796 replies to this topic

[TheSilhouette]

I hope they continue to keep the gunbarrel at the end. Upon seeing QoS it just works better and opens the door for more interesting ways to open the movie,

[Armand Fancypants]

Arnold's orchestration for TND and TWINE is all wrong, it doesn't have the "morse code" sound. When he finally did do it, we had to have the friggin CGI bullet.

Going by that logic, The Spy Who Loved Me doesn't have a proper gunbarrel either.

Indeed so. Crazy Hamlisch. Although he did get the second half right.

It is a little bit disappointing... I would have thought the best thing to do for a 50th anniversary tribute would have been to have used the old static Binder image. In fact, I think that's what they should all use, I think it'd be marvelous fun to have that crusty old iconography without any enhancement at all (not even the kinda e lighting effects Binder himself tried out in the late 60s/early 70s.

And what is it with this Bond theme nonsense anyway? Crazy radio sounds from Dr. No FTW.

[Hockey Mask]

The gun barrel at the front tradition is OVER. 3 out of 23 films have now tinkered with the placement. We have a new tradition now. Time to move on.

[Syndicate]

The GUNBARREL is a JAMES BOND TRADEMARK, the gunbarrel makes James Bond JAMES BOND! Otherwise, they've just taken it out after You Only Live Twice or Diamonds Are Forever to introduce a new Bond. And, if that's "just a logo", why wasn't it taken out like the old United Artists logos from the DVD releases?

That is so true it belongs to James Bond, and is one of the things that makes James Bond, James Bond. Just the Z logo is one of the things that makes Zorro, Zorro. IF "it just a logo", then it coud be use in any other super spy movies like the rouge Bond movie Never Say Never Again, Mission Impossible movies, From Paris With Love, Johnny English and so on.

Also the person that said Skyfall will be a "proper Bond film" regardless of where the gunbarrel is placed! Try asking that seniors that are born from 1935-1941 and babybomers born in the 1950s. See what would they said about where the the gunbarrel is. Those that have seen most of the Bond movies and those that are also Bond fans. They might see it differentlly.

[tdalton]

The GUNBARREL is a JAMES BOND TRADEMARK, the gunbarrel makes James Bond JAMES BOND! Otherwise, they've just taken it out after You Only Live Twice or Diamonds Are Forever to introduce a new Bond. And, if that's "just a logo", why wasn't it taken out like the old United Artists logos from the DVD releases?

That is so true it belongs to James Bond, and is one of the things that makes James Bond, James Bond. Just the Z logo is one of the things that makes Zorro, Zorro. IF "it just a logo", then it coud be use in any other super spy movies like the rouge Bond movie Never Say Never Again, Mission Impossible movies, From Paris With Love, Johnny English and so on.

Even if I subscribed to the idea that it's not just another logo, it still couldn't be used in front of a rogue Bond film, a Johnny English film, or whatever else. The actual sequence is the property of EON, just as the Sony/Columbia logos are the property of Sony and Columbia Pictures. They just can't be used on any film.

I view the gunbarrel as being EON's company logo, just in the same way that the roaring lion is MGM's and the lady holding the torch is Columbia Pictures' logo. The film doesn't actually start until those logos fade out and we're into the action.

[Chief of SIS]

I'm going to blow some minds here, but I don't need the standard gun barrel or the gun barrel at all. I don't hate it but I think it's sometimes a clunky way to start the film. It ruins the suspense of actually seeing Bond by, well, actually seeing him. I now patiently wait for the torches and pitchforks.

[tdalton]

I'm going to blow some minds here, but I don't need the standard gun barrel or the gun barrel at all. I don't hate it but I think it's sometimes a clunky way to start the film. It ruins the suspense of actually seeing Bond by, well, actually seeing him. I now patiently wait for the torches and pitchforks.

You won't find me with any torches or pitchforks for your opinion. I agree for the most part. There have been some exceptions, as I'm a huge fan of the Licence to Kill gunbarrel (mainly for the music, which really sets the tone for the film) and to a slightly lesser extent the GoldenEye gunbarrel, but for the most part I completely agree.

[JimmyBond]

I believe we've discussed that before (the LTK barrel), tdalton. But I completely agree with you. It is without a doubt the best one. I actually find the TWINE to be really good too. Sure it's the same orchestration as the TND one, but it's jazzed up a bit, which I like.

[tdalton]

I don't even really remember the TWINE one all that much. Been a long time since I've sat down to that film.

I'm not necessarily against the gunbarrel. If it's there, fine. It can be a nice sequence if it's done well, but I just don't find it to be something that if the film is missing it, the film is no longer a Bond film.

[Armand Fancypants]

I believe we've discussed that before (the LTK barrel), tdalton. But I completely agree with you. It is without a doubt the best one. I actually find the TWINE to be really good too. Sure it's the same orchestration as the TND one, but it's jazzed up a bit, which I like.

Kamen's is made the best because Barry established the normality. I think it's a bit disappointing he got samey in later years... the wailing guitars would have been handy for AVTAK, the snyths for TLD, et cetera. The YOLT one is very distinct, but typically it's the non-Barry composers who instantly allow you to identify the film as soon as the dots come up, which is the case with Martin, Conti, and Kamen (of the ones who use the proper cue).

Kamen's is so damn ominous though. Love it.

[Hockey Mask]

I guess that is how important it is.

Don't confuse important with divisive.

[Hockey Mask]

I guess that is how important it is.

Don't confuse important with divisive.

I wouldn't dream of it.

[Royal Dalton]

It's only been mentioned in one proper review, as far as I know, which suggests most non-Bond fanatics don't care or didn't even notice.

Not necessarily. They were asked not to reveal spoilers, remember.

[S K Y F A L L]

I can't wait to see the SF gun barrel now, sounds cool. Only 5 days to go and then 2 weeks longer for is North Americans. The gun barrel at the end is cool cause now there is something to see at the end of the film like when they had the titles to the next film.

[TheManwiththeWaltherPPK]

I'm going to blow some minds here, but I don't need the standard gun barrel or the gun barrel at all. I don't hate it but I think it's sometimes a clunky way to start the film. It ruins the suspense of actually seeing Bond by, well, actually seeing him. I now patiently wait for the torches and pitchforks.

I agree completely. If they have a better way of opening the film, then they should use it. What I am against is the use of the traditional gunbarrel as a standard ending for future Bond films just as a way to keep it in the series. The sequence, in regards to its pacing and composition, is designed as an opener. To me, based on Quantum of Solace, it doesn't seem to work well as an ending punctuation. I think the same will be true of Skyfall because, despite of all QoS's problems as a film, the current commitment to a deeper exploration of Bond's character will inevitably result in less simplistically happy endings. The jingoistic exclamation mark of the gunbarrel doesn't seem to fit such endings. I hope Mendes proves me wrong and the producers find good reasons to fit the gunbarrel in future films, but the last thing I want is tradition for the sake of tradition.

[TheManwiththeWaltherPPK]

I'm going to blow some minds here, but I don't need the standard gun barrel or the gun barrel at all. I don't hate it but I think it's sometimes a clunky way to start the film. It ruins the suspense of actually seeing Bond by, well, actually seeing him. I now patiently wait for the torches and pitchforks.

I agree completely. If they have a better way of opening the film, then they should use it. What I am against is the use of the traditional gunbarrel as a standard ending for future Bond films just as a way to keep it in the series. The sequence, in regards to its pacing and composition, is designed as an opener. To me, based on Quantum of Solace, it doesn't seem to work well as an ending punctuation. I think the same will be true of Skyfall because, despite of all QoS's problems as a film, the current commitment to a deeper exploration of Bond's character will probably continue to result in less simplistically happy endings. The jingoistic exclamation mark of the gunbarrel doesn't seem to fit such endings. I hope Mendes proves me wrong and the producers find good reasons to fit the gunbarrel in future films, but the last thing I want is tradition for the sake of tradition.

[jamie00007]

Also the person that said Skyfall will be a "proper Bond film" regardless of where the gunbarrel is placed! Try asking that seniors that are born from 1935-1941 and babybomers born in the 1950s. See what would they said about where the the gunbarrel is. Those that have seen most of the Bond movies and those that are also Bond fans. They might see it differentlly.

Anybody of any age who has such a shallow, childish and narrow-minded idea of James Bond that the placement of a ten second clip that has nothing to do with the movie itself is enough to determine whether something is a "proper Bond film" is somebody whose opinion on anything regarding Bond I'd find rather worthless, so instead of asking them about how they feel about the gunbarrel I'd be more inclined to suggest that they try to get out more.

[Armand Fancypants]

It ruins the suspense of actually seeing Bond by, well, actually seeing him.

Yes and no.

Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan all get rather nifty "first" introductions, and I don't think those were ruined by having the gunbarrel at the start. There is something undeniably iconic about that being the first time you ever see the character (certainly Moore's gunbarrel is a better intro than in bed with Miss Caruso... although being in bed is perhaps more appropriate for Rog).

I dunno, I found it defensible in CR and a really clever interpretation of the gunbarrel, but I think the justification for QoS and SF is rather silly. Still, this is now being described as a quasi-trilogy about Bond's origins, so perhaps this'll be the end of it.

[JimmyBond]

Before I say my piece, I realize I am as guilty of this as others:

This is a topic that is bringing up extreme views from both sides; things are being said that other's can't quite understand. The tone of some of these responses is starting to turn to a personal nature, so I suggest everyone (and I include myself) dial it back a bit. We can all say what we want to say without attacking the integrity of the person who is saying it.

[KM16]

There's one reason and one reason alone I don't like this being at the end of the movie; the majority of people are going to either 1) miss it or 2) be blocking my view of it. This happened during Quantum of Solace. As soon as the film started to fade to black on the necklace, everyone and their brother in my theater rose out of their seats and as soon as the theme and the dots appeared, I had to try and get a view through all the bodies because everyone had stood to leave. There's a reason the gunbarrel has been at the beginning for 44 years and 20/21 movies and placing it at the end just throws people off. There are a few things I expect from a Bond film. I expect it to open with the iconic gunbarrel (the one thing that absolutely ruined NSNA for me as a child was no gunbarrel and a bunch of crappy 007's), I expect there to be a main title sequence and I expect to hear the line... "Bond... James Bond." Those are staples that stick in people's minds when the series is brought up, and there's a reason for that. Not because it's overdone and over-played, but because people like them, it sticks and it works.

Granted, I respect people's opinions about how it can be changed, or how they could do with no gunbarrel at all, but we could sit here and argue about it all day but the bloody thing has been at the beginning of the films for all these years for a reason. The Bond films are not just regular action films, they're spectacles, motion picture events and what a way to open up an event than with the James Bond Theme at full volume and a giant gunbarrel in your face rather than a slow build and a fade in.

The gunbarrel is a major part of the James Bond mythos. There's a reason it's the 50'th anniversary logo and not just '007.' Music videos use it, the video games use it, even The Simpsons used it. I can't wait to see what it looks like and how it's used in Skyfall, and it won't detract from my viewing experience at all, but I'm still extremely bummed I've had to go 13 years without a 'proper' gunbarrel.

Edited by KM16, 22 October 2012 - 02:13 PM.

[FredJB007]

I must say, you have a well thought out and excellent argument for the beginning gun barrel. Bravo Sir! I was on the fence about this, but your reasoning has pushed me to the pro side.

[TheManwiththeWaltherPPK]

KM16, I can't disagree with you more. To me, those are the wrong things to be concerned about regarding a Bond film. They are extremely superficial concerns in my opinion. I hate formula for the sake of formula. What is more important to me is fidelity to the works of Fleming and an ability to capture the intangible essence of what made Bond exciting in the first place.. Things like the character of Bond himself, thrilling, imaginative plotlines, and memorable villains. The novels don't have the gunbarrel, pre-title sequences nor the formulaic use of lines like "Bond, James Bond" or "Shaken, Not Stirred" and they are equally Bondian and awesome. Why does a Bond film need such things to be awesome and Bondian?

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

KM16, I can't disagree with you more. To me, those are the wrong things to be concerned about regarding a Bond film. They are extremely superficial concerns in my opinion. I hate formula for the sake of formula. What is more important to me is fidelity to the works of Fleming and an ability to capture the intangible essence of what made Bond exciting in the first place.. Things like the character of Bond himself, thrilling, imaginative plotlines, and memorable villains. The novels don't have the gunbarrel, pre-title sequences nor the formulaic use of lines like "Bond, James Bond" or "Shaken, Not Stirred" and they are equally Bondian and awesome. Why does a Bond film need such things to be awesome and Bondian?

Because the Bond films are not a bloody photocopy of the novels, they're meant to be a visual attraction considering the 90% of the novels (well,actually depending on how faithfull the adaptation was). I can't explain you how bored I was of that dull "look here's the coast of Italy" opening of QOS that preceded the car crash Mr Forster so bloody filmed! Everytime I saw the Brosnan era films I went "Wow! Bond Is Here!!", and I'm not against Daniel on that, in fact, I think he deserves a classic Bond film with all the elements - that'll establish him EVEN more as 007! I'm tired of the "Bond becomes Bond" idea, it worked well in CR, but keeping it for three films (and I wonder how many more!) makes me run and kiss my GE, TND and TWINE DVDs!

[Twingolot]

Why not put the gunbarrel both at the beginning AND at the end?

Although I was disappointed not to see it at the beginning of QoS, I liked the way they used it at the end. I don't know if you noticed it, but in QoS Bond leaves the gunbarrel after his shot, just like he was moving to his next mission. Reminds me Dr No's end credits too.

Of course you can't finish every movie with the full Bond theme, but QoS didn't do it, after 1 min of Bond theme it moved to Crawl, End Crawl.

[JCRendle]

KM16, I can't disagree with you more. To me, those are the wrong things to be concerned about regarding a Bond film. They are extremely superficial concerns in my opinion. I hate formula for the sake of formula. What is more important to me is fidelity to the works of Fleming and an ability to capture the intangible essence of what made Bond exciting in the first place.. Things like the character of Bond himself, thrilling, imaginative plotlines, and memorable villains. The novels don't have the gunbarrel, pre-title sequences nor the formulaic use of lines like "Bond, James Bond" or "Shaken, Not Stirred" and they are equally Bondian and awesome. Why does a Bond film need such things to be awesome and Bondian?

Exactly, this is why I feel that the gunbarrel at the beginning is nice, preferable but not essential.

[Twingolot]

If I had to choose, I would prefer it at the beginning of course. One more point: the gunbarrel sequence was also a good way to settle the style of the compositor. And I am perfectly able to recognize which Bond movie it is just by hearing the first notes of the gunbarrel. Even OP and AVTAK sound a little different.

[Shrublands]

I can imagine them trying it with the gun barrel and trying it without it. But that ultimately, the makers of Skyfall felt that the film’s opening sequence worked better without the gun barrel.
The Bond music and that graphic create quite a strong atmosphere, perhaps that was too conflicting with the mood they needed to go into the first scene. By all accounts, the film is functioning properly - perhaps, just perhaps, they know what they are doing for the good of the film as a whole.

[TheManwiththeWaltherPPK]

KM16, I can't disagree with you more. To me, those are the wrong things to be concerned about regarding a Bond film. They are extremely superficial concerns in my opinion. I hate formula for the sake of formula. What is more important to me is fidelity to the works of Fleming and an ability to capture the intangible essence of what made Bond exciting in the first place.. Things like the character of Bond himself, thrilling, imaginative plotlines, and memorable villains. The novels don't have the gunbarrel, pre-title sequences nor the formulaic use of lines like "Bond, James Bond" or "Shaken, Not Stirred" and they are equally Bondian and awesome. Why does a Bond film need such things to be awesome and Bondian?

Because the Bond films are not a bloody photocopy of the novels, they're meant to be a visual attraction considering the 90% of the novels (well,actually depending on how faithfull the adaptation was). I can't explain you how bored I was of that dull "look here's the coast of Italy" opening of QOS that preceded the car crash Mr Forster so bloody filmed! Everytime I saw the Brosnan era films I went "Wow! Bond Is Here!!", and I'm not against Daniel on that, in fact, I think he deserves a classic Bond film with all the elements - that'll establish him EVEN more as 007! I'm tired of the "Bond becomes Bond" idea, it worked well in CR, but keeping it for three films (and I wonder how many more!) makes me run and kiss my GE, TND and TWINE DVDs!

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that what makes the films great is slavish adherrance to the novels. (although FRWL, TB, and OHMSS prove it helps greatly in making a great Bond movie) What I'm saying is that the uniqueness of Bond and the need for excitement and wish fulfillment that Bond movies satisfy goes much deeper than the wrapping on the package. CR would not haven been nearly as successful and beloved if Bond was about things like the gunbarrel, titles, and other formula elements. In CR, those elements were either abandoned or heavily modified. What CR does have in common with past great Bond films is an understanding of the character, an exciting Fleming plot, and a relatively memorable villain. The wrapping does not make the present good. And no offence, to your belief and opinions, but I hope EON never takes your complaints seriously. I don't think the Bond series could survive it. Few people cherish those TND and TWINE dvds as much as you and slavish attempts to deliver the things you value (formula, superficial "Bond" elements) over the things I value (respect for Fleming, characterization, and story) have always been what has brought the Bond series closest to extinction and irrelevance (TMWTGG, AVTAK, DAD).

Edited by TheManwiththeWaltherPPK, 22 October 2012 - 04:42 PM.

[KM16]

The films and the novels are a completely different series. Sure, they use the same character but they're two completely different beasts in their own rights. The novels have the dark, grim, natural tone that Fleming developed and the films have the high-driven action, humor and spectacle. The Bond film's certainly don't need the same, driven formula to be awesome and 'Bondian', nor did I say that every film should, in some sense, be a carbon copy, but going into a Bond film there are superficial things that I expect to see. Do those limit my enjoyment of the films? No. Do they enhance it? No. Does it give me a giant bloody smile on my face? Absolutely.

The use of the gunbarrel is hardly formula for the sake of formula, it's more along the fact it p*sses me off to no end that it's the 50'th anniversary of all things and they couldn't be bothered to just do it yet again for the sake of tradition. If Casino Royale and Quantum had taken out, say, the pre-title sequence, the main titles, even the gunbarrel, for the 50'th anniversary would I expect them back in their rightful places? Completely, 100%. It's a celebration, one that many, many, many film franchises will never see, so shouldn't they take complete advantage of that? Of course they should. Now am I saying they should go all out for the sake of formula and having Daniel Craig walk into an office and toss a hat onto a rack? No. I'm just saying the bare essentials should be there, in place, and seeing as the gunbarrel is easily the most recognizable image of the Bond film franchise... that's all I'm saying.

Formula for the sake of formula hardly involves the gunbarrel, that's more of a series tradition. If we wanted to talk formula, we could sit here all day and discuss how lazy the writing was during the Moore era and how films like You Only Live Twice and The Spy Who Loved Me are almost similar in plot, or how A View To A Kill stole a lot of ideas from Goldfinger, ect ect.
I don't think anyone here is seriously saying a Bond film would suck without the gunbarrel at the beginning or the main titles missing or any such thing. It would make a lot of people angry, sure, but it wouldn't hurt the films vision, story, or delivery. Obviously a James Bond movie needs a good story, the character of Bond has to be in check, there has to be a memorable villain, those are all givens and completely obvious as any action movie needs those elements for the film to work and on the Bond front, since Casino Royale, a respect for Fleming has already been established that I don't think any here thinks is going away anytime soon, so why not worry about the smaller things? Is the gunbarrel essential? Maybe not to you, but seeing as it's one of the most iconic elements of the franchise, it certainly is important. Seeing as this is a James Bond movie in the James Bond film series, there are certain things that fans and general movie-goers expect, the gunbarrel being one of them. It's like making a Batman film without some version of the Batmobile. Is it essential to creating a magnificent story? No. Do people expect it to be there? Absolutely. There are just certain things in a franchise I don't think people should tamper with. In the Bond franchise, the gunbarrel is one of them for me personally.

So, then if I went back and edited out the gunbarrel's or put them at the end of all the originals, Sean Connery, Roger Moore, ect... would it make those films any less great? No. Would it bother me to no end? Yes. Does a Bond film need the gunbarrel to work and be successful? No. Should it still be there? Yes. It's like the "Bond, James Bond" line. It wasn't voted one of the most memorable film lines for nothing, it's famous. So is the gunbarrel and they are staples of this franchise, no matter how old and tiresome it may become to some. It's just part of the package.

If the gunbarrel works better at the end of the film, then I'm all for it. But if it's just sloppily placed at the end like in Quantum of Solace, then no thanks. I appreciate the nod that "Bond is now the Bond you know and love" but we could've easily gotten that with some quip and James Bond theme again like at the end of Casino Royale rather than an ugly and horribly rendered gunbarrel that forges into the title of the film. It seemed rushed and out of place. But if it works for Skyfall, then by all means. I'm just saying, in my personal opinion, unless it benefits the story, it needs to be at the beginning.

Edited by KM16, 22 October 2012 - 05:04 PM.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

CR would not haven been nearly as successful and beloved if Bond was about things like the gunbarrel, titles, and other formula elements. In CR, those elements were either abandoned or heavily modified. What CR does have in common with past great Bond films is an understanding of the character, an exciting Fleming plot, and a relatively memorable villain. The wrapping does not make the present good.

I've never talked about CR. It was hard to learn that the barrel would be there after the B&W teaser and before the credits, but since I tought in the "Bond Becomes Bond" idea, I said, well, OK, you can do it as an exception this time, and it worked. But I was really pissed -even more pissed when MGW said it was going to be back into a "traditional style"- of of what they did in QOS, where we haven't even had a bloody explanation for the barrel closing the film (I remember Campbell talked about the gb twist for CR). And now, after four years of waiting for a great Bond film with the gunbarrel at the beginning, all I get is a great Bond film with the gunbarrel at the back, which makes me feel very disappointed and quite angry, because EON isn't respecting the traditionalist Bond fans.

Just imagine you were off to the teathre in 1969 to watch OHMSS, with a new Bond. And you see every element of the formula is missing or moved to another place. Can you imagine OHMSS with the gunbarrel at the end, right after Tracy's death? It makes me shrudder only thinking about it!

The use of the gunbarrel is hardly formula for the sake of formula, it's more along the fact it p*sses me off to no end that it's the 50'th anniversary of all things and they couldn't be bothered to just do it yet again for the sake of tradition. If Casino Royale and Quantum had taken out, say, the pre-title sequence, the main titles, even the gunbarrel, for the 50'th anniversary would I expect them back in their rightful places? Completely, 100%. It's a celebration, one that many, many, many film franchises will never see, so shouldn't they take complete advantage of that? Of course they should. Now am I saying they should go all out for the sake of formula and having Daniel Craig walk into an office and toss a hat onto a rack? No. I'm just saying the bare essentials should be there, in place, and seeing as the gunbarrel is easily the most recognizable image of the Bond film franchise... that's all I'm saying.

Exactly: I mean, what's next? moving the main titles to the end too? It was OK for CR, maybe with a blind eye I can say I can tolerate it for QOS, but not again here.