POLL: How do you feel about Bond’s missing catch phrases in ‘Quantum of Solace?’

Posted by · 12:53 pm · September 22nd, 2008

In this morning’s Oscarweb round-up, we linked to a story in London’s Independent newspaper about the upcoming 22nd installment of the James Bond franchise, “Quantum of Solace.”  It appears director Marc Forster and company have opted to exclude the infamous catch phrase, “Bond. James Bond.” from the film’s script.  Also getting the cut is the “shaken, not stirred” aside that we all know and love.  It’s an unexpected departure that could have a few fans up-in-arms…or not.

So in this week’s poll, I thought I’d ask the readership: is this a travesty or no big deal at all?  Tell us in the sidebar poll!

→ 15 Comments Tags: , , , | Filed in: Daily

15 responses so far

  • 1 9-22-2008 at 1:22 pm

    Bobby said...

    I think they should just go all the way and just give the character a new name.

  • 2 9-22-2008 at 2:33 pm

    Jonathan Spuij said...

    Well it’s peculiar to say the least. CR was more prone to not using the catchphrases than this one. Anyhow, in the film it won’t matter but it will probably be something critics will use when they don’t like the film, when really, it doesn’t improve or devalue the film.

  • 3 9-22-2008 at 2:36 pm

    Damián Hoffman said...

    Is Gil Cates confirmed as the producer of the 81st.? I hope not. By this time of the year, the Academy use to announce the host.

  • 4 9-22-2008 at 3:55 pm

    Dan said...

    I could go for an omelette

  • 5 9-22-2008 at 3:57 pm

    jason said...

    i personally don’t care, but, especially in the case of bond, james bond, its three friggin words that can be inserted in any scene. why the hell would you wanna piss someone off by taking it out when its that easy to keep it in?

    bunch of indie tools tryin to be all alternative and shit…

  • 6 9-22-2008 at 6:43 pm

    John Travolta said...

    they should put it in there…somewhere. Not that its important just that why not? its bond’s biggest catch phrase and easy to be inserted in any seen. He could be fighting a guy underwater about to drown and he could say it.

  • 7 9-22-2008 at 7:27 pm

    Jack said...

    I loved “Casino Royale”, and I’ll probably love this film. I had no problem with them taking out the goofy gadgets, making it more realistic, reinventing the character, whatever. But…c’mon. “Bond. James Bond” is possibly the most well-known quote in modern cinema. It’s a trademark. It’s classic. Whenever I heard it in ANY James Bond movie, even the crappy ones, I got chills up my spine, and I pratically had a seizure when Daniel Craig said it. Like you said, John, it’s three simple words that could be slipped anywhere into the movie. No one is going to walk out of the theater going “You know, it was a good movie, but that ‘Bond. James Bond’ line…it felt so FORCED!'” This isn’t some whiny fan crap like taking a subplot out of a three-hour long Harry Potter movie, this is screwing with cinematic legend. C’mon, people.

    I’ll still see the movie, though.

  • 8 9-22-2008 at 7:52 pm

    Adrianna said...

    I’ve switched over my Bond type attention to other series. I like The Transporter better than James Bond (sue me, just give me more Jason Statham) and also Bourne. The re-inventions just remind me of the Timothy Dalton era Bond. (In those, Bond killed M. How’s that for reinvention?)

  • 9 9-23-2008 at 2:31 am

    noveltyhat said...


    i think this video perfectly captures the conflict in having a 100% serious bond.

  • 10 9-23-2008 at 5:25 am

    Glenn said...

    It just strikes me as the makers thinking they’re above it or something like that. For me, the fun in James Bond was that it was just a bit of silly fun with catchy lines and the like. I know they said they were rebooting it to be more like the Bourne series, but you can be harder and grittier and still have “Bond. James Bond.” and the like.

  • 11 9-23-2008 at 5:52 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    I pretty much second what Glenn said — I like what they did with “Casino Royale” and all, but there should always be a little bit of tongue in cheek with Bond, otherwise it may as well be any other action franchise.

    Moves like this, together with that disappointing theme song, suggest they’re really stripping the sense of humour from the whole thing.

  • 12 9-23-2008 at 8:36 am

    Jonathan Spuij said...

    I agree Guy, it is getting way too serious. Is Forster completely to blame for it, since he’s done mainly serious drama?

    I am getting a little worried about this film. The trailer seemed a bit off, though action packed, a poor theme song, horrible cd-cover.

  • 13 9-23-2008 at 8:45 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    I’m not sure if I’d blame Forster — he made Stranger Than Fiction after all, so he’s not averse to silliness. Bond films are always more producer-directed anyway, if that makes sense.

  • 14 9-23-2008 at 12:03 pm

    Jeff said...

    I don’t care so much if they have the name as have that damn theme that was virtually absent from Casino Royale. There has to be SOME connection to the other films other than the name.

  • 15 9-23-2008 at 7:02 pm

    head_wizard said...

    I don’t care I just want the film to be as good as Casino Roayle the words are a small part.