Quantum of SoSomething?
But what the heck does it mean?
Bond 22 is now officially Quantum of Solace, the film's producers announced today. The movie - whose title is taken from a short story in Ian Fleming's 1960 For Your Eyes Only - has already begun shooting at Pinewood and will later go on location in Austria, Italy and Panama. It's Daniel Craig's second outing as 007, following …
1. A quantity or amount.
1. Comfort in sorrow, misfortune, or distress; consolation.
surely that's a good title as it sums up Bond's need to recovering from the whole falling for and being betrayed by Vesper
knowing Bond, the form of this consolation will be in the form of hot birds, fast cars, cool gadgets and lots of explosions and heaps of dead bad guys
Quantum of Solace will follow on from Casino Royale, with 007 "picking up the pieces after being double-crossed by Treasury agent Vesper Lynd".
er I may be wrong here but bond would never "pick up the pieces" the only time he ever showed his true feelings was in OHMSS when he got married and his Wife was Murdered, unless it is to go on a frenzied attack against the evil scum that caused vespa to double cross him....
oh and also where is the IT angle
How the hell are they going to fit that into the opening credits song?
*waahhnnyyahnaahh* He's got a quantum of solace *wahhhnyyaaahnaahhh* And a googleplex of sanctimony *wwwaaahhhnyyaaahhhnaaah* He'll aspirate your apathy *wwwaaahhhnyyyaannaaah* With anaerobic dialysis *waaahhnnyyyaaanaahhh*
Apparently SOLACE stands for Society of Local Authority Chief Executives in the UK
I beleive Quantum is the from the latin Quantus and generally means a packet/part/amount.
so perhaps the plot is based around a group of Local Authority Chief Execs hellbent on World Domination/Destruction or perhaps above inflation increases in the Council Tax
just a guess
noun (pl. quanta) 1 Physics an individual quantity of energy corresponding to that involved in the absorption or emission of energy or light by an atom or other particle. 2 a total amount, especially an amount of money legally payable in damages. 3 a share.
noun comfort or consolation in time of distress.
So that's what it means.
The 2nd or 3rd definition would seem more appropriate of course. Given the nature of Bond's dejection at this stage of the story, I'd say it was a good title. What would be an approriate amount of solace given what he's been through? Who knows, but I guess that's the point, you'll find out in this film.
That said, it doesn't seem stupid to me, certainly not compared to Attack of the Clones :o) It sounds good, it's got that Olde English feel to it, using the word quantum outwith the realm of physics. Maybe it has some other connotation to do with the story as well. I approve, but then that's just me.
The correct title should have been "Quantum of Space".
However, when the new secretary was typing the draft press release, she hit the "O" and "L" keys instead of the letter "P".
None of the big-wigs noticed the error. Hence, one small typing mistake is now making everyone in the world ask: "Quantum of Solace? WTF does that mean?"
Am I the only person who thinks they understand what this title means? I see at least two meanings, in the spirit of Bond:
a) [someone finds only] a small amount of consolation.
b) a quantum [mechanical] device that brings someone comfort.
Am I mis-understanding the meaning of the words here?
I see even my memory is not perfect. Checking things out on Wikipedia, to make sure the story did appear in For Your Eyes Only, and not, say, Octopussy, I find out that while Quantum of Solace did appear in For Your Eyes Only, the one with the tail from the manta ray was The Hildebrand Rarity. Ah, well...
A daft title, Greg?
MeThinks it is more appropriate than you may ever realise, although I'm a big fan of never ever say never. And the greater truth may very well be, can be more appropriate and especially so if Fleming Family and Partners are tuned into CyberSpace AIResearch and dDevelopment.
Solo Aces....Licensed to Thrill for Seventh Heaven, Global Communications HQ? Pushes all MI Buttons but whether the Reality pushes MI Buttons too depends on how savvy M and C are Virtually.
One of those Eureka "Upon this charge, cry God for England, Harry and Saint George!" moment statements, Greg, made most Real when Imagined 42BTrue Blue and Hot Blooded.
And yes, that is a XSSXXXXual Zero Day Opportunity, Registered in Open Source and BetaTesting, Semantic Web, Quantum Communications Systems of Astute NEUKlearer Power in Control.
One of those "Need to Know" Invisible Earner thingies, Friends and Foe can only Dream about. However such is ITs Worth, they will all be able to Share in ITs Good Fortune ....... for IT is so Programmed when in AI Pioneering Lead.
cc Matthew Fleming/Richard Fitzalan Howard re Banking Sector Revival/InterNetional Rescue.
Now let's just see how clever we think we can be, El Reg ... :-) ...... in the Full Glare of IT an ITs Peers.
I would say the most frequent use for 'Quantum' is the mathematical :
2. (Math.) A definite portion of a manifoldness, limited by a
mark or by a boundary. --W. K. Clifford.
As it is commonly used in physics and computing. I think any other meaning it had in Ian Fleming's time has been largely been lost.
Anyway, definitely a bad title for a Bond film, any title which sends you rushing for a dictionary can't be good. I think they should have chosen one of the two used in Flushed Away - "Die Again Tomorrow" or "You Only Live Nine Times".
No matter how bad the movie is it will be considered cinema gold in comparison to Daniel Craig's life-less, contrived portrayal of James Bond. His complete lack of a grasp on the very cornerstones of the Bond character, combined with his seemingly genetic inability to add depth to any character he has ever acted (including Bond), will most certainly allow the script, the bad acting of the other performers, the awful action sequences and most of all the lack of excitement to really shine through as bastions of good cinema. It's the polar opposite of previous Bond movies, where the actor was the only good thing about them.
Daniel Craig's delivery comes off more like a angsty Scottish trainspotter than an embittered, betrayed, self-loathing, misogynistic, government-hating secret agent. "...the bitch is dead." Really now? You don't say? Well, I'm sorry you have mommy and daddy issues, Mr. Bond, really I am, but could you please try and sound less like a caricature of Timothy Dalton, pretty please?
Bollocks to the whole fucking franchise at this point. We've finally got what we've been asking for since day one: a horrible fucking actor playing Bond in movies that are horribly produced, horribly directed, and horribly written. The only bit of Casino Royale which had any real thought put into it was the fucking credits. Everything else was some hack's idea of good time. Here's a hint, Ms. Broccoli: throwing fans of the series a proverbial bone by including sequences from the books only work if they don't come off as the fan-service that they are. It just serves to irritate those of us who actually once viewed James Bond as being the ultimate action star, and not Jason Bourne.
Oh well. Not everyone can stay on top forever. Just ask George Lucas. The one true trilogy of the Jedi isn't important anymore; everyone's about the Ring. Things change, I suppose. The Americans (with the help of a certain English director that you SHOULD have hired to make a Bold film all ready; or at least Quentin Tarantino, if not Paul Greengrass) made a better spy/espionage flick than you have in the last twenty years because they were inventive. Now you've got a lifeless actor starring in lifeless films that make significantly less money than the supposedly awful films of Pierce Brosnan. Good job.
Lastly, Quantum of Solace? Right, as has been pointed out before, Bond's hardly in the story at all. Just another example of the Bond camp trying to cash-in on the fans' desire to see the source material used after numerous movies lacking source were supposedly "awful." Tomorrow Never Dies might have simply been James Bond v. William Randolph Hearst but damn if they didn't try which is more than you can say for Casino Royale. Bring back George Lazenby, at least he was excited to be Bond, which is more than you can say for Daniel "Botox Paralyzed My Face" Craig.
What are you doing on a tech website like this, then? You should know that obviously, QoS stands for Quality of Service as used in routers and web servers, and THERE'S YOUR IT ANGLE.
(Incidentally. "Bond 22: Quality of Service" sounds quite good actually. Has overtones of Her Majesty's Secret Service to it.)
The best comment on here for ages!
Made my evening, Thank you!
PS Craig is an OK Bond imo. Whilst the previous ones have their place, its nice to see a slight change in direction from the old wise-cracking, corn-meister of the past.
And to the poster who bemoaned the cashing in on the Bond name etc, welcome to the world of film. Can't make one (or several) these days unless you can milk whatever merchandise revenue stream until it can be milked no more.....
At least one other commentator here who thought that Casino Royale was a steaming pile. Although I have to say its a film first. Yes, its the first film I ejected from the DVD player about 40 minutes in after getting bored of the endless stupid boring chase scenes and complete lack of story. But maybe that's because Daniel Craig acted with less emotion than a T800 (or was it a T101). Hell, at least Arnie was *supposed* to be an emotionless cyborg. I think I turned off CR at the scene where Bond was talking to some woman on a train, the first vague attempt at a dialogue. My memory is sketchy because it was assaulted by an over drawn out chase through a construction site and embassy and then a dull chase across an airport. I mean, by this point who could actually give a damn about the characters or what they were doing, it was like some film cuttings were just thrown together with the hope of filling the box office cash pot (Pirates of the Caribbean 2 I'm looking in your direction)
Utter utter waste of 40 minutes. Die Another Day was very shaky, but I managed to watch it from start to finish. FAIL++
It's a genuine Fleming title for a Bond story (don't matter if he was barely in it). It will correctly reflect Bond's journey through life.
Back when I was an aspiring screenwriter (I wrote a plot outline then got distracted by girls), Quantum of Solace was the title I was going to use. My idea involved Richard Dean Anderson as a MacGyver-eqsue military type (cross between Mac and O'Neill) who goes on a mission with Bond. I was going to have them cave-dive to get through to a hidden factory that manufactured drugs, fake money and gems, etc. Naturally they'd get captured and have to use some standard household items to escape and set of all the C4 they'd planted.
I think it would have been fun.
In general, quantum means an amount or a quantity. In Physics, it means a fixed amount or packet of energy. But it doesn't mean small. The term "Quantum Leap" (in the real world sense, not the physics sense) could be translated to "A Leap of a Fixed Size". Not "A Tiny Leap". Sure, relative to the amount of energy we deal with in our every day lives, the energy that a photon emits is very small, but it's not small compared to the resting energy of the electron it's acting on. It's all relative :-) But the world has come to believe that a "Quantum Leap" is a large leap and then the pedants jump up and say no, it's a small leap really. Actually, it's a fix sized leap or a discrete change in energy levels.
And yes, I know I'm being pedantic. And not 100% accurate either. But reasonable :-)
Blimey! The current state of the Bond franchise really has got you a bit steamed hasn't it? OK, so they're complete hokum that now bear little relationship to the original stories (or characters). But, on the other hand, if you want good acting, good plot and a modicum of thought, a Bond film hasn't really been the place to go since...er...well...pretty much ever I would have said. Big explosions, insane chase scenes and shapely ladies showing themselves off, then yes, Bond's your man without a doubt. But all that quality acting, characterisation and plot stuff? Sorry squire, move along, nothing to see here.
CR was the worst Bond film I'd ever seen, so many times I wanted to turn it off but I just kept fast forwarding it, hoping for the 'good scene'. And when did the 'good scene' appear, right at the end, the castle on the lake. To me that was pure unadulterated film making.
Now they have the nerve to milk it one more time ! It had to happen, the slow degradation due to misguided thoughts of hoping to cash in on the continuing melodrama of Bond, hype it up for the diehard fans and they'll walk in and pay to see more tardy rubbish.
All you get now is product placement in Bond films, about the only exciting thing that develop's their echo/hollowy sounding script.
I agree. What were they thinking filming a Bond who is truer to the books, portrayed as a rounded human being by an actor who for the first time looks as if he's actually capable of kicking arse (I still shudder at the thought of Pierce "will I pout one more time" Brosnan taking on a battalion of broad-shouldered thugs)? And then they -gasp- showed a scene in which the villain gets beaten up too.
I mean, I don't like weepies either but come on this isn't exactly Sleepless in Seattle is it? Go back to your Chuck Norris cave (no no, I'm sorry Mr Norris, of course roundhouse kicks are just an expression of your inner vulnerability).
Spleen - that's gotta be a Grammy for sure.
The original title for Timothy Dalton's second outing was "License Revoked"- there are even posters out there somewhere with this title on it, but the studio didn't think that certain Colonials would understand what the word "Revoked" means.
So, "Quantum of Solace" may cause a bit of confusion, but if it makes certain people get a dictionary out, Band may suddenly be accused of being "educational", heaven forbid.
The original title for "Tomorrow Never Dies" was "Tomorrow Never Lies" (as in the fictional newspaper 'Tomorrow' never lies to the people (and considering the plot that's quite cleverly ironic). A typo turned the L into a D: The producers thought this was a bit more "Bondish" anyway.
I can't wait for the "Hildebrand Rarity" (obviously without "The" at the beginning) and the excuses for using THAT one!
IT connection- a small typo can make a big change!
Thanks for the comments. It was worth trying to type while holding a toilet plunger over my keyboard to be mentioned in the same post as Bill Bailey.
P.S. Casino Royale was just as good as any other Bond film. If you believe what you read in comments on the Internet, the latest Bond film is always terrible and a betrayal of the previous installments (and, for bonus contrarian nerd points, the books), but the writers don't have to worry because when the next Bond film comes out, that will become 'the terrible one' and the now second-most-recent will become one of the good films that the most-recent has betrayed.
From this iron-clad law we can deduce that the universe came into being in 1963, at the exact time of the release of From Russia With Love, with all supposed history and memories before that point being spontaneously generated. Any sort of existence before there were at least two Bond films (of which the latest was crap compared to the previous one(s)) is physically impossible.
It's the Punch readers or Dr Who anoraks syndrome; the latest iterations are always rubbish, the previous ones remain the best and hey, I'll throw in a controversialish comment about something to show I've got my own mind thanks.
So the 007 films have some admirers and some detractors. Well, that your opinion and just like an arsehole everyone's got one of those. I thought the film went quite well: less of the nonsensical gadgets, much tighter shooting and a lead actor who actually showed some genuine menace - which we've not really had since the early Connery outings. I was always a bit of a Dalton fan but Craig is a good version, better than the pretty boy before him anyway.
Thing is, we never had the best Bond as he wasn't picked when he was younger; Oliver Reed. Now he would have been just incredible.
As for the Bourne series, nah. Nice try but just not quite there.
I agree about the anokrak syndrome, although it seems to be minorities of fans of the shows it affects. Doctor Who seemed to have it less than others
I think the same will affect (and indeed, probably already is affecting) the Star Trek film due out at the end of the year.
Exactly. Saying a new Bond film isn't any good? Christ, NONE of them were any "good" in the "good movie" sense.
My biggest complaint with CR was that it was too serious. I mean, christ, the tank chase scene in goldeneye had me crying with laughter. It was <i>whimsical</i>. Only bond can pull off <i>whimsy</i> in a scene with automatic gunfire, explosions, a kidnapping, a hard-drinking Russian traitor, and a tank destroying half of a historic city. Pure class, every bit.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019