Actually, I wouldn´t mind seeing no gunbarrel at all.
Same here. I always found the gunbarrel cheesy, the only question remaining how much could they mitigate such inevitable cheesiness. I think CR almost made it cool, but any return to the traditional formula would immediately remind me how stale it became a long time ago.
Just as I don't want paint-by-numbers relics like Moneypenny and push-buttons-in-order-Q-showed-us gadgets, I'd rather they let the character of Bond drive the movie without relying on "classic" lines (that even Connery used sparingly), dancing women with guns, and so on. I'm not only confident Bond can carry the movie on his own, I know I'll enjoy it more that way.
I’m actually prone to think the ol’ iconic standards were brought down to the level of the films. That is, the
films got stale after a while, and took the by-numbers elements with them; not the other way around. I don’t think the traditional add-ons have the weight to really hold back a film, because they are just that: add-ons.
I agree with you that this new Bond can hold his own. Unlike many, many previous Bonds going fairly far back, this one doesn’t
need the life vests of MP, Q, gunbarrel, ‘classic lines’, etc…
But having said that, this Bond can bring the credit back to those things. He’s a new Bond (not just a new actor), and I believe he’s opened up the door to make those extras cool again. Of course some of them will have to reinvent themselves as Bond has been reinvented. MP, Q and his gadgets will need fresh new approaches, but the gunbarrel and classic lines… well, they can just come along for the ride.
All personal taste of course. Not a matter of right or wrong.