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
The gun barrel scene goes in the front. Why that has been so difficult to comprehend for two movies is beyond me.
So then Skyfall comes out and we meet Q and Moneypenny for the 'first' time; the movie ends in M's 'original' office so now it's the Bond we know.
So we're now at THREE movies setting up the complete package that the old series did right off the bat...
Will Craig be freaking 50 by the time we get a movie where he's the established OO agent
Maybe the GB is just going to always be at the end from now on- a way to separate the old and new series?
All that said, yes I agree it makes the most sense in Casino Royale. I remember seeing it opening day- that GB shot leading right into the theme song... I heard one guy in the audience yell 'Niiiiice!!' :))
The problem with QOS's gun barrel placement stems from the ending of Casino Royale. With the re-introduction of his famous introduction and the Bond theme slapping us in the face during the end credits (particularly after the Bond theme had been mostly withheld in the rest of the film), I interpreted that James Bond was once again the secret agent we knew and loved from the previous films.
So, it would have made complete sense that QOS started with the gun barrel. They had a great opening shot to merge it with, and I'm still baffled as to why they didn't do it. It's placement in the film makes absolutely zero sense. James Bond became "James Bond" again? But didn't that already happen in Casino Royale?
As Skyfall was actually a good film (unlike QOS), the gun barrel at the end was easier to bear. It also makes a bit more sense too, as a ton of traditional Bond elements are being thrown at us during that final scene - from Moneypenny's formal intro to M's old school office redesign. Could they have put the gun barrel at the start of Skyfall, though? Absolutely. While I love Skyfall and have nothing but respect for Mendes, his comment about the gun barrel screwing with the first shot is completely unfounded. In no way would it have taken away from the gravitas of that opening shot. Why not have the gun barrel open into that empty hallway, hang on that shot for a few seconds and have Bond eventually step in with the same musical cue? I know Mendes and the gang edited that scene in that very way before they changed it, so I'd be curious to see how it would look.
So, all in all, I will agree with this thesis. The gun barrel's untraditional placement makes the most sense in Casino Royale.
And on a small side note: I'd prefer if they go back to the gun barrel design of the Brosnan films. I think that design still holds up today and has a more effective look than the QOS/SF gun barrel.
@SaintMark is on the fence? ;-)
QOS made sense at the time because everyone seemed to think it symbolised the end of the whole "Bond begins" arc (personally I wanted it at the start anyway), but then that all went out the window in SF when they shoved it at the end again.
So I agree, it doesn't make sense, and the gunbarrel worked much better at the start (it also worked better when it wasn't too fast and poorly designed).
Of course you could make an argument to put in anywhere in the film. Actually it would be funny if they put it smack dab in the middle of the next one. Why not at this point? I hate to mention Star Wars but it's the best comparison I can think of at the moment. What if they put the famous opening title crawl at the end of next movie? Wouldn't that be stupid? You could make an argument that logically it fits there because of so on and so forth but it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't feel right. It simply just doesn't belong there.
So I'm curious to know if you would care if they didn't have the gun barrel sequence at all for Bond 24? Personally, I would rather it not be there at all if it's not at the beginning. That's just my eccentric point of view I suppose.
Needles to say I agree with the thesis. CR was different but creative as it seamlessly weaved the GB opening as part of the story. Having it at the end just doesn't do it for me.
I understand the argument for not having it at the start but to be honest during the PTS I didn't see many people in the cinema turn and exclaim 'Ah, no gun barrel he hasn't got his licence yet!'. The point is no one would of cared if the gun barrel sequence appeared before Bond had got his licence as opposed to the many tens of thousands of audience patrons who were disappointed at it's omission from the very start.
QOS had even less excuse, for if his two CR PTS kills had justified a gun barrel logo during the title sequence why has QOS relegated him back to unworthy of one until the end?
I do understand Sam Mendes point about the first shot looking odd after a gun barrel sequence, but why not just reshoot the first scene? I know it's full of light and shadow metaphors etc. But surely it's not beyond someone as gifted and talented as him to reshoot in such a way to incorporate the mood and themes without compromising the gun barrel.
Still I now feel it's almost a mute point, for the irreversible cultural damage has been well and truly set, even if every Bond film for the next 50 years has a gun barrel beginning, people can no longer truly identify the sequence as the definitive opening brand hallmark of a great franchise.
My feeling is mixed, because i see it also work now as Eyebarrel. In specialy very good in the gunbarrel from the Casino Royale teaser (at 45 seconds)
That there don't use it in the final movie, of course be another disapointed of a already disapointed movie at the time and the fact this trailer ly about the level of violence of the movie.
Pretty much bang on the money.
I wouldn't even mind (although I'd probably be against it) if it was a conscious rebranding by EON but the whole thing is utterly incoherent.
It's us fans who made up these spurious reasons like he hasn't got his licence yet, or the whole Vesper story is finished so it belongs at the end of QOS. Nothing has ever been said officially as to why this has been done (except for some pathetic reasoning by Mendes.
EON obviously realise its recognisibility as a brand logo as they use it for the 50th marketing but then they are happy to f**k around with it for 3 films in a row and by green lighting an appalling new design (although they bafflingly stick to the classic for the 50th logo which follows right after). It all strikes me they haven't a clue what they are doing.
As Babs is often quoted as saying, Cubby gave them one piece of advice - 'Dont mess it up.'
If it ain't broke don't fix it. If the GB was in its usual place it would bother nobody but they way they are dealing with it at present just pisses people off needlessly because what has been gained by putting it at the end? Absolutely zero.
Another quote Babs and MGW might want to bear in mind going forwards is from none other than Alan Gordon Partridge himself - 'Stop getting Bond wrong!'
To be honest, @saunders, I don't think that many people cared one way or the other. A handful of hardcore fans and that's about it.
On hindsight although many non hardcore Bond fans did mention the lack of an opening gun barrel to me I do concede none of them actually seemed particularly concerned or traumatised about it, but would it be fair to say that there were more people who were upset by the change than those who welcomed it as a great idea?
You raise a good point. Ok there are people out there who don't care but is there anyone who actually thinks its a good idea? I've certainly never come across anyone with that point of view.
In CR the way they introduce Bond, and at the same time give some rationale to the gun barrel was awesome. But in QOS I still haven't find a good reason for leaving it to the end. In SF, even if I love the opening shot, I would've liked to have the gun barrel at the begining. Now, for the next one, I don't now what to think. If they place it at the start could be good because it shows that the rebooting process has ended. But also at the end it could be the trademark of Craig's era.
<font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 218</b></font>
<font color=blue size=7><b>Not all of Fleming's novels lend themselves to good, faithful film adaptations.</b></font>
I know this isn't the right place for it, but picturing some scenarios I think Scorsese would've bring a great DAF because of the organized crime aspects on it, perhaps Spielberg could make You Only Live Twice both emotional and fantastical and Ridley Scott could develop an heroic tale of The Man with the Golden Gun.
Unsure? Having not read any i would suggest that they must adapt as much as they can for the current times they are made? And time and time again you hear Babs or MGW say? When in doubt go back to Fleming!
Well, that was Cubby's motto that they have just carried on.
DAF immediately sprung to mind as a candidate but is the film we got any better? YOLT, TMWTGG and MR are almost certainly worse for most of the changes made to them. Even with LALD, a movie that I am quite fond of, how much better would it have been had it included the scene where Felix is eaten by the shark? It would have changed the tone of the film a bit, to say the least, and I would have liked to have seen Moore perform the bit where he finds Felix with the note attached to him.
I'm not saying that every change made was worse but it does make me wonder what a faithful adaptation of some of these novels would have been like. So I disagree.
I disagree
Agreed with Thesis 218.
CR, DAF, TSWLM and YOLT couldn't really work as faithful film adaptations at all
- CR is too short and the structure is too unbalanced
- DAF has way too thin a plot without enough material to sustain 90 mins
- TSWLM, similarly, has barely enough material to sustain a feature film
- YOLT, as has often been remarked, is more or less unfilmable
It depends on what is meant by "faithful film adaptation" of course - the film of DN is usually considered to be a faithful adaptation but the script changes huge amounts of the story - adding Sylvia Trench, Jones the Chauffeur, Felix Leiter, Miss Taro, Professor Dent, a car chase, the famous "Smith & Wesson" scene, and having the toppling of American rockets become a far more important part of the plot. It also totally changes Bond's relationship with Quarrel, ditches the entire subplot about Dr No's guano works and the Audubon Society, and also ditches the obstacle course and the giant squid.
The changes made to DN, FRWL, GF, OHMSS and CR in their adaptations were improvements (for the medium of film)
I think it works well in SF as Mendes' explanation for why he couldn't use it at the beginning makes sense. And it would be a shame to lose that opening shot - the best opening shot in any Bond film, in my opinion.
It seems to be quite an unusual point of view among Bond fans but I really wouldn't be fussed if they kept the gunbarrel at the end forevermore.
The books are very much of their era, in fact due to their shorter word count it's highly unlikely that if written today they would be published without the plots being considerably expanded. Part of the joy of reading Fleming is his descriptive prose of the senses, some such as tastes, smells and touch are completely lost in film, Bond's inner turmoil and conflicts can also not be effectively transferred to the big screen.
Even those considered to have been fairly faithfully adapted such as FRWL, GF, TB and OHMSS have all had extra action scenes added to cater to general cinematic expectations,
Probably the very first Bond film DN is the closest to being a faithful film adaption (despite small plot changes), and because of this it feels the most dated, least dramatic and slow paced of the series. It's almost impossible to believe that had DN been the third or fourth film it would of followed the original plot so faithfully.
I would love to see more of Fleming in the Bond films, but I'm a realist enough to know that what works great in a novel doesn't transfer to instant success in a film.
I love CR '06 and I'll grant you that the changes that were made were improvements. DAF, while being Fleming's weakest novel in my opinion, isn't necessarily worse than the film that we got. I'm taking the devil's advocate approach here but I think that in the right hands it certainly could prove to be an interesting film.
TSWLM is a bit unfair as Fleming himself said that only the title could be used.
YOLT - This is where you really disappointed me and the reason that I quoted you. This novel may have been unrealistic to have been faithfully adapted in the James Bond phenomenon of the 1960's but it is certainly not unfilmable. It is one of Fleming's most fascinating tales and certainly more interesting than most of what i see going on in popular cinema today.
So you're saying that just because mainstream audiences won't like it that it wouldn't be a good film? Not everyone has a short attention span and there have been plenty of well made independent films that have found the right audience. A movie doesn't have to be a billion dollar blockbuster to be good.