Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Gun Barrel


105 replies to this topic

#91 dee-bee-five

dee-bee-five

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2227 posts

Posted 25 November 2008 - 08:17 PM

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.


I'm not "poo-pooing" (sic) it at all, merely stating my opinion, to which I'm entitled.

And, maybe after 46 years, it's time to start finding new iconography.

#92 BoogieBond

BoogieBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 834 posts

Posted 25 November 2008 - 08:46 PM

I Personally like the Gunbarrel, and would like to keep it. Its 25 seconds, what does it matter to the overall scheme of things. I think it gives more to the Bond franchise, and to a Bond film than it takes away.

But they have been experimenting with the Gunbarrel in the last 2 films, the CR experiment worked very well for me. The QOS one did not work IMO.

Now, they could further experiment, perhaps eliminating the PTS of the Bond films, and incorporating a theme, or partially incorporating the Gunbarrel in the main titles sequence.
I don't think EON would do this as it would be cutting of its nose to spite its face.

Progressing the Series with fresh ideas is one thing, elliminating an iconic element of the franchise that uniquely identifies it is another. If the general public consensus was that the Gunbarrel and PTS was old hat, or redundant that I am sure EON would make a change.

Its a bit like the Star Wars films intro. Audiences get a kick out of it, and others wanting a fresher approach, probably just put up with it, as it does not affect their overall enjoyment of the movie.

If you are looking to trim the fat off tired and shoe horned elements into Bond, then there are other areas you could try to freshen it up. One area is M. M is probably Shoe-Horned into Bond(Micromanaging Bond) because Judi Dench is a great actress, but cut down M's scenes in QOS and you probably would save a lot more than 25 seconds.

They've already elliminated Gadgets, Q, Moneypenny and "Shaken not stirred" but I still believe they want to keep these up their sleeve to introduce later, the CR reboot was the more revolutionary of the changes to the Bond franchise, I don't feel QOS is any more ground-breaking. I am sure they will introduce more ideas in future Craig adventures, and hopefully blend in Fleming/Early EON tone and material that audiences know and love about the character and films.

Bond not getting the girl at the end of QOS was a nice touch though :(

#93 Double-Oh Agent

Double-Oh Agent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4325 posts

Posted 25 November 2008 - 09:08 PM

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.

Completely agree. It is part of the James Bond experience. It exudes cool and class and is one of the things that helps separate the 007 series from every other contender/pretender out there.

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.

I don't see why you couldn't have the gunbarrel at the beginning and have the circle reveal black waters and then meld into the Time To Get Out music and proceed with what we have now. It wouldn't be that much different or take anything away from the set up of the scene.

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.

But the James Bond film series has evolved into more iconography than just 007 himself. Yes, the most important thing is James Bond, but the other iconography has the feel of a warm and welcoming return of a good friend as well.

Just remember, if you take away the gunbarrel, the James Bond Theme, etc., what you end up with is Never Say Never Again. Regardless of how one enjoys that film, when watching it, you can't help but feel that something is missing from it even though it still stars Sean Connery as James Bond. That's because those little extra touches that make EON's series so special are absent.

#94 dee-bee-five

dee-bee-five

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2227 posts

Posted 25 November 2008 - 09:10 PM

I Personally like the Gunbarrel, and would like to keep it. Its 25 seconds, what does it matter to the overall scheme of things. I think it gives more to the Bond franchise, and to a Bond film than it takes away.

But they have been experimenting with the Gunbarrel in the last 2 films, the CR experiment worked very well for me. The QOS one did not work IMO.

Now, they could further experiment, perhaps eliminating the PTS of the Bond films, and incorporating a theme, or partially incorporating the Gunbarrel in the main titles sequence.
I don't think EON would do this as it would be cutting of its nose to spite its face.

Progressing the Series with fresh ideas is one thing, elliminating an iconic element of the franchise that uniquely identifies it is another. If the general public consensus was that the Gunbarrel and PTS was old hat, or redundant that I am sure EON would make a change.


Well, if people really like it - and by that I mean the people who really matter (the general punters) not the die-hard fans - then the gunbarrel wouldn't worry me unduly in future films, if if it does feel old fashioned. Of course, the titles of QoS do pay lip service to the traditional gunbarrel with their rolling dots...

#95 Mr. Somerset

Mr. Somerset

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1760 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 26 November 2008 - 10:39 PM

Not me. I very much disliked it there. At best it's anticlimactic. The gunbarrel works at the beginning of the films and should always remain there. It sets the mood and gets you excited for the upcoming action.

By the way, I thought the gunbarrel was moved in Casino Royale because Bond wasn't "Bond" yet. He didn't become "Bond" until the end of the film. So why, if Bond is really Bond at the start of Quantum Of Solace, is the gunbarrel at the end? It's stupid to put it there. Forster is just trying to be "different" and screw with tradition.

Hey, while we're at it, let's completely junk the James Bond Theme too and move Christmas to December 5--after all, they've been in place for too many years. It's time to shake things up. :) :(

Classic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In honor of the GB, I'm going to celebrate Thanksgiving in February and Halloween in July.

#96 Pierce - Daniel

Pierce - Daniel

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 719 posts

Posted 26 November 2008 - 11:38 PM

Not me. I very much disliked it there. At best it's anticlimactic. The gunbarrel works at the beginning of the films and should always remain there. It sets the mood and gets you excited for the upcoming action.

By the way, I thought the gunbarrel was moved in Casino Royale because Bond wasn't "Bond" yet. He didn't become "Bond" until the end of the film. So why, if Bond is really Bond at the start of Quantum Of Solace, is the gunbarrel at the end? It's stupid to put it there. Forster is just trying to be "different" and screw with tradition.

Hey, while we're at it, let's completely junk the James Bond Theme too and move Christmas to December 5--after all, they've been in place for too many years. It's time to shake things up. :) :(

Classic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In honor of the GB, I'm going to celebrate Thanksgiving in February and Halloween in July.



The idea of the CR gunbarrel is that it is the first time we see the blood, the first colour on screen is the blood, it is a symbol that Bond lives his life in blood, he can now have colour as he's earned his licence to kill so now he has earned the right to appear in colour, from now on there is no going back for him.

Don't have a clue why the GB is at the end of QOS, would have much prefferred it at the start.

#97 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 26 November 2008 - 11:40 PM

The idea of the CR gunbarrel is that it is the first time we see the blood, the first colour on screen is the blood, it is a symbol that Bond lives his life in blood, he can now have colour as he's earned his licence to kill so now he has earned the right to appear in colour, from now on there is no going back for him.

Don't have a clue why the GB is at the end of QOS, would have much prefferred it at the start.

Well, then, you've obviously missed the entire point of the gunbarrel in both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace; just thinking about it sends a chill up my spine... :(

#98 BlackFire

BlackFire

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1300 posts
  • Location:Mexico

Posted 26 November 2008 - 11:46 PM

The idea of the CR gunbarrel is that it is the first time we see the blood, the first colour on screen is the blood, it is a symbol that Bond lives his life in blood, he can now have colour as he's earned his licence to kill so now he has earned the right to appear in colour, from now on there is no going back for him.

Don't have a clue why the GB is at the end of QOS, would have much prefferred it at the start.

Because he finally becomes the James Bond we know, a charming, sophisticated secret agent who lives to protect queen and country sacrificing others, living with a cavalier attitude towards life.

Edited by BlackFire, 26 November 2008 - 11:47 PM.


#99 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 27 November 2008 - 12:18 AM

I saw it today (it just opened in Canada) and I'd say the reaction was half and half. The you can always tell the Bond fans from the casuals! The fans (like myself) remained seated and enjoyed the cool new gunbarrel. The other half of the room clearly didn't give a :( and started to leave. It was strange sight. rousing Bond music playing, the famous gunbarrel dots moving a long the screen and people putting on their coats with their backs to the screen...

The two times I've seen it were pretty much the same. My husband and I stayed seated, while most everyone else got up and grabbed their coats. (I doubt there are very many hardcore Bond fans in the small Canadian town where we live. We may be it.) Also, the first Saturday night we saw it, the theatre was nearly filled. Last Saturday night, the first showing was sold out, so we went to the second, and then the theatre was nearly filled once again. I saw it a third time, midweek, but late (9:40 p.m.) and there were five people in the audience including myself. (But, again, I live in a small town, so this comes as no surprise given the late hour and the fact that it was a weeknight.)

I like the gunbarrel placement because I view "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace" as one story told in two acts. So to have the pre-title sequence initiated by the gunbarrel (especially given how quietly we enter into the pre-title sequence) would have been very jarring, for me. I think what others have said, that by the end of "Quantum of Solace" we see the more fully realized Bond who has finally earned his status (and the gunbarrel placement signifies this), is a good interpretation.

I was a little disappointed, however, that they didn't reprise Another Way to Die during the end credits, but instead played this bizarre piece by David Arnold entitled Crawl, End Crawl... :)

I liked that piece and actually found it a very fitting way to end this particular film.

Edited by byline, 27 November 2008 - 01:15 AM.


#100 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 27 November 2008 - 05:59 AM

Well sharp, to tell you the truth, the very first shot of the film was the one that sold it for me. The gunbarrel wouldn´t have worked and it would have ruinned that brilliant first shot, it´s that incredible and unusual for a Bond film


That's actually a good point. I was trying to think myself how the dot would have opened up, and I realise it wouldn't work with this fantastic opening shot.

However, I do love it when Bond movies start with a gunbarrel! :(



It's at the end because it bookends the CR-QoS storyline


Does anyone know if this is definitely the case?

#101 double o ego

double o ego

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1261 posts
  • Location:London, England

Posted 27 November 2008 - 09:50 AM

Not me. I very much disliked it there. At best it's anticlimactic. The gunbarrel works at the beginning of the films and should always remain there. It sets the mood and gets you excited for the upcoming action.

By the way, I thought the gunbarrel was moved in Casino Royale because Bond wasn't "Bond" yet. He didn't become "Bond" until the end of the film. So why, if Bond is really Bond at the start of Quantum Of Solace, is the gunbarrel at the end? It's stupid to put it there. Forster is just trying to be "different" and screw with tradition.

Hey, while we're at it, let's completely junk the James Bond Theme too and move Christmas to December 5--after all, they've been in place for too many years. It's time to shake things up. :) :(

Classic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In honor of the GB, I'm going to celebrate Thanksgiving in February and Halloween in July.



The idea of the CR gunbarrel is that it is the first time we see the blood, the first colour on screen is the blood, it is a symbol that Bond lives his life in blood, he can now have colour as he's earned his licence to kill so now he has earned the right to appear in colour, from now on there is no going back for him.


Agreed and well said.

Don't have a clue why the GB is at the end of QOS, would have much prefferred it at the start.


QoS is carrying the exact same story as CR. In fact, QoS is technically CR part 2. That being said, both are origin movies that tell the tale of how James Bond becomes the traditional agent 007. The gunbarrel at the end bokkended the origin story and has declared Bond now as, the traditional agent 007. Bond 23 as I interpret it should now open with the gunbarrel and the movies now should feel and have more familiar hallmarks of Bond tradition without reverting to the absurdly ridiculous......hopefully.

#102 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 27 November 2008 - 04:21 PM

It's at the end because it bookends the CR-QoS storyline


Does anyone know if this is definitely the case?



Yeahhh. I think it is. It shows that Bond is over Vesper, he drops the loveknot, he has his Quantum of Solace, he is the Bond we know and love. The Gunbarrel signifys that. :(

#103 Nicolas Suszczyk

Nicolas Suszczyk

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3735 posts
  • Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 27 November 2008 - 11:33 PM

Just remember, if you take away the gunbarrel, the James Bond Theme, etc., what you end up with is Never Say Never Again.



Or CR 1967 :(
I agree. Anyway, the gunbarrel is in the film. Although I hope it apprears in the correct place in Bond 23 and on.

#104 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 28 November 2008 - 01:13 AM

Just remember, if you take away the gunbarrel, the James Bond Theme, etc., what you end up with is Never Say Never Again.



Or CR 1967 :(
I agree. Anyway, the gunbarrel is in the film. Although I hope it apprears in the correct place in Bond 23 and on.


Yeah, if we're going to have it, let's have it at the start.

#105 Publius

Publius

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3225 posts
  • Location:Miami

Posted 30 November 2008 - 04:35 AM

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

As dee-bee-five pointed out, what stifles their freedom is feeling that they're required to include something that has absolutely zero bearing on the character or his world. Again, the gunbarrel should be an option on the table for the filmmakers, a nifty (when used sparingly) nod to Bond heritage. IMHO, of course.

Its a bit like the Star Wars films intro. Audiences get a kick out of it, and others wanting a fresher approach, probably just put up with it, as it does not affect their overall enjoyment of the movie.

Well, there have only been six Stars Wars films. And they were released as two distinct trilogies separated by two decades. And the crawls at least serve the purpose of setting up the backstory for each film.

I don't see why you couldn't have the gunbarrel at the beginning and have the circle reveal black waters and then meld into the Time To Get Out music and proceed with what we have now. It wouldn't be that much different or take anything away from the set up of the scene.

Again, the gunbarrel music alone would have been jarring. Drop that, though, and already you've upset half of the same people now complaining about the gunbarrel's temporary relocation.

Anyway, even the gunbarrel walk would still take away from the slow build-up, the striking first visual, the gradual reveal of our hero. I know for certain that QoS is stronger for having the gunbarrel at the end.

But the James Bond film series has evolved into more iconography than just 007 himself. Yes, the most important thing is James Bond, but the other iconography has the feel of a warm and welcoming return of a good friend as well.

Well, some of us get bored of our same friends coming over at the same time on the same days doing the same thing. Making new friends and trying new things can do wonders for keeping the excitement in your life. Then again, I'm one of those who was drawn to the Bond series for its original appeal: being something fresh and unexpected. I like that I was a bit nervous (in a good way) going into CR and QoS about just how daring they were willing to be.

Just remember, if you take away the gunbarrel, the James Bond Theme, etc., what you end up with is Never Say Never Again. Regardless of how one enjoys that film, when watching it, you can't help but feel that something is missing from it even though it still stars Sean Connery as James Bond. That's because those little extra touches that make EON's series so special are absent.

What hurts NSNA is a somewhat tired, unexciting plot (unsurprising given that it's a retread of Thunderball). The score is bad, but not for a lack of Bond theme. I didn't miss the EON elements (actually, that's part of its charm), and although I think all those 007 logos at the beginning are cheesy, the intro itself is rather cool. So, including EON elements wouldn't have helped NSNA any... well, unless you used a better score. :(

Not me. I very much disliked it there. At best it's anticlimactic. The gunbarrel works at the beginning of the films and should always remain there. It sets the mood and gets you excited for the upcoming action.

It doesn't do that for me. What does do that are intros designed specifically for particular films. In CR, I immediately got the sense that I was in a low-key but extremely tense situation reminiscent of early Cold War spy films. In QoS, I immediately got the sense that there was impending danger bubbling under the surface, that something modestly epic was about to take place.

By the way, I thought the gunbarrel was moved in Casino Royale because Bond wasn't "Bond" yet. He didn't become "Bond" until the end of the film. So why, if Bond is really Bond at the start of Quantum Of Solace, is the gunbarrel at the end? It's stupid to put it there. Forster is just trying to be "different" and screw with tradition.

The gunbarrel in CR started the Vesper chapter of Bond's life. The gunbarrel in QoS ends that same chapter. Hence, "I never left" and Bond dropping the Algerian loveknot in the snow. He's come a long way since the lesson Le Chiffre beat into him ("the big picture"), and now he's found his "quantum of solace" regarding his experiences concerning love, trust, vengeance, and duty.

Hey, while we're at it, let's completely junk the James Bond Theme too

I'd be fine without it.

#106 mrsbonds_ppk

mrsbonds_ppk

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1297 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 03 December 2008 - 07:03 AM

The gunbarrel would have been perfect if it was so damn fast. What was the :(ing significance of that? But anyway as far as everything else about it it looked right on. Next film could they take a shot at putting it at the beginning please :)?