Mood:
a-okTopic: Entertaining Insights
The new James Bond film is named after an obscure short story published in the 'For Your Eyes Only' series of exploits.
It's one of the atypical entires in the canon: while Bond's previous night's exploits are glossed over in the opening, for almost all of the story he is a passive listener to his host's tale of 'true love', or lack thereof.
Given the track record on the set of this new cinematic Quantum, however, it seems that Bond ain't sittin' on his ass most of the time...
The title's a stretch, I've gotta say. In the book it worked so well as one of the clear defining points of the host's story, while it's been clumsily adapted to fit a storyline involving the fictional 'Quantum' agency (a stand-in for SPECTRE, 'natch...) in this new cinematic outing.
I'll be first in line to see the damn thing, regardless, but with all the talk about the extra stuntwork (Craig reportedly says that 'Royale' was a walk in the park compared to 'Quantum') and the focus 'more on gadgets', as a propmaster put it, I'm hoping they don't make the mistake of devolving into a Roger Moore-era reliance on Bondian silliness and technology-to-the-extreme...
I think they're cleverer than that. What they've got going here is really good stuff, after all: Craig's damn-near second on the list of great Bondians (currently tied for number-2 with Timothy Dalton, in my reckoning) and while a million more movies with the same quality as 'Royale' couldn't help him dethrone Connery he's shaping into the role quite nicely, says I.
(BTW: If I haven't posted in a week, and... well, I haven't... it's 'cause I'm both strapped for time, and, on top of it all, polishing 'On the Razor's Edge'. That's due any day, incidentally...)
