18 replies to this topic

[Miles Miservy]

I'd like to know why the GUN BARREL was missing from the beginning of the movie. There are just certain elements that go into a 007 film that are essential. That is one of them. I admit, the usage of it in the story at the beginning of Casino Royale was clever. But not using it until the very end credits was, in my opinon, lacking in an otherwise entertaining chapter of the Bond legacy. I got the sense that they just threw it in at the last minute as if it was something they'd forgotten to pack.

[Dustin]

Hm, some would argue they consider James Bond to be an even more essential element of the Bond films than the gunbarrel (albeit only slightly). Yet he was missing from great stretches, sometimes even entire films. The reasoning behind this, one supposes, was the same general reasoning that lead to the gunbarrel at the end of QOS: what the hell.

Could have been worse.

[TCK]

It's because Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace set up both the story of the beginning of James Bond. They must be seen as an only film with two parts : the first part is Casino Royale and the second is Quantum of Solace ; and so, we understand better why James Bond behaves like that in the second part. At the end of the first part, James Bond says "The name is Bond, James Bond" and at the end of the second part there is the gunbarrel, which are both essential elements of a 007 film. Then, we can consider that at the end of Quantum of Solace, James Bond has become James Bond somehow.

If the gunbarrel would have been at the beggining of Quantum of Solace, it would have announced a classic James Bond film, but Quantum of Solace is not a classic James Bond film (neither is Casino Royale).

It's my supposition.

[Bucky]

Agreed, I really like the gunbarrel being absent from the beginning of the film, especially the way the music starts over the logos and goes right into the shot of the lake. While the gunbarrel always gets me excited for a film, the way QOS started lets you know you are in for something different.

[Mr. Blofeld]

...not to mention it's an echo of Dr. No, which used the gunbarrel twice -- once at the start of the titles sequence (like Casino Royale) and once as the credits roll and the story's done (like Quantum of Solace).

See the rationale?

[The Shark]

I actually prefer it as it is. It boasts one the finest openings of any picture, in the last few years. Highly cinematic, with a great sense of immediacy. The audience literally stumbles out of the dark, and into Bond's POV. A gun barrel would have ruined its subjectivity.

Shame the film that was a disappointment.

[TCK]

...not to mention it's an echo of Dr. No, which used the gunbarrel twice -- once at the start of the titles sequence (like Casino Royale) and once as the credits roll and the story's done (like Quantum of Solace).

Very good point ! And it confirms me and perhaps others in my opinion that Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace form a unique movie. The gunbarrel is both at the beginning and at the end of "the movie" like he was in Dr No, the first adventure but not the beginning, because the beginning is both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. Very well-judged !

[MovieMaestro]

Stand by! I am doing an interview with Matt Chesse in the coming weeks, and the gunbarrel placement was a question I was going to ask him about.

[iBond]

I was honestly very dissapointed with the opening titles of this film. It didn't even feel like Bond film anymore. I mean, what the heck happened to Daniel Klienman? I hope they bring him back in the next film and get rid of MK12...some Missouri-based company. Keep in British! lol

[sharpshooter]

I actually prefer it as it is. It boasts one the finest openings of any picture, in the last few years. Highly cinematic, with a great sense of immediacy. The audience literally stumbles out of the dark, and into Bond's POV. A gun barrel would have ruined its subjectivity.

Absolutely.

[Bucky]

I was honestly very dissapointed with the opening titles of this film. It didn't even feel like Bond film anymore. I mean, what the heck happened to Daniel Klienman? I hope they bring him back in the next film and get rid of MK12...some Missouri-based company. Keep in British! lol

I actually thought the ones that MK12 produced looked more like modern day Binder than the ones that Klienman has produced. I have liked a lot of the titles that Klienman has done, especially Casino Royale, but a lot of the images in the titles for QOS just made me immediately think of Binder's work.

[Dustin]

CR's and QOS's titles are the only ones I am immediatly able to remember since GE's. But CR's I remember fondly, while QOS's I only associate with a Coke spot.

[jamie00007]

I actually thought the ones that MK12 produced looked more like modern day Binder than the ones that Klienman has produced. I have liked a lot of the titles that Klienman has done, especially Casino Royale, but a lot of the images in the titles for QOS just made me immediately think of Binder's work.

Totally agree. I can understand negativity towards the song (though I myself liked it) but the titles were fantastic. Far better than any of Kleinman's bar GE and CR. They reminded me somewhat of the Moore era titles. Great colors and effects too. Loved the shots of the sandy slope turning into women and Bond's silhouette in front of the sun being reminiscent of the gunbarrel. I'd definitely welcome back MK12.

[iBond]

I'd like to know why the GUN BARREL was missing from the beginning of the movie. There are just certain elements that go into a 007 film that are essential. That is one of them. I admit, the usage of it in the story at the beginning of Casino Royale was clever. But not using it until the very end credits was, in my opinon, lacking in an otherwise entertaining chapter of the Bond legacy. I got the sense that they just threw it in at the last minute as if it was something they'd forgotten to pack.

Honestly, I was waiting two years to have the gun barrel at the same spot and when I saw the beginning of Quantum, I was honestly disappointed when I didn't see the gun barrel. I was telling myself, Okay, I'm going to have to wait another two years before they add it again...So, I was happy when it finally was added at the end of the film. I mean, I guess ultimately as long as they had a gun barrel it would work...but call me old-fashioned...I still wish both films had it at the beginning.

CR's and QOS's titles are the only ones I am immediatly able to remember since GE's. But CR's I remember fondly, while QOS's I only associate with a Coke spot.

Hahahaha! I can totally see that!

Edited by iBond, 01 May 2011 - 01:13 PM.

[Miles Miservy]

CR's title sequence has no women in it (1 head shot of Vesper on a playing card HARDLY qualifies, wouldn't you say?)

[jaguar007]

CR's title sequence has no women in it (1 head shot of Vesper on a playing card HARDLY qualifies, wouldn't you say?)

True, but despite that, it still has one of the best (if not the best) title sequence in the entire series.

[iBond]

CR's title sequence has no women in it (1 head shot of Vesper on a playing card HARDLY qualifies, wouldn't you say?)

I would say she qualifies.

[The Shark]

CR's title sequence has no women in it (1 head shot of Vesper on a playing card HARDLY qualifies, wouldn't you say?)

True, but despite that, it still has one of the best (if not the best) title sequence in the entire series.

It's good. But like much of Kleinman's work it's often messy, with too much going on. Robert Brownjohn was the the king. He understood the power of bold, simple, iconic imagery. Less is more as they say.

[JimmyBond]

There are a few moments where too much is going on. But the CR titles are a lot more subdued than his Brosnan era work (bar perhaps Goldeneye). The man really has a kitchen sink approach when it comes to his work.