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 is a great iconic way to kick off the Bond films. Traditionally the first thing the audience experiences, though Daniel's films played with this. Bond has done the gun barrel in a suit and a tuxedo.
A quick review shows the following:
Dear Mi6 community:
Would you rather Bond do the Gunbarrel in a suit OR in a tuxedo
What conveys Bond better? What makes the most sense to you? You wish to throw in who you think did it best by all means go right ahead!
If it is a period version that I'm in favour of having, set at the time of the novels, the tux would be fine. But if it's a present-day Bond, my take is that he shouldn't wear any tie whatsoever...I haven't really seen that many men, even on business, wearing a tie for the last three or five years or so.
I certainly kicked the habit entirely and even quit wearing a tie as a lawyer in court (before retiring at the end of 2021), since a tie is not required (though you have to wear a robe in court). As Bond has been known to blend in with the (affluent) crowd, and they don't wear ties any more either, he'd probably stick out like a sore thumb once the next movie comes out if he is wearing a tie. Let's get rid of ties entirely, including in the Gunbarrel sequence. Or maybe let's get rid of the Gunbarrel. Fine with me either way.
I mean, I’ll go with tuxedo just to be different.
It depends. If Bond is in a suit I like it when he sports the fedora from the Simmons/Connery/Lazenby era best. If there's no fedora, then I think I generally(though not always as my response below will show) prefer Bond in a tux if only to make him standout more than just a suit w/o the fedora.
(Sidenote: For once I think it would be interesting if at least once Bond wore a tux with a white dinner jacket during a gun barrel opening but the downside would be it might washout against the white backdrop.)
My 3 favorite gun barrel sequences are TB/YOLT(Connery Bond in a suit with fedora)
and TMWTGG(Moore Bond in a suit w/o a fedora but probably more because of John Barry's rendition of the theme in that individual sequence more than anything to do with the suit vs. tux debate).
Bond is known for being a "gentleman agent" though I guess in modern times that is open to interpretation.
@PrinceKamalKhan the fedora's were big when Bond first launched. Men wore them regularly. As the sixties ended so to did the fedoras time as a fashion item. They kept the same GB for Sean in DAF. Moore became the first Bond to do the barrel without a chapeau. I can see it coming back.
I am a sucker for the GB of DN and OHMSS and the pausing of the circles with Broccoli and Saltzman present. A shame we didn't get that with every new Bond introduction.
I wonder how they could do it with the Albert R Broccoli’s EON Productions credit as is.
Lets move on to another would you rather!
This one is a bit of a fantasy one but what the heck.
NSNA was an un-official Bond and as such wasn't able to get the "Bond sound". Most will point out the soundtrack as lacking and the fact that there was no Bond theme to speak of as a source of disappointment.
CR 67' was another un-official Bond movie. After trying hard to get Connery to do the role, then trying to make a serious adaption of the book. The producers finally decided to just spoof Bond. Some say the final product is brilliant others say it is complete waste of talent.
That got me to thinking what would you rather:
Would you rather a John Barry scored NSNA OR a faithful adaption of CR starring Sean Connery?
If you choose NSNA assume that the only thing that changes is the musical score. If you choose CR 67. Assume that Connery starred in this after his contract ran out with EON. Lets say late 60's.
Have some fun and choose!
Connery in a faithful adaptation of CR, 1967 or otherwise, would likely have put an expiration date on the franchise whether it was great or awful.
On this one I'd rather keep what we got 1967 to today.
Barry would've had a tight schedule doing both OP and NSNA.
Cubby might've felt betrayed and not hired Barry back for AVTAK and TLD.
I remember Charles Feldman said that he intended to film CR with Connery as Bond and even having Elizabeth Taylor as Vesper Lynd, faithfully adapting the book, I think that would've been a film everyone else would be dreaming of.
But alas, it didn't happened and what we've got was a mess of a film that's the parody one.
I liked NSNA as it is, but Barry scoring that alone wouldn't still change the fact (at least, for most people), that it's a rehash of Thunderball and not made by EON (doesn't helped that most people know the history of the film regarding McClory and the likes), it also doesn't have a proper title sequence (those made by Binder), so Barry scoring that alone wouldn't definitely paint NSNA in a positive light for some.
But Connery starring in CR, now, that would've been a success, and if happened, might've been the potential to be the best Bond film ever made, moreso than Goldfinger.
only slightly more so than for a flushed-out Connery reprising Bond again. To my mind, Connery overstayed in the character. Up until TB he did a fantastic job, but after that he deteriotated as Bond. Mind you, I still think he's one of the best actors to ever grace the silver screen. I absolutely adore later roles he played (especially in The Man Who Would Be King, the slow process of him starting to believe his self-created myth is fascinating).
So, when i have to make a choice between Connery as Bond in a faithful adaptation of CR just after he got fed-up with the role, or Connery years later in his vengeance-flick with a superior score, I'll choose the latter. At least it wil improve on a not-so-terrible film.
Of those 2 "what if?" options my vote is definitely for a Connery CR:
(I like how that fan trailer uses the James Bond with Bongos track from FRWL and footage of Sophia from Arabesque as Vesper.)
@ToTheRight Agreed. I would not want to sacrifice either of Barry's last 2 Bond scores. It's an added high point in the 1987 Bond film and the greatest redeeming feature of the 1985 one. Also, it may have been redundant creativity-wise for Barry since he already scored the same story right the first time in 1965 with TB.
Now if the choice was between a Connery CR and a John Barry-scored FYEO or GE my vote may have gone the other way.
@thedove Indeed. It worked for Indiana Jones and James Bond is his dad:
I agree. He is one of the best Bonds.