796 replies to this topic

[S K Y F A L L]

I'm almost completely turned around on the gun barrel placement since all the great SF reviews. Craig's films will just have their own style and perhaps they'll return to the start of the film for the next Bond but I don't think I'll be expecting it for Bond 24 or Bond 25. Since they know longer have the title of the next Bond film to put at the end this is kind of a neat alternative.

[Shaun Forever]

I am absolutely fuming about it, why can they not just leave things alone?


How long before it's removed altogether?


Really, really, REALLY disappointed by this.


Tradition has once again, gone out of the window.


I'm off to pick a fight with a fence.

[Satorious]

I'll give it the benefit of the doubt until I've seen the film and yes, the overall quality of the film *is* more important. But I will still be walking in believing this is a frankly stupid idea! And unlike so many here - the gun-barrel is a HUGE deal to me. It's what seperates a Bond film from the likes of any other generic spy-thriller - including the likes of Never Say Never Again. I've not read ONE convincing argument as to why it shouldn't be at the end or in the middle or whatever this time. But I've heard several good arguments as to why it should be back at the start. I honestly see no logical reason for it's placement anywhere other than the start after the CR/QOS story is done. It didn't work in QOS. I suspect it won't work in SF. The fact this happens on the 50th Anniversary seems a particular kick in the teeth...

[S K Y F A L L]

Are there, "Bond Shot First" t-shirts yet?

[thecasinoroyale]

I'll wait until I see the film but I too am annoyed it's not at the beginning - just a boring fade in/wipe to start the film? Not really a big Bond introduction is it?

[Shaun Forever]

Horrified, to think people probably sat around in some sort of board room, and all agreed that this was a good idea.

[DamnCoffee]

I've heard from a few people that there is something else at the start of the movie. No one will tell what it is though. Maybe Bond walking without the gunbarrel? I dunno. Really interested to see what's replaced it.

Edited by DamnCoffee, 14 October 2012 - 07:46 PM.

[thecasinoroyale]

Ooh..well that's certainly a nice tease! Nice one DC....actually annoyed it seems like forever to see this now, and this "something else"....hurry up!!

[Shaun Forever]

Can someone re-edit the title of this thread to 'Am I the only one that misses James Bond'


However, what DamnCoffee has posted, has made me feel a bit easier, but I'm still gutted (as you probably are all aware).

[JCRendle]

Can someone re-edit the title of this thread to 'Am I the only one that misses James Bond'

My eyes roll

[Shaun Forever]

I know I know, but the news really has turned my Sunday sour.

[Matt_13]

I've heard from a few people that there is something else at the start of the movie. No one will tell what it is though. Maybe Bond walking without the gunbarrel? I dunno. Really interested to see what's replaced it.

It would be cool if they dreamed up a new form of iconography to start the films, while capping them with the traditional gunbarrel. Something new is always welcome.

[Dustin]

I know I know, but the news really has turned my Sunday sour.

Suppose you are stuck in the traffic and make it to the cinema just in time to hear the shot, but you don't actually see the gunbarrel. Would you turn around and drive home again?

[JCRendle]

Suppose you are stuck in the traffic and make it to the cinema just in time to hear the shot, but you don't actually see the gunbarrel. Would you turn around and drive home again?

Stuck in traffic? We're Bond fans! We will leave for the cinema over an hour early incase such an occurrence should take place!! Even me, who's local cinema is about 10 paces outside my front door!

[Leon]

Eugh. I could try and construct enough reasons as to why I might enjoy seeing the gunbarrel out of place again, but I can't be bothered. I was excited, fully expecting to see a proper, classic gunbarrel opening for once with Daniel Craig.

I am getting pretty bored with all of this faux artsy BS they seem to be trying to pull with elements such as the gunbarrel. Why not just have Craig Bond order yet another Vesper martini, once again having the full recipe dictated to the audience. Why can't they seemingly get over themselves on this messing with the gunbarrel malarkey? It was cute in CR, one film, as it was the reboot. Now it seems like they are trying to reboot every film, constantly re-using already tired gimmicks. I figured Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig would have known better, especially given the 'Bond with a capital B' statement after the mess that was QoS.

[seawolfnyy]

Honestly, I don't care either way on the gunbarrel. I do find it odd that Blood Stone had one made and then deleted. Anyone know why that was?

[Zographos]

This thread is embarrassing. Who cares?

Bond is about rampant cool, but too many fans treat the series like a teddy bear or breakfast cereal from their childhood. In a few weeks you'll be watching two-and-a-half hours of gratuitous sex and violence and instead you're wondering why mom threw out Mr. Hugglesworth.

[Satorious]

Suppose you are stuck in the traffic and make it to the cinema just in time to hear the shot, but you don't actually see the gunbarrel. Would you turn around and drive home again?

I'd be more annoyed at myself for being late! However if I knew I was definitely late going in - I'd rather miss the showing and catch the next one! Honestly - I really would. Part of it is the anticipation of waiting for a gun-barrel and the film to start. A new take on the Bond theme, obviously a new Bond film, possibly even a new gun-barrel sequence itself. It sets the atmosphere up brilliantly - lots of excitement - something a regular "opening shot" just doesn't do...

[JimmyBond]

- something a regular "opening shot" just doesn't do...

I'm gonna disagree with you there. The opening of QoS is extrememly memorable. When the Columbia logo pops up onscreen to Arnold's opening chords of "Time to Get Out" then cut to the tracking shot over lake Como. It sets up the mood just as good (maybe even better) than a gunbarrel could have done.

[Vauxhall]

- something a regular "opening shot" just doesn't do...

I'm gonna disagree with you there. The opening of QoS is extrememly memorable. When the Columbia logo pops up onscreen to Arnold's opening chords of "Time to Get Out" then cut to the tracking shot over lake Como. It sets up the mood just as good (maybe even better) than a gunbarrel could have done.

Agreed, and it's possible we could get a similarly spectacular opening shot for SKYFALL - Istanbul's incredible skyline into Bond emerging from the hotel corridor shadows.

[Leon]

This thread is embarrassing. Who cares?

Quite a lot of people it seems.

First the gunbarrel will become a permenantly moved feature - at the end. Then one film some director will get rid of it, as it will have become a lesser element. Then eventually the same will happen with the signature 007 title sequence and song, then the destruction of the greatest surviving film series in history will be near completion. A Bond film will just be a Bourne film or whatever the latest fashion is then. These things happen bit by bit. You can argue that the quality of the film is more important, and you'd be totally right, of course, but that argument displays another problem. If they were, eventually, over time, to strip Bond films of their crown jewels, all it would take is for a bad director or two/a bad Bond movie or two for it all to just become part of the same generic action thrillers of the time.

It's more 'embarrassing' that the filmmakers seem intent on continuing this weird gimmick of screwing with a classic formula that's been working great for many decades. There's no real 'artistic' reason to have the gunbarrel at the end of Skyfall.. it was already at the end of Quantum of Solace. What could it possibly signify just doing that again, other than wishing to scrap the gunbarrel from the opening of the movie. Why? People seem very tetchy that this is making some Bond fans a bit annoyed, but why is that surprising? And why shouldn't it? What reason can anyone give for not having the gunbarrel as it always has been?

It's even what the fans clearly have been asking for for a good while too, it's almost as if tyhey have tacked the gunbarrel sequence into the end of the film for these preview showings just to dissappoint a load of fans, then when they see the film when it's released it'll be in the right place. That would be hilarious, but I doubt it, they are enjoying this lack of a gunbarrel gimmick for whatever pointless reason.

A Bond film punches you in the face with an opening that no other film has, has ever had or ever will have. Why trash such a unique jewel in a classic movie franchise? Nobody cares about the gunbarrel if it's at the end, I remember most of the audience started standing up to leave as the QoS gunbarrel was still playing. It had no impact.

- something a regular "opening shot" just doesn't do...

I'm gonna disagree with you there. The opening of QoS is extrememly memorable. When the Columbia logo pops up onscreen to Arnold's opening chords of "Time to Get Out" then cut to the tracking shot over lake Como. It sets up the mood just as good (maybe even better) than a gunbarrel could have done.

I thought I was watching another Nolan movie when I saw the opening of QoS - right down to the score. Not memorable at all, just generic suspense building 101 for contemporary movie-makers.

[Matt_13]

Like I said, the gunbarrel has been a staple of the franchise for 50 years. I think it's time they created something new.

[JimmyBond]

- something a regular "opening shot" just doesn't do...

I'm gonna disagree with you there. The opening of QoS is extrememly memorable. When the Columbia logo pops up onscreen to Arnold's opening chords of "Time to Get Out" then cut to the tracking shot over lake Como. It sets up the mood just as good (maybe even better) than a gunbarrel could have done.

I thought I was watching another Nolan movie when I saw the opening of QoS. Not memorable at all, just generic suspense building 101 for contemporary movie-makers.

Didn't take long for someone to pop in the Nolan comment. Quicker than I thought though.

Edited by JimmyBond, 14 October 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[Leon]

That's just because it's true, Jimmy

By the way - didn't Cubby specifically tell Barbara Broccoli NEVER to allow anyone to change the formula? She has said in interviews many times, I am sure, that she swore never to mess with the Bond standards, only the actors and styles. I always took the gunbarrel, along with the pre-title sequence/titles with song etc to be part of that.

[Vauxhall]

I'm not sure there's anything to suggest that the gunbarrel is at the end of SKYFALL for artistic purposes. I think the producers might just like it there, and it will remain there for rebooted Bond.

Admittedly, there was no need to move it in the first place, but if anything, I have more issues with the gunbarrels for DIE ANOTHER DAY and CASINO ROYALE, than QUANTUM OF SOLACE and SKYFALL.

[TheManwiththeWaltherPPK]

- something a regular "opening shot" just doesn't do...

I'm gonna disagree with you there. The opening of QoS is extrememly memorable. When the Columbia logo pops up onscreen to Arnold's opening chords of "Time to Get Out" then cut to the tracking shot over lake Como. It sets up the mood just as good (maybe even better) than a gunbarrel could have done.

I thought I was watching another Nolan movie when I saw the opening of QoS. Not memorable at all, just generic suspense building 101 for contemporary movie-makers.

Didn't take long for someone to pop in the Nolan comment. Quicker than I thought though.

The comment about the lack of gunbarrel making the opening of QOS generic and Nolan-esque is hilariously ironic, considering that the opening of Nolan's Batman films are the closest thing to the traditional gunbarrel/PTS formula currently in use. Each film opens with the same opening theme melody while a short sequence involving the main character's iconic symbol plays. After that, the film launches into a self-contained action sequence that rewards the audience with eye candy before launching into the film's story proper. Sound familiar?

[x007AceOfSpades]

Honestly, I don't care either way on the gunbarrel. I do find it odd that Blood Stone had one made and then deleted. Anyone know why that was?

It's in there, once you beat the game on the hardest difficulty, I believe either before or after the credits the gunbarrel plays.

[Leon]

Honestly, I don't care either way on the gunbarrel. I do find it odd that Blood Stone had one made and then deleted. Anyone know why that was?

It's in there, once you beat the game on the hardest difficulty, I believe either before or after the credits the gunbarrel plays.

Being rewarded with bonuses in games is essential, but I really hate it when computer games force you to earn things that should be basic elements of what you've already paid a lot of money for. The only thing worse is when you decide you just want to mess about on a level, but as soon as you do something not in the game's stupid little linear program it freezes you and says 'mission failed!'. No. Game failed. Failed to be fun.

[Zographos]

If they were, eventually, over time, to strip Bond films of their crown jewels, all it would take is for a bad director or two/a bad Bond movie or two for it all to just become part of the same generic action thrillers of the time.

Whereas, presumably (if I'm understanding this correctly), bad direction and bad Bond movies are forgivable if they're papered over with formula.

This is precisely the logic that I'm happy is being discarded.

[tdalton]

If they were, eventually, over time, to strip Bond films of their crown jewels, all it would take is for a bad director or two/a bad Bond movie or two for it all to just become part of the same generic action thrillers of the time.

Whereas, presumably (if I'm understanding this correctly), bad direction and bad Bond movies are forgivable if they're papered over with formula.

This is precisely the logic that I'm happy is being discarded.

So am I.

A string of bad films will sink the Bond franchise infinitely quicker than a string of films with the gunbarrel in a place other than the beginning of the film. As long as the film is great, that's all that matters. I'd rather see a terrific film featuring the Bond character with none of the trappings of the first 20 films than a mediocre to bad film that checks off everything on the formula's checklist. I'll take that 10 times out of 10.