GOLDFINGER would have probably had me a bit puzzled, but it's certainly distinctive. MOONRAKER, on the other hand, is elegantly strange. Both conjure up curious imagery and roll of the tongue pretty nicely.Loomers - ask yourself how you Might have reacted had you heard of the 21st Century Bond title of Goldfinger or Moonraker - had you heard them for the very first time.
Yeah. My biggest problem with SKYFALL, pretty much, is that it doesn't roll off the tongue. In fact, it sort of gets stuck rather awkwardly in the mouth. Unless you very deliberately and quite slowly pronounce the "sky" and the "fall" separately, drawing out the "fall", it sounds like "skiver" or "skyval"or "skylar" or somesuch.
I can picture thousands of people failing to hear it correctly the first time they hear it announced on TV as the new Bond film title, unless the presenter really makes a point of saying it slowly and clearly. "Eh? SCALPEL? That's the title of the new Bond film? What did he say, again?"
Even if SKYFALL is enunciated with due care, it still fails to roll off the tongue (let alone conjure up something bizarre, seductive and Flemingian - it sounds like some pisspoor, third-rate PC game). It just kinda.... hangs there. One waits for more, but it doesn't come.
These one-word Bond titles need at least three syllables, I think. SKYFALLER would be a pretty silly title, but it does at least sound much more Bondian than SKYFALL. SKYFALL is too matter-of-fact. It lands with a thud, like, well, something falling from the sky. But SKYFALLER? Like MOONRAKER, it sounds sleek, sinuous, mysterious and sexy.