threads I do believe the best suggestions are that Bond 23 should be The Property Of A Lady with three pronged theme - the first of which being the reveal of Frank Langella as Quantum leader, with his cohort Rachel Weisz locking horns with and culminating in the assassination of M, and ending with Bonds ultimate pledge to Her Majesty.
I'd like to see Christopher Lloyd become the head of Quantum. I really want to see someone else besides Robert Zemeckis take advantage of such a great character actor.
It's a shame he already played a villian. Pryce, Walken, and noted character actor Vincent Schiavelli were simply wasted in their Bond features. I am so glad Bruno Ganz was not wasted as the absurdly banal Dominque Greene.
It's a shame he already played a villian. Pryce, Walken, and noted character actor Vincent Schiavelli were simply wasted in their Bond features. I am so glad Bruno Ganz was not wasted as the absurdly banal Dominque Greene.
Walken wasted?! Zorin was an amazing villain! The man even laughs before he dies, true psycho!
Comments
Yes you poor soul.
I allways felt The Hildebrandt Rarity sounds like a Sherlock Holmes short story. But knowing myself, I may very well change my opinion some day ....
I wish EON used the "a whisper of love, a whisper of hate" for one of the Casino Royale posters. I couldn't believe that they didn't. Like all movie posters, Bond posters have lacked spark for a while. After all the classic Bond posters, one would think the tradition would continue. The last good poster was the U.S. one sheet for The World is Not Enough. At least that poster was composed like a classic poster.
What's going on with my thread?! Anyway, I think Property of a Lady isn't a strong enough title for a Bond film. It was used in a clever way in Octopussy. But as an action title? Or a title with some mystery to it? I don't think so.
The season finale of Rubicon was on tonight. Truxton Spangler and his group is the best thing about the show. The smirk on Spangler's face when the plan works is great. But also how the group handles assassinations is pretty harsh. This is what Bond should have been up against in Quantum. Not some people who immediately panic or have little to no safeguards where they meet.
~ Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
The problem with that title is there was absolutely no character development or a hint of Bond trying to cope with his life after the events of CR in Quantum of Solace. Bond was simply doing stupid action things for most of the film but all of a sudden he spares lives of Greeny and the infamous Algerian Boyfriend. This was the guy who was killing everything within his line of vision but now he can control himself ? Then there is also the problem of naming the orginization Quantum which further destroys the credibility of the title.
If they were going to have gumption to have such an esoteric title, especially for a James Bond film, then they should have the common sense to actually exploit said idea to it's fullest.
I may be wrong but I don't think he was quite killing "everything within his line of vision ". In fact I think the number of people he actually killed was relitively low (Mitchell, the guy in the hotel room a few thugs here and there and Green's contact at the end). Half of those were when they were trying to kill him; plus Bond didn't even get to kill the main villain at the end
I exaggerate but he was still killing people he didn't need to. He could have made his life easier by capturing Mitchell and interrogating Slate. Honestly, did he learn nothing from Casino Royale ? Also his recklessness got Fields killed and he is largely responsible for the death of a Special Branch Agent. And yet on the other hand, Bond seemed to know when to rescue Camille for no reason and how to infiltrate the Quantum meeting.
EON is trying to re-invent Bond but they just seem not to know what the hell they are doing. They talk in the press about how they want to make a more complex Bond and yet the recent films show that they have learned very little from past mistakes. What they should do is come up with an idea and simply FOLLOW THROUGH with it. Yes it's common sense but nobody at the house of Bond seems to get this. Daniel Craig is fine and hell, he's down right perfect for the role but he's being wasted almost as badly as Dalton.
I think they're TRYING to make a more complex Bond, but "complex" in their minds seems to just mean "angry". Also, the over-reliance on action doesn't really give time for a more "complex" figure.
Does the opening car chase really suggest we are going to be watching a far more "complex" Bond?!
The opening scene is a car commerical. I can't believe that was in a film. It's almost as bad as Bond driving the Ford in Casino Royale.
"for the first time in his life Bond went beserk"
Exactly. Whenever he lost control or did some measure of revenge, it was always on duty. It's why I always call bull s*** on Licence To Kill and these recent attempts to make Bond some anti-hero.
We're finally in agreement on something.
And to answer the question of who the Quantum leader should be, I think that Rachel Weisz would be a fine choice. Sort of odd because then Bond would have a female M, the token Bond girl AND a female nemesis. : ) Then "Property of A Lady" would be the only title appropriate.
I really hope that 23 ditch the lame Quantum thing (it really hasn't gone anywhere in two movies) and go with a new miission unconnected with Bond or his private life. Lets have briefing scene, maybe a cool toy or two and some uncomplicated glamour. I want to keep the toughness, limit the quips, explore Bond's character and let our man have a little fun amidst the mayhem
The gap between films will mean that most casual movie goers would need tiresome reminding of Quantum and Vesper...enough alreadyB-)
The perfect guy could be the perfect woman. Helen Mirren for me.
Good call!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
....having read these replies and other threads I do believe the best suggestions are that Bond 23 should be The Property Of A Lady with three pronged theme - the first of which being the reveal of Frank Langella as Quantum leader, with his cohort Rachel Weisz locking horns with and culminating in the assassination of M, and ending with Bonds ultimate pledge to Her Majesty.
....any takers?
It's a shame he already played a villian. Pryce, Walken, and noted character actor Vincent Schiavelli were simply wasted in their Bond features. I am so glad Bruno Ganz was not wasted as the absurdly banal Dominque Greene.
Walken wasted?! Zorin was an amazing villain! The man even laughs before he dies, true psycho!
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby