796 replies to this topic

[Glockenspiel]

Gunbarrel at the end confirmed ? I hope that is some kind of funny "embargo" for the press: "If somebody asks about the gunbarrel tell'em it's at the end and all the Bond fans will go nuts." Yes, and I'm one of them... Let's wait and see... Oh gosh...

Yes, I hope that too : a funny rumor... and finally, the gunbarrel at the very beginning of the film

[Jim]

They can afford to make hundreds of millions of dollars without it.

[JCRendle]

I consider myself a dedicated Bond fan, I've read all of the Fleming Bonds, I've read the non Flemings that I could get my hands on, I've seen all the Bond films, have them all on DVD, I spend a lot of free time on CBn, I've been to the Casino Royale premiere and I have my tickets for Skyfall.

I do not mind that the gunbarrel is not at the start. I did not mind that Felix Leiter was black, I did not mind that James Bond went from a 6'2" dark haired man to a 5'11" lighter haired man. I will go to Skyfall on the 26th and the fact that the gunbarrel doesn't open the film will not effect my enjoyment.

I have a few issues with Quantum of Solace, the gunbarrel placement isn't one of them.

[Vauxhall]

I consider myself a dedicated Bond fan, I've read all of the Fleming Bonds, I've read the non Flemings that I could get my hands on, I've seen all the Bond films, have them all on DVD, I spend a lot of free time on CBn, I've been to the Casino Royale premiere and I have my tickets for Skyfall.

I do not mind that the gunbarrel is not at the start. I did not mind that Felix Leiter was black, I did not mind that James Bond went from a 6'2" dark haired man to a 5'11" lighter haired man. I will go to Skyfall on the 26th and the fact that the gunbarrel doesn't open the film will not effect my enjoyment.

I have a few issues with Quantum of Solace, the gunbarrel placement isn't one of them.

Great post. I agree on every point. I didn't go to the CASINO ROYALE premiere though...

[Skudor]

I don't get why the gun barrel isn't at the start, but I don't particularly care either. It's not something that makes or breaks a movie.

[EyesOnly]

I don't get why the gun barrel isn't at the start, but I don't particularly care either. It's not something that makes or breaks a movie.

It would be interesting to know why the producers decided to place it at the end.

[levitator]

The position or design of the Gunbarrel will not have any issues how I will like Skyfall itself. It's just a tradition I grew up with for 30 years (I started beeing a bond fan in 1982 in the age of 12). 40 years of gunbarrel tradition within the franchise. A symbol and an icon everywhere connected with Bond (including most of the Skyfall posters, Bond 50 jubilee logo). It's part of the 007 receipe: Wodka Martini, Tuxedo, Walther, M, pre-title sequence, extraordinary title sequences, special car, special villain, special girls ;-) Can anybody imagine the Star Wars prequels starting without the Theme and the Space crawl ?! It's just about... tradition.

Edited by levitator, 15 October 2012 - 06:51 PM.

[clublos]

Maybe they could remove the gunbarrel sequence altogether and add Moby's Extreme Ways to the credits?

(Sorry if somebody already made this reference, I didn't feel like reading all the posts.)

[Red Barchetta]

Might as well give Bond a water pistol at this point- putting the gunbarrel sequence at the end is not nearly as exciting as seeing it at the very beginning- that's what draws you in to Bonds 'world'.

[TheManwiththeWaltherPPK]

While I can deal with it, I have to admit that having the traditional gunbarrel at the end makes no sense, no matter what meaning you allegedly give to it. The sequence is designed as an opener, not a closer. The dots and music establish an atmosphere of suspense and mystery, which in its climax shows the dangerous efficiency of Bond's character as he gets the assassin before the assassin can get him. All of this is designed to prepare the audience for a riveting tale of spy against spy - where danger lurks around every corner. All of the sequence's effectiveness is lost by putting it at the end of the film. Morever, the minor variation on the James Bond theme during the sequence helps establish each film's individual tone. All of this value is lost by putting it at the end of the film. It just becomes a relic, a tradition without a narrative or storytelling purpose.

Having the gunbarrel end the pre-title sequence in Casino Royale still serves these purposes. In fact, I would argue that the PTS is just an extended gunbarrel. It establishes the danger and brutality of Bond's profession and culminates in the suspenseful moment of him getting the other guy before he gets Bond.

To me, that is a more powerful argument for having the gunbarrel at the opening. Screw tradition for the sake of tradition - that is how we get movies like Die Another Day. Tradition is only so good as the purpose it serves remains. The gunbarrel became tradition because using it as the opening for Bond films was a very effective piece of filmmaking - it was a way of setting a tone and mood for the rest of the film.

[ggl]

The position or design of the Gunbarrel will not have any issues how I will like Skyfall itself. It's just a tradition I grew up with for 30 years (I started beeing a bond fan in 1982 in the age of 12). 40 years of gunbarrel tradition within the franchise. A symbol and an icon everywhere connected with Bond (including most of the Skyfall posters, Bond 50 jubilee logo). It's part of the 007 receipe: Wodka Martini, Tuxedo, Walther, M, pre-title sequence, extraordinary title sequences, special car, special villain, special girls ;-) Can anybody imagine the Star Wars prequels starting without the Theme and the Space crawl ?! It's just about... tradition.

Absolutely agree... (only I started as a fan in 85)

[Hockey Mask]

While I can deal with it, I have to admit that having the traditional gunbarrel at the end makes no sense, no matter what meaning you allegedly give to it. The sequence is designed as an opener, not a closer. The dots and music establish an atmosphere of suspense and mystery, which in its climax shows the dangerous efficiency of Bond's character as he gets the assassin before the assassin can get him. All of this is designed to prepare the audience for a riveting tale of spy against spy - where danger lurks around every corner. All of the sequence's effectiveness is lost by putting it at the end of the film. Morever, the minor variation on the James Bond theme during the sequence helps establish each film's individual tone. All of this value is lost by putting it at the end of the film. It just becomes a relic, a tradition without a narrative or storytelling purpose.

I think you have way overthought it. I could just as easily say it was the punctuation to the movie when it is at the end. It seems to be different things to different people which seems to indicate that the gunbarrel sequence is exactly that. It is something and nothing.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

If I go to a restaurant I'd hate being served an ice cream before a big dish of ravioli. That's what happens with the gunbarrel at the ing end! And for me, yes, it is MOST IMPORTANT to get it at the beginning.

When I was invited to play the N64 GoldenEye game it was the 1st thing I saw (the rendered gunbarrel animation). Then, when I watched the film on TV, I absolutely loved Pierce's barrel at the beginning.

A true gunbarrel is at the beginning. Otherwise, it's not a gunbarrel, it's just part of the credit design.

On the other hand, yes, i'd like that to be a misdirection joke from EON!

[TheManwiththeWaltherPPK]

While I can deal with it, I have to admit that having the traditional gunbarrel at the end makes no sense, no matter what meaning you allegedly give to it. The sequence is designed as an opener, not a closer. The dots and music establish an atmosphere of suspense and mystery, which in its climax shows the dangerous efficiency of Bond's character as he gets the assassin before the assassin can get him. All of this is designed to prepare the audience for a riveting tale of spy against spy - where danger lurks around every corner. All of the sequence's effectiveness is lost by putting it at the end of the film. Morever, the minor variation on the James Bond theme during the sequence helps establish each film's individual tone. All of this value is lost by putting it at the end of the film. It just becomes a relic, a tradition without a narrative or storytelling purpose.

I think you have way overthought it. I could just as easily say it was the punctuation to the movie when it is at the end. It seems to be different things to different people which seems to indicate that the gunbarrel sequence is exactly that. It is something and nothing.

Sorry, I can't disagree with you more. The very way the sequence is composed identifies it as a opener, not a closer. It starts with a black screen and builds from nothing to a suspenseful conclusion. That suspense is destroyed by having it at the of the film. The sequence is no longer building from nothing and instead loses much of its effectiveness. Instead, it attempts to go from the excitement of the film's climax and the satisfied feeling of the film's denouement back to nothing before building up again, which really doesn't work. If it was punctuation, it would build off of the film's ending, which it doesn't. It tries to go back to nothing and build from there. An example of a gunbarrel being used as punctuation is the Casino Royale PTS. The gunbarrel flows seemlessly from the rest of sequence, acting as a climax. Imagine if the dots tracing across the screen was shoved into that sequence right before the gunbarrel, it would destroy the tension.

[TheSilhouette]

With Quantum of Solace, I realized that I much preferred the gunbarrel at the end. The opening was so much more suspenseful and intense, and I feel that there are other opening sequences that would have been improved without the gunbarrel. It's a nice touch at the end and leads into the end credits very well.

[Hockey Mask]

While I can deal with it, I have to admit that having the traditional gunbarrel at the end makes no sense, no matter what meaning you allegedly give to it. The sequence is designed as an opener, not a closer. The dots and music establish an atmosphere of suspense and mystery, which in its climax shows the dangerous efficiency of Bond's character as he gets the assassin before the assassin can get him. All of this is designed to prepare the audience for a riveting tale of spy against spy - where danger lurks around every corner. All of the sequence's effectiveness is lost by putting it at the end of the film. Morever, the minor variation on the James Bond theme during the sequence helps establish each film's individual tone. All of this value is lost by putting it at the end of the film. It just becomes a relic, a tradition without a narrative or storytelling purpose.

I think you have way overthought it. I could just as easily say it was the punctuation to the movie when it is at the end. It seems to be different things to different people which seems to indicate that the gunbarrel sequence is exactly that. It is something and nothing.

Sorry, I can't disagree with you more. The very way the sequence is composed identifies it as a opener, not a closer. It starts with a black screen and builds from nothing to a suspenseful conclusion. That suspense is destroyed by having it at the of the film. The sequence is no longer building from nothing and instead loses much of its effectiveness. Instead, it attempts to go from the excitement of the film's climax and the satisfied feeling of the film's denouement back to nothing before building up again, which really doesn't work. If it was punctuation, it would build off of the film's ending, which it doesn't. It tries to go back to nothing and build from there. An example of a gunbarrel being used as punctuation is the Casino Royale PTS. The gunbarrel flows seemlessly from the rest of sequence, acting as a climax. Imagine if the dots tracing across the screen was shoved into that sequence right before the gunbarrel, it would destroy the tension.

I'm not sure if I would describe the very first gun barrel as having a "suspenseful conclusion" much less after 20+ movies. I always considered the gun barrel sequence on par with the beginning animated sequence in the Pink Panther movies. Now that I consider it the Pink Panther movies had variety, creativity and a "suspenseful conclusion".

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

While I can deal with it, I have to admit that having the traditional gunbarrel at the end makes no sense, no matter what meaning you allegedly give to it. The sequence is designed as an opener, not a closer. The dots and music establish an atmosphere of suspense and mystery, which in its climax shows the dangerous efficiency of Bond's character as he gets the assassin before the assassin can get him. All of this is designed to prepare the audience for a riveting tale of spy against spy - where danger lurks around every corner. All of the sequence's effectiveness is lost by putting it at the end of the film. Morever, the minor variation on the James Bond theme during the sequence helps establish each film's individual tone. All of this value is lost by putting it at the end of the film. It just becomes a relic, a tradition without a narrative or storytelling purpose.

I think you have way overthought it. I could just as easily say it was the punctuation to the movie when it is at the end. It seems to be different things to different people which seems to indicate that the gunbarrel sequence is exactly that. It is something and nothing.

Sorry, I can't disagree with you more. The very way the sequence is composed identifies it as a opener, not a closer. It starts with a black screen and builds from nothing to a suspenseful conclusion. That suspense is destroyed by having it at the of the film. The sequence is no longer building from nothing and instead loses much of its effectiveness. Instead, it attempts to go from the excitement of the film's climax and the satisfied feeling of the film's denouement back to nothing before building up again, which really doesn't work. If it was punctuation, it would build off of the film's ending, which it doesn't. It tries to go back to nothing and build from there. An example of a gunbarrel being used as punctuation is the Casino Royale PTS. The gunbarrel flows seemlessly from the rest of sequence, acting as a climax. Imagine if the dots tracing across the screen was shoved into that sequence right before the gunbarrel, it would destroy the tension.

Agreed. At the end it loses all its effect, and remember most people leave the theater at the end.

[Vauxhall]

I'm not sure it has a huge effect at the start for the average cinema-goer. For Bond aficionados, yes, sure, as we've all been waiting for the start of the film for 2/3/4 years. My friends honestly got a much bigger pay-off by having it as a triumphant epilogue to QUANTUM OF SOLACE. I think SKYFALL could have the same effect.

[Satorious]

Sure, some of us fans might work ourselves up in a lather about it. But I do believe the general audience and casual fans like it at the start also. I distinctly recall hearing a number of people around me in the audience questioning "so where is the gun-barrel" during the QOS opening. The reaction at the end was subdued to say the least. Conversely, I remember the audience cheering at the gun-barrel opening during GE. Other than a few people on these boards - I've never heard *anything* positive about the placement of QOS' gunbarrel from casual fans I've talked to, many said they didn't like it, it was too quick or that they couldn't even remember the film having one (at which point they generally start to pan the film in general). And I say all this as someone who quite likes QOS.

[Matt_13]

I'm not sure it has a huge effect at the start for the average cinema-goer. For Bond aficionados, yes, sure, as we've all been waiting for the start of the film for 2/3/4 years. My friends honestly got a much bigger pay-off by having it as a triumphant epilogue to QUANTUM OF SOLACE. I think SKYFALL could have the same effect.

I think it will, it's not a big deal anymore.

[Hockey Mask]

Sure, some of us fans might work ourselves up in a lather about it. But I do believe the general audience and casual fans like it at the start also. I distinctly recall hearing a number of people around me in the audience questioning "so where is the gun-barrel" during the QOS opening. The reaction at the end was subdued to say the least. Conversely, I remember the audience cheering at the gun-barrel opening during GE. Other than a few people on these boards - I've never heard *anything* positive about the placement of QOS' gunbarrel from casual fans I've talked to, many said they didn't like it, it was too quick or that they couldn't even remember the film having one (at which point they generally start to pan the film in general). And I say all this as someone who quite likes QOS.

I don't think the general audience or casual fan would know if it were supposed to be at the beginning, the ending, or even notice if it were missiing all together.

[Satorious]

Let's just get rid of it then. And the Bond theme. In fact why don't we just rename the James Bond character as well whilst we are at it. There - are we all happy now? Okay, so I am being flippant. But I think you do general/casual fans a big disservice there. If you held a general poll (ie. not on these boards as the result is naturally skewed) and you asked people if the gun-barrel should be at the start, end, middle or altogether removed in the film - I suspect I know what the outcome would be.

I wonder how people would react if we did away with pre-title sequences and lavish silhouetted main-title sequences also.

[Hockey Mask]

I think the general population wouldn't have a clue what you're talking about. I appreciate your enthusiasm. I like the gun barrel and hope it never leaves the franchise. I'm just asking that you gain some perspective.

Edited by 00Hockey Mask, 15 October 2012 - 10:48 PM.

[TheManwiththeWaltherPPK]

While I can deal with it, I have to admit that having the traditional gunbarrel at the end makes no sense, no matter what meaning you allegedly give to it. The sequence is designed as an opener, not a closer. The dots and music establish an atmosphere of suspense and mystery, which in its climax shows the dangerous efficiency of Bond's character as he gets the assassin before the assassin can get him. All of this is designed to prepare the audience for a riveting tale of spy against spy - where danger lurks around every corner. All of the sequence's effectiveness is lost by putting it at the end of the film. Morever, the minor variation on the James Bond theme during the sequence helps establish each film's individual tone. All of this value is lost by putting it at the end of the film. It just becomes a relic, a tradition without a narrative or storytelling purpose.

I think you have way overthought it. I could just as easily say it was the punctuation to the movie when it is at the end. It seems to be different things to different people which seems to indicate that the gunbarrel sequence is exactly that. It is something and nothing.

Sorry, I can't disagree with you more. The very way the sequence is composed identifies it as a opener, not a closer. It starts with a black screen and builds from nothing to a suspenseful conclusion. That suspense is destroyed by having it at the of the film. The sequence is no longer building from nothing and instead loses much of its effectiveness. Instead, it attempts to go from the excitement of the film's climax and the satisfied feeling of the film's denouement back to nothing before building up again, which really doesn't work. If it was punctuation, it would build off of the film's ending, which it doesn't. It tries to go back to nothing and build from there. An example of a gunbarrel being used as punctuation is the Casino Royale PTS. The gunbarrel flows seemlessly from the rest of sequence, acting as a climax. Imagine if the dots tracing across the screen was shoved into that sequence right before the gunbarrel, it would destroy the tension.

I'm not sure if I would describe the very first gun barrel as having a "suspenseful conclusion" much less after 20+ movies. I always considered the gun barrel sequence on par with the beginning animated sequence in the Pink Panther movies. Now that I consider it the Pink Panther movies had variety, creativity and a "suspenseful conclusion".

True, for most, it probably doesn't have the same effect anymore for anymore, but that doesn't change the fact that the sequence is designed as an opener. It may feel predictable, but it still feels "correct" at the start. Because of the way the sequence is designed, it feels awkward at the end of a film. That is moreso the point I am trying to make I think. It's not very effective ending "punctuation" because the sequence is not meant to play such a role. It's meant to build from nothing, to introduce. If Skyfall has such a great opening sequence and the gunbarrel isn't the best way to open the film, then maybe they should have gotten rid of it all together. Probably better than just tagging it on at the end for the sake of tradition and tradition alone.

[Satorious]

I will try to give it the benefit of the doubt, hopefully I'll be won over by the decision when I see SkyFall. I just don't expect to be. My perspective is really quite simple: I believe it works at the start of the film (it builds excitement and announces "this is a Bond film"), it doesn't work at the end for reasons I'm sure I've already covered in earlier posts. Some people don't have a problem with it's placement - and that's fine - in many ways I wish I didn't either. But surely isn't the point of a thread like this is to discuss why we feel like we do? It is one of the few constants I like to see in a Bond film.

[TheManwiththeWaltherPPK]

While I can deal with it, I have to admit that having the traditional gunbarrel at the end makes no sense, no matter what meaning you allegedly give to it. The sequence is designed as an opener, not a closer. The dots and music establish an atmosphere of suspense and mystery, which in its climax shows the dangerous efficiency of Bond's character as he gets the assassin before the assassin can get him. All of this is designed to prepare the audience for a riveting tale of spy against spy - where danger lurks around every corner. All of the sequence's effectiveness is lost by putting it at the end of the film. Morever, the minor variation on the James Bond theme during the sequence helps establish each film's individual tone. All of this value is lost by putting it at the end of the film. It just becomes a relic, a tradition without a narrative or storytelling purpose.

I think you have way overthought it. I could just as easily say it was the punctuation to the movie when it is at the end. It seems to be different things to different people which seems to indicate that the gunbarrel sequence is exactly that. It is something and nothing.

Sorry, I can't disagree with you more. The very way the sequence is composed identifies it as a opener, not a closer. It starts with a black screen and builds from nothing to a suspenseful conclusion. That suspense is destroyed by having it at the of the film. The sequence is no longer building from nothing and instead loses much of its effectiveness. Instead, it attempts to go from the excitement of the film's climax and the satisfied feeling of the film's denouement back to nothing before building up again, which really doesn't work. If it was punctuation, it would build off of the film's ending, which it doesn't. It tries to go back to nothing and build from there. An example of a gunbarrel being used as punctuation is the Casino Royale PTS. The gunbarrel flows seemlessly from the rest of sequence, acting as a climax. Imagine if the dots tracing across the screen was shoved into that sequence right before the gunbarrel, it would destroy the tension.

I'm not sure if I would describe the very first gun barrel as having a "suspenseful conclusion" much less after 20+ movies. I always considered the gun barrel sequence on par with the beginning animated sequence in the Pink Panther movies. Now that I consider it the Pink Panther movies had variety, creativity and a "suspenseful conclusion".

True, for most, it probably doesn't have the same effect anymore for anymore, but that doesn't change the fact that the sequence is designed as an opener. It stills sets a mood and builds anticipation. It may feel predictable, but it still feels "correct" at the start. I get the impression that many on these forums are not fans of Nolan' Batman films, but look at how the batsymbol at the start of the film sets the tone. You know it is coming, but it still draws the audience in. Because of the way the gunbarrel sequence is designed, it feels awkward at the end of a film. That is moreso the point I am trying to make I think. It's not very effective ending "punctuation" because the sequence is not meant to play such a role. It's meant to build from nothing, to introduce. If Skyfall has such a great opening sequence and the gunbarrel isn't the best way to open the film, then maybe they should have gotten rid of it all together. Probably better than just tagging it on at the end for the sake of tradition and tradition alone.

Oops. I hit the quote button instead of the edit button. Sorry.

Edited by TheManwiththeWaltherPPK, 15 October 2012 - 11:09 PM.

[Leon]

I will try to give it the benefit of the doubt, hopefully I'll be won over by the decision when I see SkyFall. I just don't expect to be. My perspective is really quite simple: I believe it works at the start of the film (it builds excitement and announces "this is a Bond film"), it doesn't work at the end for reasons I'm sure I've already covered in earlier posts. Some people don't have a problem with it's placement - and that's fine - in many ways I wish I didn't either. But surely isn't the point of a thread like this is to discuss why we feel like we do? It is one of the few constants I like to see in a Bond film.

Nicely said.

If it is just at the end of the film, for no real reason other than to repeat what they did in QoS, then it will bother me. It's always possible once the film's released to cut the gunbarrel sequence and paste it to the start of the film yourself for personal enjoyment If the music over the credits sucks too, just replace it with your own fine choice! Ah, technology.

[sharpshooter]

I’m not worked up, emotional or angry about the placement. I find myself embracing a particular era’s goals or tone. For example with Moore, I soak up the silliness and fun. The stuff people are embarrassed about with that era I lap up and accept. So I’m willing to roll with this ‘gun barrel at the end’ thing with the rebooted franchise.

It’s been said the gunbarrel has no point being at the end. Well, the sequence itself is an unrelated moment that takes place outside of the film’s reality that establishes a mood.

The start placement gets people excited, and the end placement has a ‘James Bond will return’ type celebratory feel. At the opposite end of the movie but comparable results. One segues into the PTS and one into the end credits.

If the gun barrel closed the film instead of opening it for 20 plus movies would we be critiquing the beginning placement? I’m not rubbishing the placement at the front at all, but the same argument can be made. I think there’s a trace of ‘what would it be like if we started out again like in 1962’, blended in with post modern touches which acknowledge the past at the same time.

At the end of the day, the moment is in the movie and hasn’t been deleted. I think this will become an ongoing trademark of the rebooted franchise.

[Vauxhall]

If the gun barrel closed the film instead of opening it for 20 plus movies would we be critiquing the beginning placement?

Very good point. The reverse arguments would absolutely be flowing. It's just the feeling of change that is obviously hard to take at first, but I think it will naturally become accepted once we have four Craig movies in the can with the gunbarrel at the end. (Then we can go back to moaning about CASINO ROYALE's gunbarrel, plus DIE ANOTHER DAY's for good measure.)

I'll be more annoyed if we end up with a sequence of gunbarrels for Craig's five movies where we have one leading into the titles, one at the end, another at the end, one at the beginning and then one in the middle of a particularly triumphant love-making scene for BOND 25. I wouldn't endorse that necessarily.

[jamie00007]

Im beginning to be more intrigued by what they've got planned with it than I am disappointed by its placement. Im really starting to get the feeling that its not just whacked on the end ala QoS. Someone on the IMDB tweeted one of the reviewers who've seen the film in regards to the gunbarrel who replied that he didnt want to give it away because it tied into the story...

Thinking aloud here... what if the movie ended as though it was the beginning of a Bond adventure.. Maybe a new M in a familiar wooden office with a familiar secretary..gives Bond a mission (perhaps in Jamaica??).. cue the gunbarrel and the credits in a Dr No inspired credit sequence... Just some wild speculation lol. Great way to celebrate the 50th.

Edited by jamie00007, 16 October 2012 - 01:15 AM.