796 replies to this topic

[Melancholy Productions]

This was a thread title that was strangely filled with premonition. The fact that it's come true is scary. Yeah, put the gunbarrel back at the start please. There's nothing quite like that moment of sitting in the theatre; the big loud Bond theme blaring from the speakers, while a white dot travels across the screen...

[S K Y F A L L]

I'll give SF the benefit of the doubt and wait to see it before I start trashing the gun barrel placement. Its just brings back bad memories of QOS but at the moment I'm overwhelmed by the great reviews.

[JimmyBond]

While I am disappointed at the lack of gunbarrel this time around. Especially since I was so sure it would be back at the front. I actually find the lack of gunbarrel in QoS to be a blessing. When the Columbia logo opens up with David Arnold's score playing, it really gets the hairs on the back of my next tingling. I think it works in that regard.

And if we get the Columbia logo with a bit of Newman music playing that will hopefully evoke the mood for the film, then I'm all for that.

[Matt_13]

See, that's what I loved about there not being a gunbarrel at the start of Quantum. Time to Get Out was a great way to start the film. Immediately evoking a sense of threat and atmosphere, even with the studio logos on screen. This is just how things are now. Something old, something new.

[S K Y F A L L]

No word about if "James Bond Will Return", perhaps the gun barrel has replace it?....

[sharpshooter]

This is just how things are now. Something old, something new.

Yeah, as I said on the other page, I think the gun barrel placement before the credits will become the new modus operandi from now on. For this series of films at least.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

I'd rather not have it at all than be reminded of it in the wrong place (and throughout the advertising campaign).

[Dustin]

So I assume the gunbarrel is still out of place? Wouldn't have thought it...

[00Twelve]

To the original poster: No.

You're definitely not the only person who misses the gunbarrel at the very beginning. Not if 4 pages worth of the review thread has anything to say about it.

[sharpshooter]

I wonder if there’s another title card after the gun barrel, ala QoS?

[TheManwiththeWaltherPPK]

I really hope not. It's so redundant. Bond films have the big opening credit sequence for a reason. We don't need to see the title at the end. I wonder if it is just a lame attempt by the producers to copy Chris Nolan's formula of ending with the title card, which makes sense for his films because he doesn't have an opening title sequence. With Bond not so much. It's also rather ironic that Nolan may have influenced EON to change its formula because Nolan is a huge Bond fan who plunders the Bond series for inspiration. His Batman films quite openly copy the Bond series' use of the gunbarrel and pre-title action sequences to open a film. (Each film opens with the same opening theme and the appearance of the Batsymbol, only to be followed by a self-contained opening action sequence)

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

So I assume the gunbarrel is still out of place? Wouldn't have thought it...

It might as well be how things are from now on. At least the gunbarrel does not appear randomly at the middle of the film!

[Satorious]

I love the black screen tension just a few seconds before those dots and the latest rendition of the theme about to blare out through the cinema sound system. The thought that "this Bond film might be the one!"

I really miss the iris expanding into the first opening shot of the movie. Something you can't do when you put it at the end of the movie.

EON can we please return it back to the rightful place, as putting it at the end makes it complete rundundant? Enough arty-farty tinkering already! Give people what they want and as Cubby also said "Don't screw it up!".

[extremedalek]

I've slept on this knowledge and feel a little better about it. Sure, I'm disappointed, bit I'm going to wait until I see the gunbarrel in context in its placement within the film - it may work perfectly.

I think the burning question now is, what type of gunbarrel is it? 62-89? 95-02? CR? QoS? Something altogether new? Enquiring minds need to know.

[JCRendle]

[rant]I must say that this is starting to get petty, does the placement of the gunbarrel really change your views of the rest of the film?

Yes, I'd like the gunbarrel to open the film, but it being placed at the end shouldn't effect your enjoyment of the film as a whole.

When I saw QoS, I didn't spend the whole film worrying that there was no gunbarrel (until the end), and I won't with Skyfall.

Look at all the reviews, a lot of the reviewers are self confessed Bond fans, but how many mentions are there of the gunbarrel at all? 2 or 3 and they were just passing comments - by all accounts Skyfall is one of the best Bond films regardless of where the gunbarrel is placed - this is what we should be thinking about, looking forward to and celebrating.
[/rant]

[tuttle300]

At the end of the day I would have to admit that the gunbarrel is a significant signature piece of "The brand" we know as the Bond franchise and yet if the director feels it doesn't need to be there- and it works for his vision- I'm fine

I was actually worried that during the opening sequence of Casino Royale there would be a significant amount of negative press over the fact that the first ten minutes or so were in black and white..... now while i do not mind black and white films the studios are deathly afraid of even a portion of a film being in black and white becauise its a general turn off to the mainstream out there ( one of the rare examples I can think of is Schindler's List but it worked beautifully)

I just want to a good story on that 40 foot screen
Capture my attention but also - I feel- bend the traditions a bit to keep it interesting so that it doesn't get stale , or worse, turn into a groaner moment
( like the few times in the Roger Moore era when during a car chase some person or some animal would be shown doing a double take)

Other than that I am wide open to change
Change is a part of life and if they can keep the character interesting after 50 years- and it would seem from early reviews that they have- I am all for it

[Satorious]

Obviously the film is the most important aspect!

But I still hate all this needless arsing around with the gun-barrel for no real purpose. As I stated above - it takes away something away from the build-up of the film for me personally. I'd even rather have another of those crappy CGI bullets flying towards the screen at the start of the film than see it at the end again - that's how strongly I feel about it. I can distinctly remember people standing up to leave the cinema during QOS at the end, thinking it was the end and not knowing about the gun-barrel. This in itself irked me immensely, I didn't need to see silhouetted obstacles at such an iconic moment (which actually turned out to be pretty rubbish anyway in that particular case). Put it back at the start please - that's what this particular thread is all about...

[tuttle300]

Not to get too far off topic but I think this is within the boundries of discussion as to just how much "change" the average consumer will tolerate- my only true complaint with films in general is this need for the director to place an extra little moment at the very end of the credits. Most people head for their cars after the credits roll

My usual "need" for a film is that they need to have the entire tale between the credits
And yes, the Bond films for the most part have had the opening scenes play before the credits so thats a staple thats a part of the franchise but I hate it when a few films place a small minute or two scene at the very end

Having to wait through the end credits JUST to see an extra minute of the story is expecting too much from the average fan

In my opinion

[Double-0-Seven]

Even though it's really not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, nothing beats sitting in the theater and hearing the gun barrel blaring. It's so unique and iconic for the series. It's weird, I didn't miss it in Casino Royale and thought that its use in that film was brilliant for a little change. However, for Quantum I did kind of miss it at the beginning. I just don't see the use of putting it at the end. In one sense it doesn't make a difference, but that's kind of the point. It makes so little difference that they might as well put it where it belongs.

To be fair, maybe since its the 50th they thought putting at the end would be a way of making things come full circle. Kind of like it began with the gun barrel in Dr. No and at the end of fifty years we're going to end with the gun barrel.

Still, with all the talk of "Bond with a capital B" and this being Craig's first "proper" Bond film, it'll be kind of unusual not having a "proper" opening. Oh well.

[PeteNeon]

I really hope it doesn't mean another "Bond is back" moment at the end. I expect it probably will be like that, with "proper" Bond "realigned and refocused for the next 50 years."

The gunbarrel apparently resembles the QOS one, so I quite like the fact they have sort of started a new tradition, with a similar barrel at the end of two successive films. Would still prefer it at the start though.

Edited by PeteNeon, 13 October 2012 - 06:03 PM.

[# 11]

If true, I'm just so gutted about the producers for handling a legacy.

[A Kristatos]

Obviously the film is the most important aspect!

But I still hate all this needless arsing around with the gun-barrel for no real purpose. As I stated above - it takes away something away from the build-up of the film for me personally. I'd even rather have another of those crappy CGI bullets flying towards the screen at the start of the film than see it at the end again - that's how strongly I feel about it. I can distinctly remember people standing up to leave the cinema during QOS at the end, thinking it was the end and not knowing about the gun-barrel. This in itself irked me immensely, I didn't need to see silhouetted obstacles at such an iconic moment (which actually turned out to be pretty rubbish anyway in that particular case). Put it back at the start please - that's what this particular thread is all about...

Thank you! I feel the same way. I'm more upset at the people who think "change just for the sake of change" is a good thing, and at people who think those of us who are imploring the producers to put gunbarrel back in its rightful place don't care about the movie! Nothing can be further from the truth!

Of course the quality of the film is the most important thing, and I will not stiff "Skyfall" if the gunbarrel is out of place. If it is as great a film as some already are saying it is, I will rank "Skyfall" as one of the best, gunbarrel or not. That said though, you never EVER make a change just for the sake of change or for the sake of "being different". The only time a change should ever be made is if something is broken, or the need on a rare occasion necessitates a temporary change. Obviously nothing was broken over the years in regards to the placement of the gunbarrel. But with CR being the Bond reboot, I totally went along with this one time change based on it being necessary in regards to the reboot. And while I somewhat disliked the gunbarrel being banished to the end of QOS, I can see why it was placed there as this was the second of a two part story arc that, tied together with CR, showed how Bond became the Bond we all know. So even though they still could have easily placed the gunbarrel at the beginning of QOS, I can still somewhat see why they did this here. But I don't care if they continue the "Bond is still coming into his own" theme in "Skyfall". There is absolutely no reason why the gunbarrel sequence should not be put back in its rightful place at the beginning of the film! Even if the producers want to continue this "tradition" in order to separate this series of films with the earlier ones, well maybe they should come up with a new Bond theme as well. Why are all the other trappings of the old series of films still be used then?

Let's hope the producers hear all of the complaints from Bond fans between now and the official release date of this movie. There still is time for them to edit the film and move the gunbarrel back to the beginning where it belongs!

Edited by A Kristatos, 14 October 2012 - 04:18 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

In the first 20 Bond films the gun barrel was something of a starter pistol for the story. It was meant to be a sign: Folks, get ready, this is a James Bond film.

In CASINO ROYALE the gun barrel was considered to be so important that they even explained its idea in the pre-title-sequence. That worked brilliantly for me, even if it was not positioned at the beginning of the film. The pre-title-sequence was telling the story of how James Bond became 007. How could the gun barrel have come before that? Impossible. It was exactly the right choice to put it where it was.

In QUANTUM OF SOLACE having the gun barrel not open the film was logical for me since the whole film was a direct sequel to the CR, not a new story but a continuation. And since Bond at the end had found his solace and was ready to move on, the gun barrel was put at the end because it signified: Now, Bond really has become Bond.

That´s why I expected SKYFALL to start with the gun barrel - a new story, with Bond being Bond, just as things were in the first 20 films. Putting the gun barrel at the end again puzzles me: Is Bond still not Bond? It appears that he is struggling to get back to form. Was it impossible to start the film with the gun barrel then? Does it still make sense?

Maybe this way: instead of telling audiences at the beginning "PAY ATTENTION - A BOND FILM IS STARTING!" the new idea is to re-assure people at the end "WHAT EVER HAPPENED, BOND IS STILL BOND, DON`T WORRY!"

I know I´m winging it... am I?

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

The gunbarrel apparently resembles the QOS one, so I quite like the fact they have sort of started a new tradition, with a similar barrel at the end of two successive films. Would still prefer it at the start though.

My thoughts exactly. To me usage of the Bond Theme in appropriate places is more important than having the gunbarrel in the beginning - if it now concludes the films I'm fine with that and as time passes it will be accepted.

[Hockey Mask]

I couldn't care less wgere they put the gun barrel. They can hide it is the movie and make it a Where;s Waldo game for all I care. If I need the gun barrell at the start I can pop in 20 other movies and see it.

[Dustin]

Actually I'm rather fond of the idea to have it at the end. Look at it this way: there are a few hundred people and companies involved in the production of a Bond film, all of them appearing in the credits today; which turned that part of a contemporary film easily into the longest sequence without cuts. But hardly anybody is really paying attention to the names of the 16th gaffer and the 12th lights/electrics guy. With the gunbarrel backing them up these hard-working people get at least a little attention for their efforts, splendid.

[A Kristatos]

In the first 20 Bond films the gun barrel was something of a starter pistol for the story. It was meant to be a sign: Folks, get ready, this is a James Bond film.

In CASINO ROYALE the gun barrel was considered to be so important that they even explained its idea in the pre-title-sequence. That worked brilliantly for me, even if it was not positioned at the beginning of the film. The pre-title-sequence was telling the story of how James Bond became 007. How could the gun barrel have come before that? Impossible. It was exactly the right choice to put it where it was.

In QUANTUM OF SOLACE having the gun barrel not open the film was logical for me since the whole film was a direct sequel to the CR, not a new story but a continuation. And since Bond at the end had found his solace and was ready to move on, the gun barrel was put at the end because it signified: Now, Bond really has become Bond.

That´s why I expected SKYFALL to start with the gun barrel - a new story, with Bond being Bond, just as things were in the first 20 films. Putting the gun barrel at the end again puzzles me: Is Bond still not Bond? It appears that he is struggling to get back to form. Was it impossible to start the film with the gun barrel then? Does it still make sense?

Maybe this way: instead of telling audiences at the beginning "PAY ATTENTION - A BOND FILM IS STARTING!" the new idea is to re-assure people at the end "WHAT EVER HAPPENED, BOND IS STILL BOND, DON`T WORRY!"

I know I´m winging it... am I?

Very well said SAF! The only reason I can think of why they are puttiing the gunbarrel at the end is because this is a Bond in an "alternative universe" and/or in a different timeline. But even that is a big stretch IMO.

Actually I'm rather fond of the idea to have it at the end. Look at it this way: there are a few hundred people and companies involved in the production of a Bond film, all of them appearing in the credits today; which turned that part of a contemporary film easily into the longest sequence without cuts. But hardly anybody is really paying attention to the names of the 16th gaffer and the 12th lights/electrics guy. With the gunbarrel backing them up these hard-working people get at least a little attention for their efforts, splendid.

That's a REAL stretch, but you are welcome to your opinion.

[Red Barchetta]

My take is EON should always have the traditional gunbarrel opening in the film- the opening notes and Bond walking on screen for 'the shot' immediately lets the viewer know this is a BOND film, as it moves into the opening scene. My 2cc's.

[tdalton]

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other where they put the gun barrel, or if they even include it at all. Every so often the sequence goes above and beyond to set some kind of tone for the film (Licence to Kill and GoldenEye come to mind), but most often its just a bit of filler that doesn't really add or detract from the overall film.

[DamnCoffee]

You know what, sod it. I'm actually getting used to the Gunbarrel Sequence being at the end again for Skyfall. I was genuinely very annoyed when I first heard about it. What life lesson is Bond learning this time? Skyfall is Bond with a capital B apparently. The more I think about it, the more I think that it makes sense. I totally get it. At the end of Skyfall we'll have a new Q, M and Moneypenny established. It's pretty obvious that Fiennes is replacing Dench, and Naomi Harris is Moneypenny. This also marks the end of the first 50 years of James Bond. It's closing the movie as well as the first half century. It began with Dr No, and it ends with Skyfall. I can't say i'm positive that it will open BOND 24, because I was genuinely expecting it to open Skyfall, but who knows. Looking forward to seeing it in the cinema.

Edited by DamnCoffee, 14 October 2012 - 07:02 PM.