It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Never said that. In terms of crafting a film I will never be at Mendes and Deakins level.
In terms of putting the GB in the right place and getting everyone in the cinema pumped in the first 10 seconds that what they are watching is a Bond film I'm already way ahead of them.
For all this 'amazing shot' they keep banging on about I'd imagine half the audience dont even notice it as they are whispering to the person next to them 'I wonder why they didnt start it with the GB again as usual?'
And at the end of the day its just Bond standing in a corridor - its hardly the restaurant scene in Goodfellas or the pram down the stairs in Battleship Potemkin. I really dont see why it has to be treated with such reverence.
NOBODY is saying it's more important than the film. They're just saying it belongs at the start.
Obviously if it comes to a choice between having another DAD rather than SF then they could axe the GB forever. Its just infuriating that for one of the best films of the series on the 50th anniversary the first second is a crushing let down.
Why could they not just scream 'Bond is most definitely back' and hit you with it right between the eyes from the first moment?
Mind you the Craig GB designs have been so piss poor so far that at the start, the end, the middle you would still be left dissappointed.
Crushing let down? Are you seriously telling me that that amazing opening shot is a let down?
It's a nice shot but I'd have preferred a gunbarrel and I think most people would agree with me to be honest.
They should've just shrunk the dots like they did in the early Connery films if they cared that much about the shot.
Thank God Sam Mendes is not one of them.
Don't know what anyone can add to this.
And there are plenty of ways around it. They could've just had the dots shrink like the old films.
I know people don't like SF criticism on here (before I get singled out as a "hater" it's in my top 5), but I think they dropped the ball with the gunbarrel.
I understand the cricism but I don't agree with it. There are fans who prefer to have all the familiar motifs in place and believe that they are more important than a great shot like the opening shot of Skyfall.
On the other hand there are fans like me who like the familiar motifs but believe that the quality of the film shouldn't be compromised just to include these motifs.
Well yes. I'm afraid I was too pissed off after bracing myself for a rousing GB to even notice it. Maybe in time I'll come to apprectiate its a nice shot but I dont think it had the desired effect on me that Mendes was intending.
I'll have to wait till I see it again to see if all you apologists for this seminal piece of camerawork and the fact that it would've been impossible to put it after the GB are telling the truth.
I agree with that ! After 20minutes of advertisement, what I need is something to tell me "The film is finally beginning". Honestly, the first shot is a good shot, but I was more asking myself why they didn't put the gunbarrel, than really admiring the work. The gunbarrel is a good way to put silence in the room, after all the ads. The diminishing circle is teasing us to what is going to come as a film overture.
I was almost wondering if the Bond silhouette in the corridor would not suddenly pull out its gun and shoot an invisible shooter, and suddenly, we would see Bond through the gunbarrel of the victim.
Since Skyfall is bringing most of the elements back into place, in an original manner, what not playing around the GB at the beginning, instead of being redundant in the end, and repeating the QOS shot.
I would even add that the gunbarrel is no surprise at end. It would have been much more surprising at the beginning, since we would have discover the new aesthetic of the GB, and be tease about the next shot. And I can tell you that a brand new GB, and then the Bond silhouette would have sent me directly to (double 0) Heaven !
It actually made me more excited for Bond 24 that way. I'd like the GB to go back to the classic Binder design, but then it would be argued that the inside of a gun isn't that shiny... Looks a hell of a lot cooler though.
You're the second person to have said this. I'd wait personally, before making such a statement.
That is far better, or if you prefer, FAR MORE FAITHFUL to the original concept of the gun barrel opening than the official version of Quantum of Solace. Something like that would have been ideal for Skyfall. :)
The sombre music when the circle opens up and we see the Italian backdrop is fantastic. So moody!!!! And Craig's walk is slowed down and looks the way Bond walks. This is how it should be!!!!
I do think the Bond producers have lost the plot when it comes to the gun barrel. They're utterly clueless. Why, I don't know. Most people think the rest of what Eon do is pretty good, most people think they've updated the films and made them a bit more relevant to modern times, but they've totally lost their minds when it comes to the opening of the Craig Bond films. It's a bit farcical when you think about it. Oh well, at least people can do cool fan edits like this and make it look better. :)
And people can condemn for saying this but any fan that says "I don't care if the gun barrel is at the end or speeded up or cut shorter"
is not a true James Bond fan and I include the producers, Barbara Broccoli and MG WIlson. Yes, you are not true James Bond fans because true fans would never butcher/alter/stick it at the end, speed it up, stick it a toilet (in Casino Royale). A toilet? Shameful decision. Sorry to be blunt but I stand by what I've just written. So much bull**** is written about changing the gun barrel but it's WRONG to move it. PERIOD. Show some respect for God's sake.
SF has opened huge in the UK so why should Babs and MG give a toss what some fan thinks and writes on a forum. They don't give a toss about fans being upset because most people don't even care about the gb being at the end. Only long term fans care and we are not the majority making Skyfall a big hit. The minority care the most but the producers don't care what we think. The true James Bond film franchise died in 2002 - irrespective of whether or not you think the Craig era is better than the 1962 - 2002 era.
Agreed. So if there was no gun barrel, it wouldn't be a bond movie?
I stand by my comment. Anyone wishing to justify Eon Production's decision to move the gun barrel to the end of the precredit scene in CR and the end of QOS and SF is not a true, respectful fan of the franchise and I include Eon Productions/Danjaq/Sony Pictures and MGM. They are not true fans of the franchise but business people exploiting the franchise for commercial gain. I'm not saying they can't make decent Bond films but I am saying they are not true fans of the franchise because no true, honest fan would ever entertain the thought of moving the gun barrel.
I'm sorry but this doesn't work.... at....all. You clearly don't know much about filmmaking.