Oh. Shit. Yes.

24 Comments on “Oh. Shit. Yes.”

1. 1 KDBryan said at 8:59 pm on June 30th, 2008:

   . . .

   Oh.

   OHGODYES

   I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am absolutely going to be the first in line to see Ulitmate Bond, Vol. 2.

2. 2 KDBryan said at 8:59 pm on June 30th, 2008:

   Or y’know, “Ultimate Bond, Vol. 2″ in the universe where I can spell.

3. 3 Ryan Jones said at 9:29 pm on June 30th, 2008:

   Apart from the name, I love everything that I’ve seen and heard about this movie.

4. 4 Father Bear said at 12:12 am on July 1st, 2008:

   What a terrible title, though.

5. 5 Phill said at 7:07 am on July 1st, 2008:

   I haven’t even seen Casino Royale, but this looks awesome. The horseshoe-shaped hotel gave me chills (shades of Goldfinger?).

6. 6 Jeff Munson said at 9:03 am on July 1st, 2008:

   Holy crap, I haven’t been this excited for a Bond movie ever… that trailer looks amazing. Good to see they are using some continuity (which I really liked about the Brosnan movies) by keeping the CIA guy from Royale in the picture. When I heard the name all I thought was “They are gonna screw up a good thing here aren’t they… like when Lucas screwed up Episode 1 – 3″. Good to see I was wrong

7. 7 Bully said at 9:31 am on July 1st, 2008:

   Well, at least the title isn’t named after a typo, like Tomorrow Never Dies. (And to its credit, “Quantum of Solace” is the name of an Ian Fleming short story.)

8. 8 Jason said at 10:35 am on July 1st, 2008:

   I view the complaining about the name of this flick similar to all of the bitching about the fact that Daniel Craig has blond hair before Casino Royale came out. It’s something that is ultimately inconsequential to the quality of the movie (which looks to be very, very good), yet people still need to complain about something.

9. 9 Ryan Jones said at 12:10 pm on July 1st, 2008:

   Dear Jason,

   Thank you for telling me what I can and can’t dislike, and why. It’s good to know that people like yourself are looking out for my best interests. In the future, I’ll be sure to consult with you before I make any criticisms of anything under the sun, so that you can determine the validity of my opinion in advance.

   Sincerely,
   Everyone other than you

10. 10 Kevin Church said at 12:39 pm on July 1st, 2008:

    Let’s be nice, guys.

11. 11 Ryan Jones said at 12:46 pm on July 1st, 2008:

    Sorry about that. I’m more than happy to be nice, but something in the dismissive tone set me off.

12. 12 Blake Himsl Hunter said at 1:39 pm on July 1st, 2008:

    Double Oh. Shit. Yes.

13. 13 Jeff Parker said at 1:50 pm on July 1st, 2008:

    BEYOND Dope! I like the title because it could help push the Bond movies away from always having this same variation jumble of Never Say Golden-Die Day that made them feel even more stamped out. I never thought there’d be a new Golden Age of Bond, but that’s what it looks like.

14. 14 Jason said at 2:08 pm on July 1st, 2008:

    Ryan, sorry, I didn’t mean to be dismissive, I was trying to make a broader point about Bond fans trying to find something to be negative about in the face of larger positives (as Bond fans can rival Dr. Who fans for their rationality). I didn’t mean to come off like a dick and, obviously, you’re free to dislike whatever you want.

15. 15 Ryan Jones said at 3:49 pm on July 1st, 2008:

    Don’t worry about it. We’re all friends here.

    Personally, I don’t know any Bond or Dr. Who obessives, but I’m familiar with the subject you’re discussing. When a name is terrible, however, there’s nothing wrong with saying so. It’s when someone uses something so trivial as a reason to no go see it, that’s when it becomes a problem.

16. 16 Bruce said at 4:49 pm on July 1st, 2008:

    For those keeping track these are the only Fleming titles left all shot stories:

    The Property of a Lady
    007 in New York
    Risico
    The Hildebrand Rarity

    Then will get truly awful generic names again

17. 17 Bruce said at 4:49 pm on July 1st, 2008:

    I meant “short”

18. 18 Rande said at 5:06 pm on July 1st, 2008:

    Looks good. I’m curious to know if they keep elements of the short, which is one of those character pieces Fleming did with Bond that really stand out as being much better than his straight suspense work on the series. Anyone who has read the novel The Spy Who Loved Me will know what I mean. Bond’s entrance in that book is without a doubt one of the best-written scenes in the original series and it is all based squarely on the set-up. Just thrilling, thrilling stuff.

19. 19 Father Bear said at 10:11 pm on July 1st, 2008:

    “I view the complaining about the name of this flick similar to all of the bitching about the fact that Daniel Craig has blond hair before Casino Royale came out. It’s something that is ultimately inconsequential to the quality of the movie (which looks to be very, very good), yet people still need to complain about something.”

    No, I’m not complaining about the movie itself, nor am I looking for something to complain about. I just honestly find the title to be terrible. Is that so hard to accept?

20. 20 Kevin Church said at 10:28 pm on July 1st, 2008:

    Guys, seriously, let it go. Jason apologized. If you want to wave your e-dicks, you can find someplace else to do it.

21. 21 Father Bear said at 9:51 pm on July 3rd, 2008:

    Having a discussion is “e-dick waving”? Really?

22. 22 Kevin Church said at 9:57 pm on July 3rd, 2008:

    Continuing a discussion where one party apologized to another and everybody moved on? Yes, “Father Bear,” it is.

23. 23 Father Bear said at 10:32 am on July 5th, 2008:

    “Ryan, sorry, I didn’t mean to be dismissive, I was trying to make a broader point about Bond fans trying to find something to be negative about in the face of larger positives”

    Jason apologized for the tone of his post, not his message. I was responding to the message.

24. 24 Kevin Huxford said at 10:51 pm on July 5th, 2008:

    Yeah…other than the name, this movie seems to have all the pieces combined in the perfect way. I’m not complaining about the title; it certainly won’t effect how enjoyable the movie is. If anything, it will just lead me to say, “oh, I’m going to see the new Bond flick,” rather than “I’m going to see The Quantum of Solace!”