796 replies to this topic

[Vauxhall]

Now, that's interesting if it really is tied into the story in some way. That's the first I've heard of it, but certainly could be. I think a DR NO type gunbarrel would appease some people, but it's the Jamaica line that's really grabbed me. That would be quite smart, and a subtle enough reference. No need to do anything hugely obvious such as "There's a chap called Dr Julius No who's up to no good. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink..."

[Single-O-Seven]

I suggested something similar earlier in the thread, wherein the gun barrel closes the film and goes into a vibrant and flashy series of end credits done as homage to the opening of Dr No (similar to what Vaughan did with the closing credits of X-Men: First Class). As, apparently, something is still present to open the film, perhaps we get the dots and the radio blips of Dr No, with the circle widnening into the opening shot of the film, with the gunbarrel coming later. But I suspect some hint of this would have been mentioned by a reviewer or two were it true.....

[Gt Munn]

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.

I disagree. Anyone that has seen a few Bond films prior to Casino Royale (that 44 year time span) expects a gunbarrel at the beginning of a Bond film. That is a pretty general audience covering numerous generations. I would argue, that to these viewers, the gunbarrel is something they would associate with Bond more than most of the other elements.

[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.

I disagree. Anyone that has seen a few Bond films prior to Casino Royale (that 44 year time span) expects a gunbarrel at the beginning of a Bond film. That is a pretty general audience covering numerous generations. I would argue, that to these viewers, the gunbarrel is something they would associate with Bond more than most of the other elements.

I think they would recognize the gun barrel but if you didn't include it they would never know it was missing.

[Vauxhall]

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.

I disagree. Anyone that has seen a few Bond films prior to Casino Royale (that 44 year time span) expects a gunbarrel at the beginning of a Bond film. That is a pretty general audience covering numerous generations. I would argue, that to these viewers, the gunbarrel is something they would associate with Bond more than most of the other elements.

I think they would recognize the gun barrel but if you didn't include it they would never know it was missing.

Yes, most people I know would be able to identify it as "that thing with the blood at the start of James Bond movies", but not many at all know it as 'The Gunbarrel' as we all do, or would even necessarily notice if it was moved or removed.

[univex]

Yes, most people I know would be able to identify it as "that thing with the blood at the start of James Bond movies", but not many at all know it as 'The Gunbarrel' as we all do, or would even necessarily notice if it was moved or removed.

Except us, as you say Vaux, who delve into these things with fandom and take this sort of thing to personal levels. Personaly I was really hoping that the bloody thing would open the fick. That being said, SF seems to be such a masterpiece that I seem to be getting some Rhett Butler vibes "Frankly my dear, I don´t give a damn".

[Ernst Stavro Blofeld Jr.]

Yes, most people I know would be able to identify it as "that thing with the blood at the start of James Bond movies", but not many at all know it as 'The Gunbarrel' as we all do, or would even necessarily notice if it was moved or removed.

I completely agree with this. Most people probably don't recognize it as a gunbarrel (my mom though it was a camera lens) but they all know about it. These films have been around for fifty years and people are familiar with the basic iconography even if they've never seen the film. This generation is particularly familiar with it thanks to GoldenEye 64 which everybody in the 90s and early 2000s played at least once.

My feelings on the gunbarrel was at the end of QOS that it ruined the ending as it ended on a nice emotional moment and should have just segued into the end credits with "Crawl, End Crawl" playing. Putting the gunbarrel there did not work. Some people have said that the beginning of Quantum was good, but would it have been ruined with the gunbarrel? Arnold could have done a rendition of the theme similar in tone to the opening track and transitioned into the piece just like Barry used to do. Have the screen fade from black rather than iris open probably wouldn't have affected it much, so why not use the gunbarrel? Its not like the opening shot was Bond doing something. It was simply an establishing shot like nearly all Bond films have used. Like the Superman, Dark Knight, or Star Wars films, Bond has a unique framing device which identifies the series and sets some sort of mood. It changed the ending and created a "Bang!" moment where there shouldn't have been one.

I am extremely disappointed with the fact that they put it at the end again, but I'm willing to not fully deride the decision until I see the film. I do video editing so I can always re-edit it like I did Quantum to open properly, but I shouldn't have to do the work the producers should have themselves. If it is simply another cut and paste like QOS where its just at the end to have a bang than it will be incredibly disappointing. Most movies have a big end credit sequence because they don't have opening credits but still have to have the sequence in the film. Bond films have a nice credit sequence so there is no need for an addendum. To me, the perfect ending to a film is a nice visual shot that leads to the credits scrolling up with a nice song or instrumental playing. Hopefully I will be impressed with the film, but I'll have Sony Vegas ready to go just in case.

Edited by Ernst Stavro Blofeld Jr., 16 October 2012 - 02:47 AM.

[KM16]

Yes, most people I know would be able to identify it as "that thing with the blood at the start of James Bond movies", but not many at all know it as 'The Gunbarrel' as we all do, or would even necessarily notice if it was moved or removed.

I completely agree with this. Most people probably don't recognize it as a gunbarrel (my mom though it was a camera lens) but they all know about it. These films have been around for fifty years and people are familiar with the basic iconography even if they've never seen the film. This generation is particularly familiar with it thanks to GoldenEye 64 which everybody in the 90s and early 2000s played at least once.

My feelings on the gunbarrel was at the end of QOS that it ruined the ending as it ended on a nice emotional moment and should have just segued into the end credits with "Crawl, End Crawl" playing. Putting the gunbarrel there did not work. Some people have said that the beginning of Quantum was good, but would it have been ruined with the gunbarrel? Arnold could have done a rendition of the theme similar in tone to the opening track and transitioned into the piece just like Barry used to do. Have the screen fade from black rather than iris open probably wouldn't have affected it much, so why not use the gunbarrel? Its not like the opening shot was Bond doing something. It was simply an establishing shot like nearly all Bond films have used. Like the Superman, Dark Knight, or Star Wars films, Bond has a unique framing device which identifies the series and sets some sort of mood. It changed the ending and created a "Bang!" moment where there shouldn't have been one.

I am extremely disappointed with the fact that they put it at the end again, but I'm willing to not fully deride the decision until I see the film. I do video editing so I can always re-edit it like I did Quantum to open properly, but I shouldn't have to do the work the producers should have themselves. If it is simply another cut and paste like QOS where its just at the end to have a bang than it will be incredibly disappointing. Most movies have a big end credit sequence because they don't have opening credits but still have to have the sequence in the film. Bond films have a nice credit sequence so there is no need for an addendum. To me, the perfect ending to a film is a nice visual shot that leads to the credits scrolling up with a nice song or instrumental playing. Hopefully I will be impressed with the film, but I'll have Sony Vegas ready to go just in case.

I agree. It wont distract me or alter in any way my viewing of Skyfall but even people I worked with, people I talk to a little, even randoms leaving the theater with me talked about how odd Quantum was with the "blood and dots" at the end of the movie. People generally seemed confused about it, at least with Royale it was tied to the story. It just felt tacked on for Quantum like it was a necessary to have it there and threw it there last minute. I know its supposed to symbolize him fully becoming Bond and all that but I highly doubt the average movie goer knew or cared. It's been at the beginning (or near beginning) for 44 years, it should stay there. Thats where it works best, in my opinion. Craig is our Bond we know & love, theres no excuse for it to still be tacked in at the end, that I know of based on spoilers.

[x007AceOfSpades]

I agree. It wont distract me or alter in any way my viewing of Skyfall but even people I worked with, people I talk to a little, even randoms leaving the theater with me talked about how odd Quantum was with the "blood and dots" at the end of the movie. People generally seemed confused about it, at least with Royale it was tied to the story. It just felt tacked on for Quantum like it was a necessary to have it there and threw it there last minute. I know its supposed to symbolize him fully becoming Bond and all that but I highly doubt the average movie goer knew or cared. It's been at the beginning (or near beginning) for 44 years, it should stay there. Thats where it works best, in my opinion. Craig is our Bond we know & love, theres no excuse for it to still be tacked in at the end, that I know of based on spoilers.

I completely agree.

[Bill]

While I think the gunbarrel belongs at the beginning, especially this year, placing it at the end and then mirroring the credits of Dr. No inrtigues me no end. That could establish these three films as true prequels to the rest of the series--despite the obviously modern setting of CR, QoS and Skyfall, and ignoring the female M issue (but Judi Dench could conceivably be a different M in the Brosnan and Craig films) and Bond meeting Leiter for the first time twice--but I would rather have that then a reboot!

[SolidWaffle]

The Bond continuity is logically impossible, which I'm totally okay with. Movies don't have to be logical. I think these 3 films could serve as "predecessors" to the rest of it but it's very possible that after 50 years they've decided to play with the gunbarrel. Which is okay with me. Things change over time. I think it's pretty silly to be seriously disappointed in something so trivial.

Given other information about the ending, the closing gunbarrel could be a temporary thing, or the sign of a new trend. Who knows.

[tdalton]

The Bond continuity is logically impossible, which I'm totally okay with. Movies don't have to be logical. I think these 3 films could serve as "predecessors" to the rest of it but it's very possible that after 50 years they've decided to play with the gunbarrel. Which is okay with me. Things change over time. I think it's pretty silly to be seriously disappointed in something so trivial.

Agreed completely.

I don't really care that they've moved the gunbarrel, as I don't really even care if they include it or not. But, I do understand why some might be disappointed by it not being included. But, once we start talking about the lack of the gunbarrel at the beginning of the film affecting the overall quality of the film or giving the film lower reviews than what it would otherwise get because of there being no iconography to start things off, that's going a bit over the top, I think.

[Armand Fancypants]

I found it quite funny how Michael G Wilson quotes about how successful there movie formula is) "If it ain't broke don't fix it." .

Wilson recently said that mentality was a recipe for complacency, which would kill any franchise (and damn near did when you consider a decade of John Glen sameness nearly resulted in the demise of the franchise... despite the last one actually breaking from tradition!)

What's more, when you're talking about a movie formula you're hardly including putting a gunbarrel at the start. That's more a tradition, it's not the formula of how you put together a film. That being said, I'd be curious to see if the script puts the gunbarrel anywhere specific.

[SecretAgentFan]

I must protest, Sir. John Glen´s Bond films changed things up considerably:

- bringing realism back to Bond after MR (in FYEO)
- mixing realism with a bit of fairytale flair (in OP)
- mixing realism with classic Bond and playing towards ageing (in AVTAK)
- making Bond grittier (in TLD)
- making Bond hard-edged & rogue and involve him in current problems (in LTK)

His filmmaking style was unfussy and classic - not calling attention to itself.

So, complacency was definitely not a part of Glen´s directing tenure.

[Bill]

Good point SecretAgentFan.

From a purely commercial standpoint, while AVATAK and LTK were not as as successful (I believe) than the other three, that has nothing to do with John Glen. If he was killing the franchise, why had he directed more Bond films than any one else? If he was a failure he would never have been asked back.

[Bond... Raybond]

I'm sorry, but Gunbarrel should be at the beginning. It's a Bond film - it should be bold and have a certain swagger - not hide itself with embarrassment under a bushel. To those who think there is no issue with it at the end - can you imagine OHMSS ending with a gunbarrel?

i am, though, intrigued as to how SkyFall uses it and what starts the film instead. But this change does leave a certain taste in the mouth and, for me, does disappoint.

So for Bond 24, just avoid the hassle and stick it back at the beginning. Just my tuppenceworth.

[Armand Fancypants]

I must protest, Sir. John Glen´s Bond films changed things up considerably:

- bringing realism back to Bond after MR (in FYEO)
- mixing realism with a bit of fairytale flair (in OP)
- mixing realism with classic Bond and playing towards ageing (in AVTAK)
- making Bond grittier (in TLD)
- making Bond hard-edged & rogue and involve him in current problems (in LTK)

His filmmaking style was unfussy and classic - not calling attention to itself.

So, complacency was definitely not a part of Glen´s directing tenure.

Having Bond bake a quiche is not breaking filmmaking formula. I'm talking about delivery, not content. It's not really Glen's fault, he's a limited filmmaker and he has his own ideas and in his own small ways pushed forwards, but you've still got one filmmaker essentially telling one story... yes, the elements are different and all that, but the rhythms of the films are all quite similar, they all look quite samey but for the disparate locations, and probably due more to Cubby getting old than anything the franchise got stuck in an aesthetic rut.

Unfussy and classic is what Young did... Glen is a pale imitation of that. With the exception of a handful of scenes in his tenure, the way he approaches his films is pretty much wanting for filmmaking nous.

I'd like to compare him with Peter Hunt, but then I think that Glen's best work as a director was FYEO, really. I'd say that Hunt was a better director overall, but it's hard to say with such a small sample size within the franchise. That being said, I think Hunt was surrounded with stronger personnel.

[SecretAgentFan]

IMO, you are absolutely wrong - but, hey, that´s the beauty of a message board.

[Armand Fancypants]

Don't get me wrong, I love 3 of Glen's films (one is my all-time favourite) and find the other 2 to be entertaining in their own way, but great filmmaking they're not.

[YOLT]

All the films have one-liners, action, women etc. Even some have pre title scenes. But I have never seen an openinig like the gunbarrel. (starwars doesnt count here) Its only a few seconds and very effective. The gunbarrel is the most important thing that symbolizes 007. I can live without "Bond. James Bond", "shaken stirred", "Q", "Moneypenny" etc.

But the gunbarrel is a must. EON is doing a very big mistake!

[Miles Miservy]

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.

I disagree. Anyone that has seen a few Bond films prior to Casino Royale (that 44 year time span) expects a gunbarrel at the beginning of a Bond film. That is a pretty general audience covering numerous generations. I would argue, that to these viewers, the gunbarrel is something they would associate with Bond more than most of the other elements.

I think they would recognize the gun barrel but if you didn't include it they would never know it was missing.

I doubt that. It's the one thing that's associated with EON Productions. No other film, before or since, has done something like that. I was 15 when I 1st saw NSNA and the 1st thing I noticed was the absence of OO7's gunbarrel.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

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.

I repeat the same. I was hoping Skyfal to be the best bond since GoldenEye. Now that I've learned the barrel thing, it can NEVER be better than GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies and even The World is not Enough.

After al, who would shag a girl with tits in the place of the bottom and a bottom in the place of the tits? I wouldn't, not even if her face looks like Scarlett Johansson's

[Vauxhall]

I was hoping Skyfal to be the best bond since GoldenEye. Now that I've learned the barrel thing, it can NEVER be better than GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies and even The World is not Enough.

Seriously? Can it be better than DIE ANOTHER DAY then, and, if so, how?

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I was hoping Skyfal to be the best bond since GoldenEye. Now that I've learned the barrel thing, it can NEVER be better than GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies and even The World is not Enough.

Seriously? Can it be better than DIE ANOTHER DAY then, and, if so, how?

Better than DAD I'm sure, but not better than three wonderfulm films that respected the essence of Bond without moving an inch away of the formula!

[JCRendle]

I was hoping Skyfal to be the best bond since GoldenEye. Now that I've learned the barrel thing, it can NEVER be better than GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies and even The World is not Enough.

How can the placement of the gunbarrel change the quality of the over all film? It can't and doesn't.

[Vauxhall]

I was hoping Skyfal to be the best bond since GoldenEye. Now that I've learned the barrel thing, it can NEVER be better than GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies and even The World is not Enough.

Seriously? Can it be better than DIE ANOTHER DAY then, and, if so, how?

Better than DAD I'm sure, but not better than three wonderfulm films that respected the essence of Bond without moving an inch away of the formula!

I see. So precisely how much quantifiable value does the gunbarrel hold for you? How many of the Bond films will you go into the cinema knowing that you will never consider it to be better than? I'm genuinely interested.

[JimmyBond]

I repeat the same. I was hoping Skyfal to be the best bond since GoldenEye. Now that I've learned the barrel thing, it can NEVER be better than GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies and even The World is not Enough.

[seawolfnyy]

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.

Dr. No didn't have a pre-title sequence. So there.

Now, that's interesting if it really is tied into the story in some way. That's the first I've heard of it, but certainly could be. I think a DR NO type gunbarrel would appease some people, but it's the Jamaica line that's really grabbed me. That would be quite smart, and a subtle enough reference. No need to do anything hugely obvious such as "There's a chap called Dr Julius No who's up to no good. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink..."

Would be interesting. However, wouldn't that necessitate the ending taking place 6 months later so the new M could prove that MI6 has shown a decline in the rate of 00 casualties?....after Judi Dench's M killed them all?

[The Dove]

I repeat the same. I was hoping Skyfal to be the best bond since GoldenEye. Now that I've learned the barrel thing, it can NEVER be better than GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies and even The World is not Enough.

LMAO!! Now that is great, JimmyBond... Seriously, have we really filled up 9 pages of whining about one tiny detail in the bloody gunbarrel which has had absolutely NO impact on how big of a hit Skyfall is ??

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I repeat the same. I was hoping Skyfal to be the best bond since GoldenEye. Now that I've learned the barrel thing, it can NEVER be better than GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies and even The World is not Enough.

LMAO!! Now that is great, JimmyBond... Seriously, have we really filled up 9 pages of whining about one tiny detail in the bloody gunbarrel which has had absolutely NO impact on how big of a hit Skyfall is ??

I'm judging a BOND film, not an action film. Therefore "Skyfall" has already a -1 point for the barrel at the bottom. You can agree with me or not, but I was uncomfortable enough with that "modern" dull and boring "put the music with the Columbia logo" Charlie's Angels style "Quantum of Solace" opening.