105 replies to this topic

[double o ego]

It's at the end because it bookends the CR-QoS storyline. Bond became a double-0 in CR-reboot, and has now (on the face of it) become the 007 that we are used to. The gunbarrel signifies that by being at the end of the film. I have no doubt from here on that it will be at the start and world box-office success will be all but guaranteed......

BINGO!

[HellIsHere]

Putting the gun barrel sequence at very end was not a great idea, since everyone in the audience was already leaving the room. Someone said, "ah, that's the sequence, ok". No one cared about that sequence.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Sorry - but it was superior film making and a braver creative housestyle than Bond has ever experienced. DR NO and GOLDFINGER wrote the book on revolutionising mainstream action cinema. If you want "traditions", all that QUANTUM OF SOLACE has done is take that particular tradition - which has until ROYALE left the series a tad creatively dormant - and crafted a fine, panther like film.[/color]

It may have been braver, but it was not better, in my opinion. There is always the possibility that people don't like something for what it is- not because it is simply different.

[dee-bee-five]

Putting the gunbarrel at the end of QoS was the right decision, creatively, in my opinion. But I wouldn't have missed it if it hadn't been there. As I wrote elsewhere, it only served to remind me how passé the whole gunbarrel thing had become. To my mind, it would be better to retire it with fond memories and forge ahead with the new creative dynamic Eon have discovered in the past couple of years.

[sharpshooter]

No one cared about that sequence.

A telling comment. People are content to walk out there and then, and not pay any attention or care to this sacred gun barrel sequence. If they don’t care if it is there or not, it goes to show it is not needed - or as highly valued as some claim.

It's all window dressing; one could make a totally worthy Bond film without it. But, amazingly, if the gun barrel sequence is placed at the start, as people just expect it to be, they suddenly care about it?

I bet if they didn't throw in the gun barrel at the end, some folks wouldn't have even blinked twice about the omission, only once told would they notice.

[Royal Dalton]

No one cared about that sequence.

A telling comment. People are content to walk out there and then, and not pay any attention or care to this sacred gun barrel sequence. If they don’t care if it is there or not, it goes to show it is not needed - or as highly valued as some claim.

Yeah, but some people wouldn't care if the lead character was called James Bling of the Bling Brigade.

The gunbarrel might be a minor thing to some, but it's part of what makes a James Bond film a James Bond film.

It says; this is James Bond, and here we go on another adventure. To chuck it would be a mistake, in my opinion.

[Publius]

It says; this is James Bond, and here we go on another adventure. To chuck it would be a mistake, in my opinion.

The reason I'd like to see it go is because having it precludes wonderful openings like those of CR and QoS. I think it restricts what tone and pace the film can start with. It's not so much a problem with having a gunbarrel if that's what the filmmakers want (after all, it was used to great effect in CR and QoS), it's with the sense that we're required to include it and must put it at the beginning and Bond must wear a tux and the Bond theme must be blaring, etc.

[Harmsway]

The gunbarrel might be a minor thing to some, but it's part of what makes a James Bond film a James Bond film.

Well, strictly speaking, no it isn't. What makes a James Bond film a James Bond film is that it features the secret agent James Bond, originally developed by Ian Fleming.

What the gunbarrel, Monty Norman Bond theme, and all that other stuff is what has - so far - comprised an EON James Bond film. But a perfect Bond film could exist without any of those trappings.

That said, I'm for keeping the gunbarrel. And as far as QUANTUM OF SOLACE is concerned, I wish it had opened the film, rather than closed it.

[dee-bee-five]

The gunbarrel might be a minor thing to some, but it's part of what makes a James Bond film a James Bond film.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. I think it's part of what used to make a James Bond a James Bond film but it's relevance has diminished (like Q and Moneypenny) from the 80s onwards. I have no objection to it, as such, since I have a fondness for some of those old trappings and if they can find innovative ways of using it, as in Casino Royale, then fine; it's hardly going to ruin the picture for me. But if we're really saying that the series can only continue by using these tired old devices every time, then the franchise may as well shut up shop now.

[Judo chop]

It says; this is James Bond, and here we go on another adventure. To chuck it would be a mistake, in my opinion.

The reason I'd like to see it go is because having it precludes wonderful openings like those of CR and QoS. I think it restricts what tone and pace the film can start with. It's not so much a problem with having a gunbarrel if that's what the filmmakers want (after all, it was used to great effect in CR and QoS), it's with the sense that we're required to include it and must put it at the beginning and Bond must wear a tux and the Bond theme must be blaring, etc.

If QOS had started with the gunbarrel, it'd have made a lot of fans happy, and it'd have hurt no one. Would it really have disrupted the pace of the intro had the little circle been aimed at the lake and then expanded to see that helicopter shot zooming towards the lakeside car chase? (I'm not upset - pleased actually - that it was placed at the end of the film either, just for the record.)

I'm has happy as anyone to see the murky bathwater that drowned Bond through the 80's and 90's tossed out, but I think the gunbarrel is the baby. Just a cute, harmless little baby.

[Publius]

If QOS had started with the gunbarrel, it'd have made a lot of fans happy, and it'd have hurt no one. Would it really have disrupted the pace of the intro had the little circle been aimed at the lake and then expanded to see that helicopter shot zooming towards the lakeside car chase? (I'm not upset - pleased actually - that it was placed at the end of the film either, just for the record.)

I prefer the score building up, with the occasional sound of a car engine, over the MGM and Columbia logos, with the gorgeous view of the lake appearing abruptly and in its entirety. Then we see the Aston in all its glory, catch a few glimpses of Bond's eyes, and before we know it we've been suddenly hurtled headfirst into this thrilling chase, almost as if we've just been in a car crash we barely saw coming.

The gunbarrel might have worked if they didn't play any music over it, but I still would have missed the picture coming into full view all at once. I also would have missed how we were weened into having Craig's Bond reintroduced to us, and speaking for myself my attention would have been momentarily diverted by the debut of his traditional gunbarrel.

I'm has happy as anyone to see the murky bathwater that drowned Bond through the 80's and 90's tossed out, but I think the gunbarrel is the baby. Just a cute, harmless little baby.

I think the far more important EON tradition I'd hate to see go is the teaser/titles/rest-of-the-film structure, followed closely by the Bond theme (although I'm more than content with it being remixed, used more subtly, and being reserved for primarily non-action scenes).

I can miss the gunbarrel and not feel like I've missed part of the movie (save only CR). I can't say the same for any other part of any Bond movie.

[dee-bee-five]

It says; this is James Bond, and here we go on another adventure. To chuck it would be a mistake, in my opinion.

The reason I'd like to see it go is because having it precludes wonderful openings like those of CR and QoS. I think it restricts what tone and pace the film can start with. It's not so much a problem with having a gunbarrel if that's what the filmmakers want (after all, it was used to great effect in CR and QoS), it's with the sense that we're required to include it and must put it at the beginning and Bond must wear a tux and the Bond theme must be blaring, etc.

If QOS had started with the gunbarrel, it'd have made a lot of fans happy, and it'd have hurt no one. Would it really have disrupted the pace of the intro had the little circle been aimed at the lake and then expanded to see that helicopter shot zooming towards the lakeside car chase? (I'm not upset - pleased actually - that it was placed at the end of the film either, just for the record.)

I'm has happy as anyone to see the murky bathwater that drowned Bond through the 80's and 90's tossed out, but I think the gunbarrel is the baby. Just a cute, harmless little baby.

Nicely put. Alas, in this case, my sympathies are with Herod..

[Royal Dalton]

The gunbarrel might be a minor thing to some, but it's part of what makes a James Bond film a James Bond film.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. I think it's part of what used to make a James Bond a James Bond film but it's relevance has diminished (like Q and Moneypenny) from the 80s onwards. I have no objection to it, as such, since I have a fondness for some of those old trappings and if they can find innovative ways of using it, as in Casino Royale, then fine; it's hardly going to ruin the picture for me. But if we're really saying that the series can only continue by using these tired old devices every time, then the franchise may as well shut up shop now.

Why does it have to be relevant? It's a timeless trademark of the series that serves as a familiar intro, and exists outside the body of the film.

[Daddy Bond]

Plain and simple...
#1 - It isn't necessary to be a true Bond film.
#2 - I still like it and prefer it, however...
#3 - I only want it used if it doesn't interfere with the film. I wold have liked at the start of QoS, but I liked the quietness of the film before the roar of the engines started in the PTS. Very dramatic. The gunbarrel might have taken away that edge.

So, while I PREFER it at the beginning and I prefer it to be in the film, I like how they've mixed it up a bit in CR and QoS. I would like it back in the right place next time, but only if it doesn't interfere with a great idea that would work better without it. Oh, and Craig should walk a little slower and the barrel should be smaller. That's my preference anyway.

[Publius]

Why does it have to be relevant? It's a timeless trademark of the series that serves as a familiar intro, and exists outside the body of the film.

You're right, it doesn't have to be relevant. But if it isn't relevant, I do wish it wouldn't be treated as if it were. I understand why you and others like its presence, but I prefer that the filmmakers go into each Bond film with as much freedom as possible. Or to put it another way, I rather that the default is no gunbarrel and that it's only included if they really think it'd be a good addition.

[Royal Dalton]

Having a gunbarrel at the front of the film doesn't exactly stifle their creative freedom.

[DR76]

I couldn't care less where the gun barrel was placed. As far as I'm concerned, they didn't have to show it at all. But I do feel that what was shown looked shabby and rushed to my eyes. I missed the CR gun barrel.

[dee-bee-five]

Having a gunbarrel at the front of the film doesn't exactly stifle their creative freedom.

Perhaps not, perhaps so. But feeling theymust include it, and must have Bond in a tux and must have him say "Bond, James Bond" does.

I think it's passé and redundant. But, as I said earlier, its inclusion is hardly going to ruin any future Bond film for me.

[CM007]

After the screen turned black, me and some people shouted :"The film isn't over yet!" and no one left. After the gunbarrel, audience applauded for approximately 2 minutes and almost all stayed after the credits. Everyone loved the film.

Yeah sure they did and I don´t believe you.

Don't you ever wonder why no one likes you?

Nope,Don´t care.....if being honest is a crime.....well

[Royal Dalton]

Having a gunbarrel at the front of the film doesn't exactly stifle their creative freedom.

Perhaps not, perhaps so. But feeling theymust include it, and must have Bond in a tux and must have him say "Bond, James Bond" does.

I think it's passé and redundant. But, as I said earlier, its inclusion is hardly going to ruin any future Bond film for me.

I've never said he has to wear a tux and say "Bond. James Bond" in every film.

You can poo-poo it all you like. That's the easiest thing in the world to do. But the gunbarrel is part of the iconography, and it should be there.

[Daddy Bond]

Having a gunbarrel at the front of the film doesn't exactly stifle their creative freedom.

Perhaps not, perhaps so. But feeling theymust include it, and must have Bond in a tux and must have him say "Bond, James Bond" does.

I think it's passé and redundant. But, as I said earlier, its inclusion is hardly going to ruin any future Bond film for me.

I've never said he has to wear a tux and say "Bond. James Bond" in every film.

You can poo-poo it all you like. That's the easiest thing in the world to do. But the gunbarrel is part of the iconography, and it should be there.

Yeah, I generally prefer it too (with the qualifications I mention above).

[Zorin Industries]

Having a gunbarrel at the front of the film doesn't exactly stifle their creative freedom.

Perhaps not, perhaps so. But feeling theymust include it, and must have Bond in a tux and must have him say "Bond, James Bond" does.

I think it's passé and redundant. But, as I said earlier, its inclusion is hardly going to ruin any future Bond film for me.

I've never said he has to wear a tux and say "Bond. James Bond" in every film.

You can poo-poo it all you like. That's the easiest thing in the world to do. But the gunbarrel is part of the iconography, and it should be there.

But Daniel Craig's tenure has shown the "iconography" for what it is.... has no-one noticed that yet?

[Daddy Bond]

Having a gunbarrel at the front of the film doesn't exactly stifle their creative freedom.

Perhaps not, perhaps so. But feeling theymust include it, and must have Bond in a tux and must have him say "Bond, James Bond" does.

I think it's passé and redundant. But, as I said earlier, its inclusion is hardly going to ruin any future Bond film for me.

I've never said he has to wear a tux and say "Bond. James Bond" in every film.

You can poo-poo it all you like. That's the easiest thing in the world to do. But the gunbarrel is part of the iconography, and it should be there.

But Daniel Craig's tenure has shown the "iconography" for what it is.... has no-one noticed that yet?

I totally agree. Personally I still like the gun barrel at the beginning, but I'm not married to it, if you know what I mean.

[Mister E]

The gunbarrel might be a minor thing to some, but it's part of what makes a James Bond film a James Bond film.

I don't think it does at all really, it's just a fancy topping that does not effect the film in the least bit even if you screw it up completely.

[Royal Dalton]

But Daniel Craig's tenure has shown the "iconography" for what it is.... has no-one noticed that yet?

Has it? Can you go into detail, please?

[Zorin Industries]

But Daniel Craig's tenure has shown the "iconography" for what it is.... has no-one noticed that yet?

Has it? Can you go into detail, please?

We don't need London as personified by Disney, we don't need red buses everywhere, we don't need Q, we don't need MONEYPENNY, we don't need the crap exposition outlining everything to every dullard in the audience, we don't need to end the film with "Oh James" and silk sheets, we don't need Bassey brass in every chuffing title tune, we no longer need to pick locations that everyone knows about but never been to, we no longer need every film play like a British Stuntman League's trade fair, we now use leather-clad MI6 offices to denote beuracracy not Bernard Lee.....we have narrative economy rather than overladened nods to a cinematic notion of a Cold War that didn't actually play that much of a part in the films anyway (not all of them anyway), we don't need a gunbarrel to make or break a film as it appears to have done for many fans since 1962.

I would like to see the gunbarrel reinstated to the front of the films. But I don't care enough to moan on about it for months on end then let a new Bond film get ruined in my head because it was quite rightly moved as the result of paid professionals creative decisions - which make complete tonal and artistic sense when seen in the end product.

[Royal Dalton]

I wouldn't call most, or perhaps any, of that stuff iconic, though. Whereas, the gunbarrel is.

And Craig himself has said that he wants things like Q and Moneypenny brought back. So, I don't think the Craig era will end up being as far outside the box as some people might currently believe.

[Mister E]

And Craig himself has said that he wants things like Q and Moneypenny brought back. So, I don't think the Craig era will end up being as far outside the box as some people might currently believe.

Craig stated that because he wanted to see how could both of them could be re-invented.

[plankattack]

If you watch many DC interviews, he always talks about how no-one is against any of the iconography that is traditionally associated with the EON series - Q, Moneypenny, "My name is etc" but that it's his/EON's feeling that they have to be earned. That's a direct quote from a couple of interviews.

The gunbarrel here came at the end of the movie - in this instance it could argued that Bond-this movie-the reboot, has finally earned it.

But surely the greater point is that nothing is sacred, and in the interest of making interesting films, it's not a bad place to start. The films in the past have had too many things included because "they're supposed to be," and the films have suffered. In this instance, I agree, the opening is better without the gunbarrel - the first 50 seconds of tracking shot cutting into the middle of the chase is a very good 50 seconds of film.

FRWL doesn't have a Q scene in the traditional sense (jokes, "pay attention 007") yet no-one is crying foul and asking for re-cut DVD editions of the film. LALD doesn't have Q at all and I don't miss him. Moneypenny is in for a brief second in DAF and it really does feel that it's a forced-in moment.

I take DC's point to mean that if things fit the flow of the film, then they're in, but if they don't then they shouldn't be in there. From a story-telling point of view, it's hard to argue with that logic.

Yes, I like the gunbarrel, but it's not a deal-breaker.

Edited by plankattack, 25 November 2008 - 06:23 PM.

[bondrules]

Yup. All of that stuff is coming back. It will be a new take on old things. That's what DC & the producers have been saying.