75 replies to this topic

[Tiin007]

All I can say is...

BRING BACK THE HAT!

I would pay big bucks to see Craig in one of those.

[JimmyBond]

Didnt feel this warranted it's own thread, but it's related to this topic so I'm going to bring it up here.

I recall the producers mentioning they made CR as if it was the first film in a series. Going by that quote, what if we don't see anymore gunbarrels? Granted it will be a shock to all of us if they drop this, but will it be that big of a loss?

[Publius]

but will it be that big of a loss?

Not for me. It's the Bond "staple" I care least about short of Moneypenny and the "push the buttons in the order I tell you" Q scenes.

Maybe have a gunbarrel just for a new Bond's introductory movie?

[Vilain]

but will it be that big of a loss?

Not for me. It's the Bond "staple" I care least about short of Moneypenny and the "push the buttons in the order I tell you" Q scenes.

Maybe have a gunbarrel just for a new Bond's introductory movie?

Not for me, either.

I sort of feel they should never use the gunbarrel out of context again, so keep it a part of the action such as in CR, not at the beginning of the movie for no reason, which is really feeling rather dated nowadays.

It was fine for the series leading up to CR, but since they are supposedly going with a more 'realistic' approach to the franchise, a more realistic gunbarrel is now required.

Edited by Vilain, 13 October 2006 - 02:57 AM.

[JimmyBond]

Not quite sure how they'd use in in context from here on out. Seem a bit silly to segue into the main titles with a gunbarrel every time, don't you think?

[Vilain]

No, not really. How is it anymore silly than having it open the movie every time?

[Vauxhall]

My gut feeling is that they'll revert the gunbarrel back to the style of the first 19 movies for BOND 22, although for the moment, I can't actually picture Daniel Craig doing the whole gunbarrel sequence. Don't reckon they'd drop it entirely or subtly insert it somewhere else in the movie. A total overhaul of the series is not required. Without Moneypenny, Q and the gunbarrel, gradually the smaller trademarks of Bond would be disappearing. I think the producers will retain at least a modicum of tradition. The reason for the gunbarrel as it is in CASINO ROYALE is to try and show how the gunbarrel motif became associated with Bond - showing that it was 'originally' linked to his gaining his 00 status.

[Publius]

Without Moneypenny, Q and the gunbarrel, gradually the smaller trademarks of Bond would be disappearing.

I still contend Moneypenny, and to a lesser extent Q, is to Bond what Lois Lane or Lex Luthor are to Superman, or Robin is to Batman. Which is to say, unimportant to the overall mythos, easily replaceable, and by now painfully cliche.

But the gunbarrel is still better, and whether it returns for Bond 22, I'm indifferent. Just hope it's at least done well (and I imagine it would be, if the CR one is any indication).

[AgentPB]

I'm hopeing that the dots will move across the screen and fade straight into the movie

This is how i like every Bond film to start! If they take that out for casino Roayle i wil be very disappointed

[Double-O Eleven]

I love the gunbarrel and do not want it taken out of future films (although I doubt this will happen). It's part of the electric thrill of watching a Bond film, that amazing first rush as it starts... it's a tradition I absolutely don't want to lose, so I hope after the Casino Royale experiment, it moves back to the upfront position.

[00Twelve]

Remember the gunbarrel in the TND teaser? With the BLACK background? Wouldn't mind seeing that. Or a live locale in the back. Either way, I like the idea of a new element in the traditional gunbarrel.

And the hat would be great, as long as it didn't look like it's there just to be there.

Edited by 00Twelve, 13 October 2006 - 07:01 AM.

[icecold]

Without Moneypenny, Q and the gunbarrel, gradually the smaller trademarks of Bond would be disappearing.

I still contend Moneypenny, and to a lesser extent Q, is to Bond what Lois Lane or Lex Luthor are to Superman, or Robin is to Batman. Which is to say, unimportant to the overall mythos, easily replaceable, and by now painfully cliche.

I'm very offended by what you just said about Lois and Lex. The former especially is not unimportant or easily replaceable.

However I agree on Moneypenny and to a lesser extent Q, as well as Robin.

I really think we should see Bond's personal secretary like in the books and little focus on Moneypenny. Keep Q but refer to him as Major Boothroyd or Quartermaster more often. Take out the silly gadgets. Have him explain and develop more realistic tech for the service and get someone who plays it straight with a dry wit.

[Moore Baby Moore]

Without Moneypenny, Q and the gunbarrel, gradually the smaller trademarks of Bond would be disappearing.

I still contend Moneypenny, and to a lesser extent Q, is to Bond what Lois Lane or Lex Luthor are to Superman, or Robin is to Batman. Which is to say, unimportant to the overall mythos, easily replaceable, and by now painfully cliche.

I'm very offended by what you just said about Lois and Lex. The former especially is not unimportant or easily replaceable.

Actually, she is. Especially if you're familiar with the past decade-plus of the comic books and the equally obnoxious portrayals of her in both the Superman II re-edit and the new movie. She's more of a hindrance now than a viable part of the mythos, and I would be the first to stand up and cheer if she went bye-bye, or at the very least pushed as far into the background as possible.

As for Q and Moneypenny...if they don't serve a purpose to the story in question, then get rid of them. Only use them if they have a legitimate role to play.

[Death for breakfast]

I agree. Q and Moneypenny sometimes seem to bring the story to a halt or make it a bit to sci-fi (DAD) altough there are a few films where I like their apearences.

[Hergersheimer]

Remember the gunbarrel in the TND teaser? With the BLACK background? Wouldn't mind seeing that. Or a live locale in the back. Either way, I like the idea of a new element in the traditional gunbarrel.

And the hat would be great, as long as it didn't look like it's there just to be there.

Anyone have a link to/video of this teaser? Thanks

[JimmyBond]

Remember the gunbarrel in the TND teaser? With the BLACK background? Wouldn't mind seeing that. Or a live locale in the back. Either way, I like the idea of a new element in the traditional gunbarrel.

And the hat would be great, as long as it didn't look like it's there just to be there.

Anyone have a link to/video of this teaser? Thanks

Just go to youtube and search for Tomorrow Never Dies teaser.

[MR. BOND 93]

I would LOVE to see Craig in a Conneryesque kinda hat in the Bond 22 gunbarrel.

[DaveBond21]

Are they bringing back the traditional gunbarrel opening for Bond 22, does anyone know????

[JimmyBond]

Are they bringing back the traditional gunbarrel opening for Bond 22, does anyone know????

I don't think anyone is certain of anything. But most of us suspect they will.

[BMT-216A]

arrgh!!! i couldnt stand CR opening! where was the white dots?!!?! lol nah it was a very good attempt at starting a bond movie, i think i was so disappointed not to see them, tahts all..

it should defiantly be brought back, but i do think it was a good change to introduce the new bond, it really highlights they're trying to do something different (ie with the un-inclusion of Q/R/Moneypenny and the theme music only at the end and the bond girl dying and the bond, james bond only at the end)..

maybe in the DVD remaster or something they can change it lol

[Gri007]

I would like them to return to the original style. But surly the white dots that go across the screen need to be explained. Surly we should see the origins of the white dots. Or perhaps they'll just drop that and go into the gunbarrel. As vauxhall said the gun barrel is to tell us that he his a double o and that it reminds us of how he earned it.

[Shaun Forever]

perhaps the dots represent the double o.

[Trey]

As I posted in my thread in the Casino Royale section,
I think we should see the traditional gunbarrel sequence, but when Bond shoots, the camera moves 180* into Bond's gunbarrel (while still looking thru a barrel) and we see the thug whose barrel we were originally looking thru fall down and die.

If it worked for the pre-title sequence, it would be cool to see the dead thug fade into a thug Bond just killed in the sequence, and then see Bond walk off as if it were a hit or something, just an idea.

[MR. BOND 93]

As I posted in my thread in the Casino Royale section,
I think we should see the traditional gunbarrel sequence, but when Bond shoots, the camera moves 180* into Bond's gunbarrel (while still looking thru a barrel) and we see the thug whose barrel we were originally looking thru fall down and die.

If it worked for the pre-title sequence, it would be cool to see the dead thug fade into a thug Bond just killed in the sequence, and then see Bond walk off as if it were a hit or something, just an idea.

I thought that this was what they were going to do with the CR gunbarrel before I saw the movie lol.

[EL7]

Well if they bring it back, wouldn't it be the same sort of thing? I mean, were seen it already and, well I can imagine DC doing it and then, well that would be it... kinda predictable and almost pointless. While it would be traditional, IMO, there's really no point to it anymore.

[Kiss Kiss Bang Bang]

GB is of course another part of the Bond franchise which just can't be dropped. I sympathise totally with those of you who feel electric shock at the barrel-like beginning

Abnout future GB - I believe that only the way the barrel fades out can be changed. Bond after making a kill could walk towards the blooded barrel and thus making it black.

[Agent J.Bond]

I must admit when I first saw CR....I did feel a bit empty without the gunbarrel at the start....but it adds up towards the end how he got his first kills and gives a story to the gunbarrel....so watching it again....it makes more sense. I'm sure they will go back to the normal gunbarrel for future films, but this recent gunbarrel looked like a one off....so i wouldn't worry....it was better we got a gunbarrel before the title sequence than none at all....

[Blisster Shoots]

I think it'd be nice to break with tradition and have Daniel wear a suit for his (eventual) gunbarrel. Perhaps the same type of outfit he's wearing for the CR gunbarrel.

I mean it doesnt have to be a tux does it?

Didn't Connery's Bond not wear a tux for his gun barrel?

[Hass]

Whatever happened to having art for art's sake?

That's what makes the gunbarrel cool.

Everything doesn't need to be explained or be in context.

The traditional gunbarrel is like a book cover. It says "this is a James Bond film - now sit down, shut up and enjoy"

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't want to look back at the Daniel Craig era in ten years time and say "isn't it a shame he didn't walk out in the traditional gunbarrel like all the others".

Moneypenny and Q can be excised because that may be a neccesary part of getting the story to work.

The gunbarrel was positioned where it was in Casino Royale for artistic reasons.

There's no reason to change it for future films except to be different. I agree that the films themselves should be wide and varied. But let's keep the artistic institution that is the opening gunbarrel.

Cheers.

[Odd Job]

I have to agree with a lot of the posters on this thread. The GB on CR was well done. It was an interesting way to suggest an origion of the GB. All part of the process of Bond becoming who he was meant to be. But come Bond 22, I want to see those familiar white dots travelling across the screen and the sight of a casual DC walking along in his Tuxedo and you all know the rest.

Regards

Odd Job