Has there ever been a worse title for a hit movie than Quantum of Solace?
The second Bond flick of the Daniel Craig Era doesn’t open in the U.S. until Friday, but there’s no doubt it’ll be a hit – the movie broke records all over the world last weekend, earning $25.3M in the UK alone (trouncing a record held by Harry Potter and the Flatus of Sequelor).
I liked 2006’s Casino Royale a lot, simply because the keepers of the Bond franchise were finally embarrassed into making a real movie. You know, with a plot and stuff. I also like Craig. He looks like he’s been busted up some – a fresh take on the Bond image. I look forward to Quantum.
But the title stinks. Titles demand concrete words (says the author of Shotgun Lullaby). You can get away with one abstract word, but only if it plays off other, more concrete words in an amusing or tension-building way.
What’s more, few are familiar with the word “quantum” as a noun. (When’s the last time you said your chili needed a quantum of tabasco?) Most of us know “quantum” solely as an adjective with “physics” right behind it.
(BTW: Yes, I realize the title is taken from a story written by Ian Fleming. So what? It’s not as if the franchise slavishly follows Fleming’s wishes; if it did, Craig’s Bond would smoke 80 Dunhills a day, limiting his full-sprint pursuit capability to half a city block.)
I imagine I’ll see Quantum of Solace once the weekend rush clears out – perhaps on Free Popcorn Tuesday. Hope the movie’s better than the title.