375 replies to this topic

[d21089]

yeah fair point but at the start of the film its a straight continuation from Casino Royale is what im trying to say- obviously dominic greene is not the same mission as CR- basically I guess mission is a bad choice of words- but they arent seperate stories in so far as Casino Royale being referenced directly and with a large impact on the plot.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

yeah fair point but at the start of the film its a straight continuation from Casino Royale is what im trying to say- obviously dominic greene is not the same mission as CR- basically I guess mission is a bad choice of words- but they arent seperate stories in so far as Casino Royale being referenced directly and with a large impact on the plot.

For me it's a matter of interpretations...

I mean, you can still view the PTS (and even the whole) DAF as an adventure that gives Bond a chance to get revenge from the death of Tracy, chasing the man - Blofeld- that ordered that killing. It's true that Tracy is never directly mentioned, but the Aston Martin DBS from OHMSS features in Q branch.

And in FRWL one of the main motivations for Blofeld to go ahead with the plan is get revenge for the death of his agent Dr. No.

[Matt_13]

No.

[d21089]

yeah fair enough i hear you- still would have seemed weird to me to be honest- i do still feel though that the pre-Craig movies are very seperate entities and its very difficult to say relatonship between OHMSS and DAF or Dr. No and FRWL is the same as CR and QOS

[jamie00007]

I was disappointed when I heard that the gunbarrel wasnt there before I saw the movie, but after I saw it I think it was the right way to go. The opening is great the way it is, it wouldnt have been as effective with a gunbarrel.

That said, I really hope its back to normal in the next film. Some people might say it has no bearing on the film, but for me it just instantly gets me excited and psyched up for the film and I'd like it back.

[FLEMINGFAN]

Yes, that was just the start of all the disappointments.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Absolutely. The rush you get when you watch a new Bond at the cinema and the gunbarrel appears cannot be described. It was OK to have at the end of the prologue in Royale, since it led straight into the credits just like Dr No, so it was at the beginning of the film anyway but to have it at the end in Solace was darned stupid.
The gunbarrel is way more important than the title song and I just don't understand what they keep paying "hot" artists inordinate amounts of money (Crow, Madonna, Jack White) to write pastiches of the classic songs to keep the "flavour" of the early films and then go and do something as stupid as putting the gunbarrel at the end.

[sharpshooter]

Nope, wasn’t disappointed. I was actually excited, because the end barrel hadn’t been done before. I knew the series shake-up was continuing. And the opening car chase works better without it. It’s more abrupt.

[SecretAgentFan]

Odd to start a thread about this now - or at all...

And let´s be very honest: it has all been discussed ad nauseam before. Just another excuse to pour hate on QOS or the Craig era?

[Dekard77]

I really liked the way the movie started, didn't miss it at the beginning, there was a nice variation to the Bond theme used throughout the movie. Arnold was certainly heading in the right direction. The gun barrel at the end made a lot of sense to me and for some reason it had a Dr No vibe, very fast movement. I prefer the Bond movies to be slightly different rather copy and paste like Glen era.As mentioned before what let QOS down was Bourne action scenes lack of character development. Agent Fields was a joke and the Mathis finale was rather confusing. Did Bond need to be that cold?

[Capsule in Space]

Yes, that was just the start of all the disappointments.

I am with you there FLEMINGFAN.

[FredJB007]

Very disappointed....................

[Garth007]

I wasn't surprised nor did i want it at the beginning. In my eyes James wasn't JAMES BOND 007 yet that we all know and love. He was still getting over personal issues about vesper and it wasn't resolved until the very end of the movie. I didn't like the gun barrel at the end. I think Bond 23 should of had the gun barrel to show that JAMES BOND we all know is now here.

[iBond]

I was disappointed when I heard that the gunbarrel wasnt there before I saw the movie, but after I saw it I think it was the right way to go. The opening is great the way it is, it wouldnt have been as effective with a gunbarrel.

That said, I really hope its back to normal in the next film. Some people might say it has no bearing on the film, but for me it just instantly gets me excited and psyched up for the film and I'd like it back.

Exactly! Die Another Day was the first Bond film I saw in theaters and to be honest, I loved the whole anticipation on what to expect.

[Captain Tightpants]

Were you disappointed when there was no gun barrel at the beginning of Quantum?

No, not really. I actually think the opening sequence of shots works better without the gunbarrel. It steadily builds up tension, and I think the gunbarrel would have broken it too soon.

[Guy Haines]

Yes, I was disappointed. The way the gunbarrel was worked into the opening of CR was clever, and I hoped that, in the absence of a "proper" gunbarrel opening, something similar could have been worked into the start of the QoS title credits. But no, only the circle (in red!) bouncing across the screen as "Judi Dench as 'M'" appeared in the credits, and the odd placing of the gunbarrel/Bond theme combination at the end of the film, as the audience is heading for the cinema exits.

I love the direction taken by CR and QoS, and Craig's interpretation of Bond, but I do get the impression that, when it comes to the imagery and theme music being used, something of a signal is being sent to us "older" fans. It will be interesting if "23" takes this revision or downright rejection of the iconic images of the films a stage further. Frankly, I think the producers should be looking to re-introduce these images, especially in an anniversary year like 2012.

[00 Brosnan]

Yes I was disappointed. Not only is the gunbarrel in the beginning iconic, but it sets the mood right away. It gives you that feeling (especially when first seeing a new film) that Bond is back and new & awesome adventure is about to begin.

In reality, I'd rather they had just left it out instead of putting it at the end. It's probably the worst gunbarrel sequence in all 22 films. I really enjoy QoS, but EON really messed it up. They went with the more traditional look, but the barrel looks cheap, it doesn't roll, Craig walks way too fast, and his pose just makes him look really short.

At least in CR it could be seen as a fresh new take on the sequence. It wasn't traditional, but it was still pretty cool and at the beginning. I pray the re-shoot the sequence for Bond 23. Either go back to the traditional-looking barrel that all the Bonds have used (CGI for Brosnan) or work it into the PTS like CR.

[iBond]

Yes, I was disappointed. The way the gunbarrel was worked into the opening of CR was clever, and I hoped that, in the absence of a "proper" gunbarrel opening, something similar could have been worked into the start of the QoS title credits. But no, only the circle (in red!) bouncing across the screen as "Judi Dench as 'M'" appeared in the credits, and the odd placing of the gunbarrel/Bond theme combination at the end of the film, as the audience is heading for the cinema exits!

Yeah, when I saw the dots turn into Judi's name, I was just thinking more and more of them missing and what should have begun at the beginning of the film. Nice that you caught that too! Honestly, I'm one of the rare people to stay until the end of the credits to appreciate the crew that worked on the film so I was sure to catch the barrel anyway. But yeah, the majority of the people just got up and turned to see the last-minute gun barrel.

Yes I was disappointed. Not only is the gunbarrel in the beginning iconic, but it sets the mood right away. It gives you that feeling (especially when first seeing a new film) that Bond is back and new & awesome adventure is about to begin.

In reality, I'd rather they had just left it out instead of putting it at the end. It's probably the worst gunbarrel sequence in all 22 films. I really enjoy QoS, but EON really messed it up. They went with the more traditional look, but the barrel looks cheap, it doesn't roll, Craig walks way too fast, and his pose just makes him look really short.

At least in CR it could be seen as a fresh new take on the sequence. It wasn't traditional, but it was still pretty cool and at the beginning. I pray the re-shoot the sequence for Bond 23. Either go back to the traditional-looking barrel that all the Bonds have used (CGI for Brosnan) or work it into the PTS like CR.

I hope they do too! I wish they would have just kept the Brosnan style gun barrel and replace it with Craig. It was almost as if Eon was lazy and reluctant to even include it. But yeah, if they are to reintroduce Bond at the beginning of the gun barrel again, he would have to reshoot it and slow it down.

Edited by iBond, 06 June 2011 - 07:08 AM.

[Messervy]

Were you disappointed when there was no gun barrel at the beginning of Quantum?

No, I wasn't. Not one bit.
I happen to love QoS PTS and the way it's shot. Wouldn't change anything in it.

Besides, eventhough the gun barrel might be Bond's "trademark", I don't think it really matters that much if we don't get it every time. A movie is more than just a copy/paste of the same formula over and over again. A little fresh air can do some good. I might blame a Bond movie if I find it bad on the whole, but I certainly wouldn't blame a Bond movie for not having the gun barrel. It's good if we have it, because it screams "Bond" from the very beginning, but not having it is not a disaster. Same goes for the "Bond, James Bond" phrase. We got it in CR only at the end; no big deal. Even if we hadn't got it at all CR would still be a tremendous movie.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

opening was fine- don't think the gunbarrel would have made sense at the start of qos- its not a new mission- its a continuation of the last one- could have used the bond theme though since he "earnt" it in cr

Well, actually it's a new mission, unless, you consider DN, FRWL, TB, YOLT, OHMSS and DAF as one- very- long mission just because Bond is searching several operations of a same organization like SPECTRE, just like he's doing with Quantum here.

Well said, bud!

[Miles Miservy]

Were you disappointed when there was no gun barrel at the beginning of Quantum?

Yes indeed!!

[TheREAL008]

I'm sorry, but this is just plain old nitpicking. No offense to anyone here, but who cares? What's done is done and hopefully we'll get the gunbarrel back for '23'.

It's REALLY not that big of a deal.

[AMC Hornet]

I had already been warned that the trademark opening would be missing from CR, so I was prepared. Still, I would have preferred to have at least seen the white dots cross the screen (with no music), then open up onto the Prauge scene.

As for Quantum, yes - put the intro at the beginning, where it belongs. Craig had "earned" it already by then.

Enough with the tinkering, Ms. B and Mr. W - it was never broken, so stop fixing it.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I wasn't surprised nor did i want it at the beginning. In my eyes James wasn't JAMES BOND 007 yet that we all know and love. He was still getting over personal issues about vesper and it wasn't resolved until the very end of the movie. I didn't like the gun barrel at the end. I think Bond 23 should of had the gun barrel to show that JAMES BOND we all know is now here.

So, you didn't get (or wanted to accept) the main pourpose that Campbell wished to express through the whole running- and particularly the last scene- of CR, wich was, as he stated in the DVD commentaries, that by the end of that movie Bond is finally "the beautiful machine that we all know and love".

[Zographos]

The idea that Forster didn't grasp the power or iconicism of the gunbarrel is pretty silly and has moreover been debunked. The gunbarrel wasn't "relegated" to the end of the movie out of some perceived irrelevance, it was included there to heighten the narrative structure that culminated with Bond's return to the fold and because its triumphalism would have clashed so badly with the immediacy of the pre-title sequence. Forster has made his justifications for this decision and been quite explicit about his reasoning for years now. You don't need to agree with this interpretation (cf. Campbell's), but at least understand the logic behind it so that we can move past this fan-produced narrative that Forster and/or the producers "don't understand" the Bond series or its imagery or are attempting to undo its legacy. They understand their product perfectly well.

(Frankly, I think dumping the gunbarrel at the beginning of QoS would have been lazy and thoughtless. I mean, how many other Bond movies even gave a thought to the gunbarrel, save for CR? It was mostly recycled stock footage.)

Edited by Zographos, 06 June 2011 - 11:23 PM.

[iBond]

I'm sorry, but this is just plain old nitpicking. No offense to anyone here, but who cares? What's done is done and hopefully we'll get the gunbarrel back for '23'.

It's REALLY not that big of a deal.

Okay, I understand that but if anything blame me for starting this topic. But, you don't have to reply to it if you don't appreciate it.

[Jim]

I'm sorry, but this is just plain old nitpicking. No offense to anyone here, but who cares? What's done is done and hopefully we'll get the gunbarrel back for '23'.

It's REALLY not that big of a deal.

Okay, I understand that but if anything blame me for starting this topic. But, you don't have to reply to it if you don't appreciate it.

You asked for honesty, and honesty was administered.

[Dekard77]

Honesty was required with regard to Gun Barrel.

[iBond]

I'm sorry, but this is just plain old nitpicking. No offense to anyone here, but who cares? What's done is done and hopefully we'll get the gunbarrel back for '23'.

It's REALLY not that big of a deal.

Okay, I understand that but if anything blame me for starting this topic. But, you don't have to reply to it if you don't appreciate it.

You asked for honesty, and honesty was administered.

Honesty regarding the topic.

Edited by iBond, 07 June 2011 - 05:47 AM.

[Jim]

I'm sorry, but this is just plain old nitpicking. No offense to anyone here, but who cares? What's done is done and hopefully we'll get the gunbarrel back for '23'.

It's REALLY not that big of a deal.

Okay, I understand that but if anything blame me for starting this topic. But, you don't have to reply to it if you don't appreciate it.

You asked for honesty, and honesty was administered.

Honesty regarding the topic.

Looks pretty honest about that too. Call it a "no" in answer to the question posed.