. . .
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am absolutely going to be the first in line to see Ulitmate Bond, Vol. 2.
Or y’know, “Ultimate Bond, Vol. 2″ in the universe where I can spell.
Apart from the name, I love everything that I’ve seen and heard about this movie.
What a terrible title, though.
I haven’t even seen Casino Royale, but this looks awesome. The horseshoe-shaped hotel gave me chills (shades of Goldfinger?).
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
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.)
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.
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.
Everyone other than you
Let’s be nice, guys.
Sorry about that. I’m more than happy to be nice, but something in the dismissive tone set me off.
Double Oh. Shit. Yes.
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.
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.
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.
For those keeping track these are the only Fleming titles left all shot stories:
The Property of a Lady
007 in New York
The Hildebrand Rarity
Then will get truly awful generic names again
I meant “short”
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.
“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. Itâ€™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?
Guys, seriously, let it go. Jason apologized. If you want to wave your e-dicks, you can find someplace else to do it.
Having a discussion is “e-dick waving”? Really?
Continuing a discussion where one party apologized to another and everybody moved on? Yes, “Father Bear,” it is.
“Ryan, sorry, I didnâ€™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.
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!”
© Copyright 2013 | BeaucoupKevin(dot)com | All Rights Reserved