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
Well that's their fault, not the film makers'.
Yeah lol. Expecting it at the end of 24.
I agree, especially because Sam is likely going to return for Bond 24 if Craig gets his way.
On the other hand, in 2008 they turned the lights on as soon as the screen went black before the gunbarrel so everyone was getting up and ready to go. The pause before the gunbarrel in QoS was longer though.
And of course there was laughter at all the right places, as you said. Silva's unbuttoning Bond's shirt and that moment's dialogue got the most laughs.
I thought Craig was very good with the quips and they were far wittier than what Brosnan was given. I chuckled quite a lot, along with the crowd.
Er no, it proves the gunbarrel lacks effect at the end of the film.
If someone thinks the movie is over when it obviously isn't, it's their fault, not the film makers'.
It's a couple of minutes packed with classic Bond stuff. Miss Moneypenny, M, their office, Bond accepting a top secret mission "with pleasure", the Bond theme and the gunbarrel. It fits. It works. Maybe not for everyone, but for the vast majority it does.
He does have a good point and after seeing the film myself I agree with him.
Went to an IMAX screening yesterday and after my first viewing when I was too incadescent that there was no GB I hardly noticed the first 30 seconds of the film I thought I would concentrate on this stunning opening shot and see if I could rationalise Mendes reasoning for dropping the GB.
Well for a start let me just say 'meh'. An out of focus Bond walking down a corridor until he comes into shot? Is that it. For all the Oscars between Mendes and Deakins they should look to Martin Campbells edge of the dam shot if they want something special to introduce Bond into the film.
If preserving this is the only reason to ditch the GB then sorry I'm not having that at all.
This is what he said in the link above: "I tried very hard to put the gunbarrel at the beginning and my intention was always to do that. If you see the film, the film starts with Bond walking down a corridor towards camera and lifting a gun. And of course the gunbarrel is him walking, stopping and lifting a gun. When I put the two together, it looked ridiculous!"
Now thats all fair enough and I take his point and agree entirely but am I missing something here? Hes the director isnt he not the teaboy so why cant he change the opening shot so that the GB doesnt look ridiculous?
An establishing shot of Istanbul domes, or just have the pan around the room to show the dead agents before Bond walks in instead.
I take Mendes' comments on board but they are only valid if the opening shot was a seminal moment of cinema that could not be disrupted at any cost and IMO its far from that. I dont even think its as good as the QOS shot across the water and that could easily have worked with the GB.
Just as a final point having read the comments on here over the last few days and as my other viewing was the premier where obviously people are better behaved I braced myself for some idiots to stand up and start leaving during the GB and true enough 3 or 4 heads popped into view as the dots went across the screen.
Seems to me the GB might be precious to us on here but to the general public it carries all the importance of the MGM lion.
The opening is a nice shot, but its not exactly the same experience as a Star Destroyer coming into shot and taking over the whole screen.
But what do I know, I'm not a director :)
Went to an IMAX screening yesterday and after my first viewing when I was too incadescent that there was no GB I hardly noticed the first 30 seconds of the film I thought I would concentrate on this stunning opening shot and see if I could rationalise Mendes reasoning for dropping the GB.
Well for a start let me just say 'meh'. An out of focus Bond walking down a corridor until he comes into shot? Is that it. For all the Oscars between Mendes and Deakins they should look to Martin Campbells edge of the dam shot if they want something special.
If preserving this is the only reason to ditch the GB then sorry I'm not having that at all.
This is what he said: "I tried very hard to put the gunbarrel at the beginning and my intention was always to do that. If you see the film, the film starts with Bond walking down a corridor towards camera and lifting a gun. And of course the gunbarrel is him walking, stopping and lifting a gun. When I put the two together, it looked ridiculous!"
Now thats all fair enough and I take his point and agree entirely but am I missing something here? Hes the director isnt he not the teaboy so why cant he change the opening shot so that the GB doesnt look ridiculous?
An establishing shot of Istanbul domes, or just have the pan around the room to show the dead agents before Bond walks in instead.
I take Mendes' comments on board but they are only valid if the opening shot was a seminal moment of cinema that could not be disrupted at any cost and IMO its far from that. I dont even think its as good as the QOS shot across the water and that could have worked with the GB.
Just as a final point having read the comments on here over the last few days and as my other viewing was the premier where obviously people are better behaved I braced myself for people to stand up and start leaving during the GB and true enough 3 or 4 heads popped into view as the dots went across the screen.
Seems to me the GB might be precious to us on here but to the general public it carries all the importance of the MGM lion.
And that still worked with the Star Wars version of the GB up front not at the end:
What is with this modern obsession of having the film just start immediately after the studio logo? Especially when you have classic openings such as Star Wars and Bond that other films could only dream of. Has no one heard of the concept of brand recognition?
For Bond and Star Wars the trademark starts the film whereas for say Bourne the final shot and Moby kicking in is the trademark.
If you had the Star Wars scroll at the end it would lose all impact as you have the silence of 'A long time ago...etc' and then wallop John Williams slaps you in the face.
Thats what I want with Bond - the dots and the John Barry orchestra at full blast. Especially for the sodding 50th.
How dare they move?!
I was pretty much creating a fire hazard at the weekend because I refused to move until the theme tune died down
I don't know if anyone has seen this yet (apologies if its already been posted). Sam Mendes explains his reasons for not putting the Gun Barrel at the beginning of SKYFALL during an Apple Store Q&A with Empire Magazine's Chris Hewitt.
Just to confirm- Mendes WANTED the GB at the beginning of the movie!
http://bcove.me/3wjb3gzg
LoL! I just posted this video thinking no-one had seen it yet! Apologies everyone!!
Just seen tht @JamesC already posted it.....My apologies everyone!
That's not a fair comparison though. The Star Wars scroll has a purpose--it's to give you background so you can understand the story. The gunbarrell doesn't do that.
Yes and I want to make love to my wife every day, but unfortunately, sometimes we dont get everything we want.
This ^^^^^
It was truly the beginning of Bonds new legacy and I truly believe that Bond 24 will have the gunbarrel in the beginning