599 replies to this topic

[honeyjes]

If this is true, then couldn't they have found a better song title? This sounds cliched. What's the point of picking a Fleming title for the film but just going with one of these typical Bond word-combos for the song? Quantum of Solace would've been a better title. They wouldn't necessarily have to make it rhyme - even A View to a Kill mostly mentioned the phrase at the start of each verse, but the main chorus was really "Dance into the Fire".

It sounds like one of the members here thought up that title!

Can't be any worse than WC

[HildebrandRarity]

http://entertainment...icle4432533.ece


excerpt....

Charlie Higson, author of the Young Bond novels and a self-confessed Bond junkie, said that the glory days of the stirring Bond tune were long gone. “There were five or six of them that were really fantastic in the early days, likeDiamonds Are Forever, Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice, but I don’t think there’s been a true classic since Nobody Does It Better for The Spy Who Loved Me [in 1977].”

Chuck sounds like a real old .

Perhaps we should revert to 60s era-sounding jazzy James Bond themes to cater to the 55 to 85 years olds in the audience...as opposed to the majority of us in the 17 to 49 yr old age bracket? You know, the age group that forks out the bulk of the cash to actually see the damn movie...

I'd love to know what the censored word was....

Its a four letter word which starts with an 'f' and rhymes with dart or part.

I have no idea why a word synonymous with flatulance should be censored! Full of hot air, I say...

Damn! I was hoping for something much stronger!

By that I take it you mean a four letter word starting with said alphabet but rhyming with the word suck or duck?

No, it wasn't that.

Chuck is not a _u@k!

[marktmurphy]

They could've titled the song "As good as dead" instead

That's not a bad Bond title at all!

[MrDraco]

Jack White thats awesome.

Me happy now.

[RazorBlade]

I'm looking forward to this. I can't wait. And I saw the trailer for QoS again last night. It looks awsome on the big screen.

[Loomis]

And I'd be careful admitting you work in the TV industry lest you stand accused of being elitist...

Well, I think some members (or maybe it's just me ) bristle at being told the facts of life by those who trumpet their "industry" credentials in a way that serves only to imply that they have the same psychic connection to BroccoliWilson that they paint "fanboys" as labouring under the delusion they possess.

Pulling rank is rarely attractive, and working in "the TV industry" - or even "the industry" - does not necessarily make one perpetually 100% correct when it comes to mulling over decisions made by the notoriously idiosyncratic Eon Productions.

No-one did pull rank. I was asked if I worked in the TV industry and I merely answered in the affirmative: and I can see nothing in the posts of the other posters who work in the media to suggest they were claiming the high moral ground either. So to claim that anyone was trying to be elitist is a misrepresentation and, frankly, a little surprising coming from someone I respect. Of course, anyone who has worked creatively in film and/or TV - as some of us do - are likely to have views coloured by our experience and express ourselves accordingly. But that is a different matter.

In virtually every other every post I've made on any thread I've reiterated that everything on a site like this is subjective; no-one's opinion is more valid than anyone else's. And, God knows, film and TV execs make a hell of a lot of mistakes. Like William Goldman says, no-one knows anything. So admitting one works in the industry is hardly tantamount to claiming infallibility. In fact, far from criticising Eon, I would say that they have been remarkably successful in making good decisions over a very long time. But that does not mean one has to agree with everything they do - as I don't in this particular case - even if it turns out to be okay in the end. And even the question of what is a "good decision" can be subjective. Take the return of Jaws in Moonraker. Was that a good decision or not? In terms of the box office, probably yes. But artistically? How do we decide that? Personally, I believed at the time - and still do - that it was wrong to bring him back. So I disagreed with Eon. With hindsight - and judging purely from the box office - you could say I was wrong. But if you ask me should they have brought Jaws back for Moonraker, I'll still answer "no". And that's not being elitist or trying to claim I know better than the fans or Eon, that is just my opinion to which I am entitled, as you are yours.

As for the subject in hand, I still think this is a dull choice and I reserve the right to say so. But I also wrote that if I like the song, I'll be the first to say so. Even then, that will only be my opinion and not intended as some sort of definitive statement.

It should be a level playing field when it comes to opinions. But yesterday wasn't. Anyone who had the temerity to deviate from the admittedly majority view was shot down. And if they dared argue, they were shot down again. Some were even accused of being elistist. It was a pity but, ah well,c'est la vie.

Who the hell is trying to `pull rank' by claiming to work in the industry. I certainly wasn't. I was commenting on sharing a similar profession to another person on here.

And nowhere in my original comments was I attempting to `point out the facts of life.' I was giving my opinion on what I thought of the initial news.

Is that a crime around here? To have a negative thought on something Bond related? Is this a pro-forum only, or is this a forum where anyone can express how they feel about something, positive or negative.

Chips on shoulders, or what!!!

dee-bee-five and Jet Set Willy,

I apologise for coming across as seeking to attack you. That was not my intention. For what it's worth I have never had a problem with either of you, indeed I have always enjoyed your contributions to this site. It's just that I have for quite a while noticed a small number of CBners seemingly talking down to others on the grounds that they have "industry" experience, while painting those who do not share their views as nothing more than utterly deluded fanboys who believe that they own the Bond series. No biggie, though, and apologies for being crotchety. Once again, sorry for seeming to be attacking you - it was honestly nothing against either of you.

[Leon]

We'll this definitely sounds interesting. I have every bit of faith in White & Keys.
A duet sounds fresh. A duet by two very different brand of artists.

And yes, apart for having 'Die' in the title, I think the name of the song, 'Another Way To Die' sounds extremely bondian. I am pleased.

I agree.

And maybe the duet will take the form of an argument of sorts? Opposing points of view?

Perhaps along the lines of The Pogue's Fairytale of New York:

You're a bum
You're a punk
You're an old on junk
Lying there almost dead on a drip in that bed
You scumbag, you maggot
You cheap lousy faggot
Happy Christmas your
I pray God it's our last


A duet sounds pretty naff to be honest, I can't figure out how it will work without just being lame, especially with the title Another Way to Die which is actually worse than any of the Brosnan Bond song (film) titles.

In fact when I think of Ian Fleming's character James Bond alongside music the last thing I think of is a duet.

[lazenbyland]

'Another Way to Die' is a dreadful title. It sounds like a computer spat out a stereotypical spy story title

We've had Die or Kill in the title of the film and/or song in every alternate film since 1985.

A View To A KILL
License To KILL
Tomorrow Never DIES
DIE Another Day

Very unimaginative. I thought QoS was to continue the fresh start of Casino Royale not rehash the old cliches.

I hope I'm wrong but this film is looking weaker every day with its crap title for a theme and a boring revenge story. Looks like they're just taking the safe route with this film again.

Barbara and Michael should veto this and fire those responsible for coming up with this drivel.

[Jet Set Willy]

And I'd be careful admitting you work in the TV industry lest you stand accused of being elitist...

Well, I think some members (or maybe it's just me ) bristle at being told the facts of life by those who trumpet their "industry" credentials in a way that serves only to imply that they have the same psychic connection to BroccoliWilson that they paint "fanboys" as labouring under the delusion they possess.

Pulling rank is rarely attractive, and working in "the TV industry" - or even "the industry" - does not necessarily make one perpetually 100% correct when it comes to mulling over decisions made by the notoriously idiosyncratic Eon Productions.

No-one did pull rank. I was asked if I worked in the TV industry and I merely answered in the affirmative: and I can see nothing in the posts of the other posters who work in the media to suggest they were claiming the high moral ground either. So to claim that anyone was trying to be elitist is a misrepresentation and, frankly, a little surprising coming from someone I respect. Of course, anyone who has worked creatively in film and/or TV - as some of us do - are likely to have views coloured by our experience and express ourselves accordingly. But that is a different matter.

In virtually every other every post I've made on any thread I've reiterated that everything on a site like this is subjective; no-one's opinion is more valid than anyone else's. And, God knows, film and TV execs make a hell of a lot of mistakes. Like William Goldman says, no-one knows anything. So admitting one works in the industry is hardly tantamount to claiming infallibility. In fact, far from criticising Eon, I would say that they have been remarkably successful in making good decisions over a very long time. But that does not mean one has to agree with everything they do - as I don't in this particular case - even if it turns out to be okay in the end. And even the question of what is a "good decision" can be subjective. Take the return of Jaws in Moonraker. Was that a good decision or not? In terms of the box office, probably yes. But artistically? How do we decide that? Personally, I believed at the time - and still do - that it was wrong to bring him back. So I disagreed with Eon. With hindsight - and judging purely from the box office - you could say I was wrong. But if you ask me should they have brought Jaws back for Moonraker, I'll still answer "no". And that's not being elitist or trying to claim I know better than the fans or Eon, that is just my opinion to which I am entitled, as you are yours.

As for the subject in hand, I still think this is a dull choice and I reserve the right to say so. But I also wrote that if I like the song, I'll be the first to say so. Even then, that will only be my opinion and not intended as some sort of definitive statement.

It should be a level playing field when it comes to opinions. But yesterday wasn't. Anyone who had the temerity to deviate from the admittedly majority view was shot down. And if they dared argue, they were shot down again. Some were even accused of being elistist. It was a pity but, ah well,c'est la vie.

Who the hell is trying to `pull rank' by claiming to work in the industry. I certainly wasn't. I was commenting on sharing a similar profession to another person on here.

And nowhere in my original comments was I attempting to `point out the facts of life.' I was giving my opinion on what I thought of the initial news.

Is that a crime around here? To have a negative thought on something Bond related? Is this a pro-forum only, or is this a forum where anyone can express how they feel about something, positive or negative.

Chips on shoulders, or what!!!

dee-bee-five and Jet Set Willy,

I apologise for coming across as seeking to attack you. That was not my intention. For what it's worth I have never had a problem with either of you, indeed I have always enjoyed your contributions to this site. It's just that I have for quite a while noticed a small number of CBners seemingly talking down to others on the grounds that they have "industry" experience, while painting those who do not share their views as nothing more than utterly deluded fanboys who believe that they own the Bond series. No biggie, though, and apologies for being crotchety. Once again, sorry for seeming to be attacking you - it was honestly nothing against either of you.

Ok, no worries.

[Mercator]

It's just that I have for quite a while noticed a small number of CBners seemingly talking down to others on the grounds that they have "industry" experience, while painting those who do not share their views as nothing more than utterly deluded fanboys who believe that they own the Bond series.

Who are these dudes, dude? Few of these guys figure they beige, right? But it kinda cool we gotta a few people know stuff from the movie industry - every opinion matters but an informed one once a while dont hurt.

Edited by Mister Asterix, 01 August 2008 - 04:43 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

You have to admire two things about This Eon Era:

1) They have no problem unveiling the unexpected...and it's turned out more for the better than for the worse; and

2) They know how to generate publicity...and as the saying goes, any publicity is good publicity. (Well, unless your Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Ohpera's couch...or dear old Mel Gibson belittling the Jews.)

As always, i'll have to hear the song and then hear it with the titles during the movie to make a judgement call.

Exactly.

IMO it is easy to mock the whinging of a fandom who believe they know what's better for the franchise than the production team. Opinions are fine, gloomy predictions from people who have no actual creative/business experience just looks silly.

As does slavishly accepting every decision Eon makes without criticism (those who do, by the way, not you specifically). And it would be quite wrong to assume that everyone who posts on here has no creative experience in the industry, believe me.

You are both agreeing with each other, my friends. I think...

Possibly. But we are having re-run of the debate following the teaser trailer on this thread. I expressed the opinion that it was good, but not earth-shattering and was accused of being negative. But, the truth is, I did find the teaser a little underwhelming, just as I find the news about the title song disappointing. If others are cock-a-hoop about it, fine. But why aren't others allowed to express what they feel on here anymore? Is it because, as I suspect, because there's a tiny bit of unspoken nervousness amongst fans that QoS might possibly not quite live up to the absurdly high expectations we're all placing on it and so anyone who doesn't go into paroxysms of ecstacy must be dumped on from a great height lest the conspiracy of silence about said nervousness is laid bare?

I think the defensiveness comes from the fact that in 2005-6 a bunch of fans nearly made all of fandom look moronic by expressing their opinion that Daniel Craig wouldn't be a good James Bond(and probably not being in love with the idea of the reboot) in creating an actual website damning him. An wave of negativity that carried on for months and months (even after the actual teaser trailer for CR was shown) until the actual film, a huge critical and commercial success, was unveiled. And alot of those people have been eating crow since.

CR is proof when fans judge the decisions of filmmakers before they get a look of the actual thing. From the title to the teaser trailer to Kleinman not being rehired to this announcement I personally get (and I shouldn't do I know) a very familiar sense of deja vu about it all. People deciding the quality of the product before they see it.

I couldn't agree more.

[dee-bee-five]

And I'd be careful admitting you work in the TV industry lest you stand accused of being elitist...

Well, I think some members (or maybe it's just me ) bristle at being told the facts of life by those who trumpet their "industry" credentials in a way that serves only to imply that they have the same psychic connection to BroccoliWilson that they paint "fanboys" as labouring under the delusion they possess.

Pulling rank is rarely attractive, and working in "the TV industry" - or even "the industry" - does not necessarily make one perpetually 100% correct when it comes to mulling over decisions made by the notoriously idiosyncratic Eon Productions.

No-one did pull rank. I was asked if I worked in the TV industry and I merely answered in the affirmative: and I can see nothing in the posts of the other posters who work in the media to suggest they were claiming the high moral ground either. So to claim that anyone was trying to be elitist is a misrepresentation and, frankly, a little surprising coming from someone I respect. Of course, anyone who has worked creatively in film and/or TV - as some of us do - are likely to have views coloured by our experience and express ourselves accordingly. But that is a different matter.

In virtually every other every post I've made on any thread I've reiterated that everything on a site like this is subjective; no-one's opinion is more valid than anyone else's. And, God knows, film and TV execs make a hell of a lot of mistakes. Like William Goldman says, no-one knows anything. So admitting one works in the industry is hardly tantamount to claiming infallibility. In fact, far from criticising Eon, I would say that they have been remarkably successful in making good decisions over a very long time. But that does not mean one has to agree with everything they do - as I don't in this particular case - even if it turns out to be okay in the end. And even the question of what is a "good decision" can be subjective. Take the return of Jaws in Moonraker. Was that a good decision or not? In terms of the box office, probably yes. But artistically? How do we decide that? Personally, I believed at the time - and still do - that it was wrong to bring him back. So I disagreed with Eon. With hindsight - and judging purely from the box office - you could say I was wrong. But if you ask me should they have brought Jaws back for Moonraker, I'll still answer "no". And that's not being elitist or trying to claim I know better than the fans or Eon, that is just my opinion to which I am entitled, as you are yours.

As for the subject in hand, I still think this is a dull choice and I reserve the right to say so. But I also wrote that if I like the song, I'll be the first to say so. Even then, that will only be my opinion and not intended as some sort of definitive statement.

It should be a level playing field when it comes to opinions. But yesterday wasn't. Anyone who had the temerity to deviate from the admittedly majority view was shot down. And if they dared argue, they were shot down again. Some were even accused of being elistist. It was a pity but, ah well,c'est la vie.

Who the hell is trying to `pull rank' by claiming to work in the industry. I certainly wasn't. I was commenting on sharing a similar profession to another person on here.

And nowhere in my original comments was I attempting to `point out the facts of life.' I was giving my opinion on what I thought of the initial news.

Is that a crime around here? To have a negative thought on something Bond related? Is this a pro-forum only, or is this a forum where anyone can express how they feel about something, positive or negative.

Chips on shoulders, or what!!!

dee-bee-five and Jet Set Willy,

I apologise for coming across as seeking to attack you. That was not my intention. For what it's worth I have never had a problem with either of you, indeed I have always enjoyed your contributions to this site. It's just that I have for quite a while noticed a small number of CBners seemingly talking down to others on the grounds that they have "industry" experience, while painting those who do not share their views as nothing more than utterly deluded fanboys who believe that they own the Bond series. No biggie, though, and apologies for being crotchety. Once again, sorry for seeming to be attacking you - it was honestly nothing against either of you.

Thanks for that, it's much appreciated. And, of course, the curse of the internet - particularly in a forum - is that one tends to write and post without much editing, so that the tone one hears in one's head doesn't always translate onto the page: this is particularly true of trying to convey irony. Like I said, whatever industry one works in tends to colour how one expresses oneself in any discussion about said industry: I'm sure doctors can unwittingly come across as being know-it-alls in equivalent medical threads.

[Zorin Industries]

Some of you are being awfully ridiculous. Eon has failed us, corporate expediency, the Brosnan era is back... get real. You're all jumping to these conclusions based on a press release about the title song?

Geez. Pretty pathetic if you ask me. Wait until you hear the song before jumping to such unfounded conclusions.

Yup, but its par for the course for Bond fandom these days, isn't it. I mean what exactly does EON have to do to please some people? Last time round, they hired the best Bond actor ever and made the best Bond film ever, and people still condemn every single move they make. Its the same old , nobody's heard this song, but everyone's already made their minds up about it.

Exactly. Why does this happen? Why do fans get so hot up about one chuffing song and a press release about it?! Liking the song and having it on the soundtrack album (why THAT is SO important is, again, beyond me... one man's "completist" philosophy is another man's OCD if you ask me) does not put you any nearer to having your name on the credits.

[Zorin Industries]

And I'd be careful admitting you work in the TV industry lest you stand accused of being elitist...

Well, I think some members (or maybe it's just me ) bristle at being told the facts of life by those who trumpet their "industry" credentials in a way that serves only to imply that they have the same psychic connection to BroccoliWilson that they paint "fanboys" as labouring under the delusion they possess.

Pulling rank is rarely attractive, and working in "the TV industry" - or even "the industry" - does not necessarily make one perpetually 100% correct when it comes to mulling over decisions made by the notoriously idiosyncratic Eon Productions.

No-one did pull rank. I was asked if I worked in the TV industry and I merely answered in the affirmative: and I can see nothing in the posts of the other posters who work in the media to suggest they were claiming the high moral ground either. So to claim that anyone was trying to be elitist is a misrepresentation and, frankly, a little surprising coming from someone I respect. Of course, anyone who has worked creatively in film and/or TV - as some of us do - are likely to have views coloured by our experience and express ourselves accordingly. But that is a different matter.

In virtually every other every post I've made on any thread I've reiterated that everything on a site like this is subjective; no-one's opinion is more valid than anyone else's. And, God knows, film and TV execs make a hell of a lot of mistakes. Like William Goldman says, no-one knows anything. So admitting one works in the industry is hardly tantamount to claiming infallibility. In fact, far from criticising Eon, I would say that they have been remarkably successful in making good decisions over a very long time. But that does not mean one has to agree with everything they do - as I don't in this particular case - even if it turns out to be okay in the end. And even the question of what is a "good decision" can be subjective. Take the return of Jaws in Moonraker. Was that a good decision or not? In terms of the box office, probably yes. But artistically? How do we decide that? Personally, I believed at the time - and still do - that it was wrong to bring him back. So I disagreed with Eon. With hindsight - and judging purely from the box office - you could say I was wrong. But if you ask me should they have brought Jaws back for Moonraker, I'll still answer "no". And that's not being elitist or trying to claim I know better than the fans or Eon, that is just my opinion to which I am entitled, as you are yours.

As for the subject in hand, I still think this is a dull choice and I reserve the right to say so. But I also wrote that if I like the song, I'll be the first to say so. Even then, that will only be my opinion and not intended as some sort of definitive statement.

It should be a level playing field when it comes to opinions. But yesterday wasn't. Anyone who had the temerity to deviate from the admittedly majority view was shot down. And if they dared argue, they were shot down again. Some were even accused of being elistist. It was a pity but, ah well,c'est la vie.

Who the hell is trying to `pull rank' by claiming to work in the industry. I certainly wasn't. I was commenting on sharing a similar profession to another person on here.

And nowhere in my original comments was I attempting to `point out the facts of life.' I was giving my opinion on what I thought of the initial news.

Is that a crime around here? To have a negative thought on something Bond related? Is this a pro-forum only, or is this a forum where anyone can express how they feel about something, positive or negative.

Chips on shoulders, or what!!!

dee-bee-five and Jet Set Willy,

I apologise for coming across as seeking to attack you. That was not my intention. For what it's worth I have never had a problem with either of you, indeed I have always enjoyed your contributions to this site. It's just that I have for quite a while noticed a small number of CBners seemingly talking down to others on the grounds that they have "industry" experience, while painting those who do not share their views as nothing more than utterly deluded fanboys who believe that they own the Bond series. No biggie, though, and apologies for being crotchety. Once again, sorry for seeming to be attacking you - it was honestly nothing against either of you.

There is equally an element of folk on these forums who are destined it seems to hate every creative decision Eon Productions make as if they would do any better. These are often folk who fall head over heels for fan art and fan music that - to be honest - wouldn't work at a convention let alone the final cut of a Bond film.

I personally try to use my "industry" insight / involvement (and since when did 'industry' become such a dirty word?!) to throw light on what is often blinkered paranoia and fan-boy delusion that would otherwise have us all believe that Eon Productions make James Bond films for the die-hard fans. They don't - believe me.

But I too am a fanboy of sorts. Why else would I be here? But I can't sit by and ignore desperate fans fretting that QUANTUM OF SOLACE will bomb in Europe because the teaser trailer hasn't arrived at exactly the same week before theatrical release that the teaser for CASINO ROYALE did.... or the people still concerned that the screenplay for any Bond film is being rewritten more than once which can only - apparently - mean the film will have a running time of 83 mins and be complete pants....or that Paul Haggis is now tired and because he's won an Oscar he won't put any effort into his work on SOLACE.....

These are real concerns that float past on this forums. Yes. we are all entitled to our views, but as people's knowledge of Bond often confronts my attitudes (which, if they are right, is welcome) I too want to bring my knowledge of my work in film and TV to bear. Otherwise, these forums become deluded back-patting and unnecessary scare mongering - the likes of which dogs most strands of sci-fi on film and television. Come on - Bond's got more panache than that. And so should we....

[Jim]

And I'd be careful admitting you work in the TV industry lest you stand accused of being elitist...

Well, I think some members (or maybe it's just me ) bristle at being told the facts of life by those who trumpet their "industry" credentials in a way that serves only to imply that they have the same psychic connection to BroccoliWilson that they paint "fanboys" as labouring under the delusion they possess.

Pulling rank is rarely attractive, and working in "the TV industry" - or even "the industry" - does not necessarily make one perpetually 100% correct when it comes to mulling over decisions made by the notoriously idiosyncratic Eon Productions.

No-one did pull rank. I was asked if I worked in the TV industry and I merely answered in the affirmative: and I can see nothing in the posts of the other posters who work in the media to suggest they were claiming the high moral ground either. So to claim that anyone was trying to be elitist is a misrepresentation and, frankly, a little surprising coming from someone I respect. Of course, anyone who has worked creatively in film and/or TV - as some of us do - are likely to have views coloured by our experience and express ourselves accordingly. But that is a different matter.

In virtually every other every post I've made on any thread I've reiterated that everything on a site like this is subjective; no-one's opinion is more valid than anyone else's. And, God knows, film and TV execs make a hell of a lot of mistakes. Like William Goldman says, no-one knows anything. So admitting one works in the industry is hardly tantamount to claiming infallibility. In fact, far from criticising Eon, I would say that they have been remarkably successful in making good decisions over a very long time. But that does not mean one has to agree with everything they do - as I don't in this particular case - even if it turns out to be okay in the end. And even the question of what is a "good decision" can be subjective. Take the return of Jaws in Moonraker. Was that a good decision or not? In terms of the box office, probably yes. But artistically? How do we decide that? Personally, I believed at the time - and still do - that it was wrong to bring him back. So I disagreed with Eon. With hindsight - and judging purely from the box office - you could say I was wrong. But if you ask me should they have brought Jaws back for Moonraker, I'll still answer "no". And that's not being elitist or trying to claim I know better than the fans or Eon, that is just my opinion to which I am entitled, as you are yours.

As for the subject in hand, I still think this is a dull choice and I reserve the right to say so. But I also wrote that if I like the song, I'll be the first to say so. Even then, that will only be my opinion and not intended as some sort of definitive statement.

It should be a level playing field when it comes to opinions. But yesterday wasn't. Anyone who had the temerity to deviate from the admittedly majority view was shot down. And if they dared argue, they were shot down again. Some were even accused of being elistist. It was a pity but, ah well,c'est la vie.

Who the hell is trying to `pull rank' by claiming to work in the industry. I certainly wasn't. I was commenting on sharing a similar profession to another person on here.

And nowhere in my original comments was I attempting to `point out the facts of life.' I was giving my opinion on what I thought of the initial news.

Is that a crime around here? To have a negative thought on something Bond related? Is this a pro-forum only, or is this a forum where anyone can express how they feel about something, positive or negative.

Chips on shoulders, or what!!!

dee-bee-five and Jet Set Willy,

I apologise for coming across as seeking to attack you. That was not my intention. For what it's worth I have never had a problem with either of you, indeed I have always enjoyed your contributions to this site. It's just that I have for quite a while noticed a small number of CBners seemingly talking down to others on the grounds that they have "industry" experience, while painting those who do not share their views as nothing more than utterly deluded fanboys who believe that they own the Bond series. No biggie, though, and apologies for being crotchety. Once again, sorry for seeming to be attacking you - it was honestly nothing against either of you.

There is equally an element of folk on these forums who are destined it seems to hate every creative decision Eon Productions make as if they would do any better. These are often folk who fall head over heels for fan art and fan music that - to be honest - wouldn't work at a convention let alone the final cut of a Bond film.

I personally try to use my "industry" insight / involvement (and since when did 'industry' become such a dirty word?!) to throw light on what is often blinkered paranoia and fan-boy delusion that would otherwise have us all believe that Eon Productions make James Bond films for the die-hard fans. They don't - believe me.

But I too am a fanboy of sorts. Why else would I be here? But I can't sit by and ignore desperate fans fretting that QUANTUM OF SOLACE will bomb in Europe because the teaser trailer hasn't arrived at exactly the same week before theatrical release that the teaser for CASINO ROYALE did.... or the people still concerned that the screenplay for any Bond film is being rewritten more than once which can only - apparently - mean the film will have a running time of 83 mins and be complete pants....or that Paul Haggis is now tired and because he's won an Oscar he won't put any effort into his work on SOLACE.....

These are real concerns that float past on this forums. Yes. we are all entitled to our views, but as people's knowledge of Bond often confronts my attitudes (which, if they are right, is welcome) I too want to bring my knowledge of my work in film and TV to bear. Otherwise, these forums become deluded back-patting and unnecessary scare mongering - the likes of which dogs most strands of sci-fi on film and television. Come on - Bond's got more panache than that. And so should we....

Welcome to CBn, all of you.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

As usual the announcement of the new Bond song hit me like a ton of bricks. But that is because I am a child of the Connery era. When the title songs were classics right from the get-go. Songs like 1963's From Russia with Love straight to 1979's Moonraker (with the exception of The Man with the Golden Gun) were instant classics and nothing since then has held a candle to them.

I'm not trying to say I don't like Jack White or Alicia Keys but I have to realize that there have been many vocal artist who have tossed their ideas into the Bond song ring lately. Winehouse, Duffy, Duran Duran, Beyonce and so on who are considered better choices.

What is obvious to me is that the producers were looking for a song with an edge since that style must continue along the same path of Daniel Craig's interpretation.

When Chris Cornell wrote 'You Know My Name', he was aiming for the personality of Craig's Bond. The music is hard and rough along the edges but there is still a melody that translates into the film. Not the best Bond song in a long while but certainly miles ahead of Madonna's Die Another Day and Sheryl Crow's Tomorrow Never Dies.

But here we have the light touch of Alicia Keys and the heavy touch of Jack White. Both are vocalistic representatives of Bond and Camille's characters. It is also the further transformation of Bond into OO7 - The Rough with the Smooth.

Many fans are upset that the song is not titled Quantum of Solace. Instead we are exposed to the bland title "Another Way to Die". Despite the title of the song being similar to DIE ANOTHER Day, AW2D may still contain the words Quantum of Solace as did Nobody Does It Better had The Spy Who Loved Me.

My guess is that Barbara Broccoli wants to produce a new generation of Bond films with her own style, unlike her father's, and perhaps we are witnessing that with the birth of Daniel Craig. Hopefully QoS will be artistically done in the same way CR was that put the Bond films back into the game after the boring and unmemorable years of Pierce Brosnan.

MK12, the company who is producing the opening credits, has mentioned on their website that the shooting of the opening credits is complete and that the post-production is in full swing. This was only days before the annoucement of White and Keys. Like the classic songs of the Connery years, the art of Maurice Binder's semi-nude women and flowing colors may also be taking a back seat as well. Casino Royale's title sequence, although original, may be the beginning of a whole new style, and Ms. Broccoli is leading the charge.

Get ready for CHANGE!

[RandyHNC]

Hey everybody,

Thanks for the warm welcome. Glad to be here and very excited about the new movie.

About those title/theme songs... I have to defend "Die Another Day". I don't get what's so bad about that song, I think it's one of the best. In fact, it was the first American 007 hit in over 21 YEARS!! A View To A Kill was #1 way back in 1985. "Die Another Day" put a Bond tune back on the radio and was a #7 Hit.

Die Another Day was a very bombastic, screeking song that tied in perfectly to the torture sequence.

One thing I want to point out. The movie version of the song is different than the recorded version that appears on the soundtrack (the actual single). The producers, I think, some how messed the song up a little and altered it for the movie. They toned down the melody and treble, left only the base (not quite a basey) and added weird "electrical" sounded noise. I think that would be the producers fault, not Madonna's. Her real version is excellent. The lyrics are deep too.

For those with the DVD, the music video for the song, kicks you know what. I like the cameo (Oddjob's son!).

[killkenny kid]

Wow, I didn't see all of this coming.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

As usual the announcement of the new Bond song hit me like a ton of bricks. But that is because I am a child of the Connery era. When the title songs were classics right from the get-go. Songs like 1963's From Russia with Love straight to 1979's Moonraker (with the exception of The Man with the Golden Gun) were instant classics and nothing since then has held a candle to them.

I'm not trying to say I don't like Jack White or Alicia Keys but I have to realize that there have been many vocal artist who have tossed their ideas into the Bond song ring lately. Winehouse, Duffy, Duran Duran, Beyonce and so on who are considered better choices.

What is obvious to me is that the producers were looking for a song with an edge since that style must continue along the same path of Daniel Craig's interpretation.

When Chris Cornell wrote 'You Know My Name', he was aiming for the personality of Craig's Bond. The music is hard and rough along the edges but there is still a melody that translates into the film. Not the best Bond song in a long while but certainly miles ahead of Madonna's Die Another Day and Sheryl Crow's Tomorrow Never Dies.

But here we have the light touch of Alicia Keys and the heavy touch of Jack White. Both are vocalistic representatives of Bond and Camille's characters. It is also the further transformation of Bond into OO7 - The Rough with the Smooth.

Many fans are upset that the song is not titled Quantum of Solace. Instead we are exposed to the bland title "Another Way to Die". Despite the title of the song being similar to DIE ANOTHER Day, AW2D may still contain the words Quantum of Solace as did Nobody Does It Better had The Spy Who Loved Me.

My guess is that Barbara Broccoli wants to produce a new generation of Bond films with her own style, unlike her father's, and perhaps we are witnessing that with the birth of Daniel Craig. Hopefully QoS will be artistically done in the same way CR was that put the Bond films back into the game after the boring and unmemorable years of Pierce Brosnan.

MK12, the company who is producing the opening credits, has mentioned on their website that the shooting of the opening credits is complete and that the post-production is in full swing. This was only days before the annoucement of White and Keys. Like the classic songs of the Connery years, the art of Maurice Binder's semi-nude women and flowing colors may also be taking a back seat as well. Casino Royale's title sequence, although original, may be the beginning of a whole new style, and Ms. Broccoli is leading the charge.

Get ready for CHANGE!

Well, and very thoughfully, put Doctor Shatterhand.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

Hey everybody,

Thanks for the warm welcome. Glad to be here and very excited about the new movie.

About those title/theme songs... I have to defend "Die Another Day". I don't get what's so bad about that song, I think it's one of the best. In fact, it was the first American 007 hit in over 21 YEARS!! A View To A Kill was #1 way back in 1985. "Die Another Day" put a Bond tune back on the radio and was a #7 Hit.

Die Another Day was a very bombastic, screeking song that tied in perfectly to the torture sequence.

One thing I want to point out. The movie version of the song is different than the recorded version that appears on the soundtrack (the actual single). The producers, I think, some how messed the song up a little and altered it for the movie. They toned down the melody and treble, left only the base (not quite a basey) and added weird "electrical" sounded noise. I think that would be the producers fault, not Madonna's. Her real version is excellent. The lyrics are deep too.

For those with the DVD, the music video for the song, kicks you know what. I like the cameo (Oddjob's son!).

From a casual Bond fan point of view, my sister defends Madonna's DAD. She loves it. Standing back from linking it to Bond, and simply as a Madonna song, it's very good.

I noticed as well, the single version I have of YKMN is different than the version used in CR.

[Quantumofsolace007]

I'm happy but that is because i wnat the music to be more rock and roll and hard edged. nothing against the big grandose jazz tracks like Diamonds are forever or Moonraker If that's you thing great My thing is the rock tracks Live and let die A view to a kill and You know my name.

Hopefully Jack white and Alicia Keys deliver a bond theme with a rock and roll edge.

[SPOTTER]

I know words aren't everything but I do not like the sound of the title at all. It sounds like something from the Brosnan era. I hope the song captures the feel of the movie the way You Know My Name did with CR.

[DamnCoffee]

Probably utter garbage....

Dueling over Bond duet
Jack White and Alicia Keys go toe-to-toe in studio, then make history with 'Quantum of Solace' song .

Things got a bit testy, I'm told, at the taping of the Alicia Keys-Jack White duet for the new James Bond film.

A source at the taping says Keys was not happy with a number of technical details and initially wasn't too crazy about the song itself. She also wasn't totally in sync with how the song was being produced.

White, of White Stripes fame, had penned "Another Way to Die," which will be the theme song for the 22nd 007 film, "Quantum of Solace," again starring the latest Bond, Daniel Craig.

While Keys and White apparently struggled with a few "artistic differences," they did make history. This will be the first James Bond film theme that's a duet.

"Quantum of Solace" is scheduled to be released Nov. 7, but the duet track will be released through J Records Oct. 28. White is also the drummer on the song. The confirmation of Keys and White teaming by Bond producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli ended months of speculation about who would get the gig.

In May, record producer Mark Ronson said he and Amy Winehouse were working on a potential song for the new "007" flick.

Broccoli and Wilson released a statement saying they are "delighted and pleased to have two such exciting artists as Jack and Alicia, who were inspired by our film to join together their extraordinary talents in creating a unique sound for 'Quantum of Solace.' "

[Bondian]

Quantum of Songless.

[JackWade]

As one fan noted on another Bond message board, it seems like negativity has become the perfect adjective to describe the community of late. First the trailer, now the title song.

You might as well rename this website CommanderBond.negative.

[Royal Dalton]

Speaking for myself, my "negativity" surrounding this news is based solely on the non-involvement of the score's composer with the title song. Which, I fear, could have a "negative" effect on the film itself.

I consider that to be a legitimate point of concern. But if some people want to label me a "naysayer" for expressing it, then so be it.

[JackWade]

That's one of my qualms as well Dalton, but I'm more referring to those who are writing the song off without even hearing it.

[Publius]

2- Die Another Day by Madonna. I know this one gets slammed, but I disagree. It's powerful and has a really good beat.

If you ditch the techno sound effects and get rid of Madonna's more inane lyrics ("Sigmund Freud" and "Ungh. Ungh."), there's a great song there.

[tdalton]

I actually don't mind the title of the song. The first that I had heard of the title track being announced was on the scrolling news bar at the bottom of the screen on CNN saying something to the effect that "Another Way To Die" was the first Bond title duet, but it did not say who the artists were for the song. I have been one that has said in just about every thread concerning potential title song artists that I want to see a duet for a title track, but to be perfectly honest, this news has left me a bit underwhelmed.

[Captain Tightpants]

Speaking for myself, my "negativity" surrounding this news is based solely on the non-involvement of the score's composer with the title song. Which, I fear, could have a "negative" effect on the film itself.

I consider that to be a legitimate point of concern. But if some people want to label me a "naysayer" for expressing it, then so be it.

I'm still not getting why you've got these concerns simply because David Arnold did not get a songwriting credit. Some people seem to think that because he didn't write the lyrics, he has zero involvement, as if EON went behind his back and awarded the title song to someone else. Two things stand out in my mind:

1) Arnold is a professional musician. When it comes to deciding who gets the theme song, he has incredible power. Not only does he have legiitmate power because he's a part of the process, he's got expert power. He knows what he's doing; he's the most qualified person in the decision-making process. Babs and MGW are not professional musicians, so in that respect, David Arnold has more power than they do. While the decision may ultimately rest with them, they would be absolutely out of their minds not to listen to him. And while they've certainly made poor decisions in the past, they've also made good ones of late: hiring Craig, bringing Martin Campbell back, employing Paul Haggis, scaling back the involvement of Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, hiring Marc Forster and wanting to explore the emotional side of James Bond. They're clearly not out of their minds.

2) MK12 announced that they have completed the title sequence over a week ago. I can't imagine that as being a one-day job, so I imagine they took some time to do that. And at the absolute minimum, they had to know how long the title song was going to be in order to make a title sequence. It wouldn't look good if they made a four-minute sqeuence or a five-minute one when the song clocks in at four minutes and thirty seconds. Thus, EON knew how long the song would be. More, the title sequences often contain imagery relevant to the film: GoldenEye featured Soviet icons, Tomorrow Never Dies had information, The World Is Not Enough showed oil and Csino Royale's imagery related to casinos and Bond starting out in his career as an assassin. Even Die Another Day had it: the title sequence featured imagery of Bond being tortured. So my bet is that MK12 heard the demo tape, or at least got to read the lyrics (though hearing it would be better). The press release about Jack White and Alicia Keys doing the title song came out six days ago, but nowhere did it say "they'll start recording next week". My bet is they've actually been in the studio making the song; it could well have been done for some time. With the flm's score usually being one of the last things composed because the composer often needs to see a cut of the film in order to match the score to the on-screen events, David Arnold is likely to have plenty of time to work Another Way to Die into his score.