Controversial opinions about Bond films

18889919394707

Comments

  • BAIN123 wrote:
    I personally don't see why a gunbarrel is so important to fans. Yes it might be nice to see a traditional gunbarrel at the beginning of a Bond film again but it's not the be-all and end-all.

    Removing the "traditional elements" amounts to the gradual, piecemeal obliteration of cinematic Bond. Now am I convinced this is happening? Not particularly. Nevertheless, it would be reassuring to see the gunbarrel returned to its proper place.

  • RC7 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I personally don't see why a gunbarrel is so important to fans. Yes it might be nice to see a traditional gunbarrel at the beginning of a Bond film again but it's not the be-all and end-all.

    See, I think it should be the anti-barrel band offering up the justification, not the other way around. You wouldn't remove the crawl from the opening of a Star Wars movie, so why the gunbarrel? I get the idea behind CR, but since then there's been no excuse, for me. I always got a buzz sitting in the theatre waiting for it, waiting for the orchestration of the theme, the walk, the moment you know you're about to head back into that world again, but this time it's a new escapade. I just don't get how one could feel so indifferent to such an indelible and iconic moment of cinema. I think it's too easy to take these things for granted. The fact it's short is irrelevant to me. It holds easily as much weight as the title sequence when it comes to components of the series. I think it's the director's duty to build his opening shot around it.

    Precisely.

  • Posts: 1,631
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I personally don't see why a gunbarrel is so important to fans. Yes it might be nice to see a traditional gunbarrel at the beginning of a Bond film again but it's not the be-all and end-all.

    I don't understand the overemphasis on it either. I've always viewed it simply as EON's studio logo, much in the same way that the lion is MGM's studio logo and the woman holding the torch is the studio logo for Columbia and so forth.

    There are, IMO of course, so many other things that are vastly more important to the success of Bond 24 than the placement (or inclusion) of the gun barrel sequence, that I find myself not really caring if its included or not.

  • pachazo wrote:
    Since we've eliminated the gun barrel, why even have the PTS anymore? Let's just go straight into the opening titles.

    And why, indeed, even have an opening title sequence? Bond is just about the only prominent film series to still have those. Why waste time on a song and a bunch of CGI nonsense?

    @002, I very much like your explanation of the gunbaarrel. I'd thought of some of those before, but you really put them all together well.
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 9,846
    I will never understand "Lets save Fleming titles for other actors" argument. They didn't do it for Connery Lazeny or Moore why worry now?

    Also Colonel Sun needs to be adapted one day.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Some people are acting like the gunbarrel has been removed completely. It's still there. It's not as though when the film starts you don't know you're watching a Bond film. I have to say, naturally I would prefer for the gunbarrel to be at the start but I'm not really bothered to be honest. SF's opening with Bond appearing into frame to the sound of the crescendoing Bond theme cue imo was better and got me pumped for a Bond movie more than any other Bond movie that came before it and that's saying something.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    doubleoego wrote:
    Some people are acting like the gunbarrel has been removed completely. It's still there. It's not as though when the film starts you don't know you're watching a Bond film. I have to say, naturally I would prefer for the gunbarrel to be at the start but I'm not really bothered to be honest. SF's opening with Bond appearing into frame to the sound of the crescendoing Bond theme cue imo was better and got me pumped for a Bond movie more than any other Bond movie that came before it and that's saying something.

    Well it's not as if fans sit in their seats, absolutely clueless because the GB was absent so now they have no idea what film they're watching. Some of us just want to see the traditional GB return and precede the PTS. I'll admit, I like how they handled CR and SF, but I do want the GB to return and open up the film again.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    I'm not sure if this will apply, but...

    With the collective exception of Godfather I and II, Casino Royale is the greatest movie of all time.

    I agree with all of that! =D>
  • Posts: 2,402
    Creasy47 wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Some people are acting like the gunbarrel has been removed completely. It's still there. It's not as though when the film starts you don't know you're watching a Bond film. I have to say, naturally I would prefer for the gunbarrel to be at the start but I'm not really bothered to be honest. SF's opening with Bond appearing into frame to the sound of the crescendoing Bond theme cue imo was better and got me pumped for a Bond movie more than any other Bond movie that came before it and that's saying something.

    Well it's not as if fans sit in their seats, absolutely clueless because the GB was absent so now they have no idea what film they're watching. Some of us just want to see the traditional GB return and precede the PTS. I'll admit, I like how they handled CR and SF, but I do want the GB to return and open up the film again.

    I think if QoS had opened with the gunbarrel (Forster's excuse is garbage; to "surprise" people? Really? Piss off) then nobody would have an issue with what they did with Skyfall. Mendes really got screwed over by Forster's decision in the film before.
  • Creasy47 wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Some people are acting like the gunbarrel has been removed completely. It's still there. It's not as though when the film starts you don't know you're watching a Bond film. I have to say, naturally I would prefer for the gunbarrel to be at the start but I'm not really bothered to be honest. SF's opening with Bond appearing into frame to the sound of the crescendoing Bond theme cue imo was better and got me pumped for a Bond movie more than any other Bond movie that came before it and that's saying something.

    Well it's not as if fans sit in their seats, absolutely clueless because the GB was absent so now they have no idea what film they're watching. Some of us just want to see the traditional GB return and precede the PTS. I'll admit, I like how they handled CR and SF, but I do want the GB to return and open up the film again.

    I think if QoS had opened with the gunbarrel (Forster's excuse is garbage; to "surprise" people? Really? Piss off) then nobody would have an issue with what they did with Skyfall. Mendes really got screwed over by Forster's decision in the film before.

    In fairness to Forster, I don't think Mendes' reason is much better, although I give him credit for wanting to put the gunbarrel at the start, he's earned my trust with the rest of Skyfall. I think Forster and Mendes made each other's decisions look worse. It would have been one thing if there had been an odd film with the gunbarrel at the end it would have a bad idea, still, but everybody is entitled to some bad decisions, but two in a row (and Casino Royale's placement, and Die Another Day's CGI bullet), creates an irritating pattern.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    QoS would've worked perfectly with the GB: it starts, then opens up on the lake, with the music ever so slight with the cuts of what Bond and the trailing henchmen are doing, then it gets louder and louder until the rev of the engines hit and the chase begins. I always crank the hell out of my TV volume when I watch the QoS PTS.
  • Posts: 2,402
    I think the only way SF would've worked with a gunbarrel is if it had gone FRWL/GF style and actually cut to black at the end of it, then opened on the fade-in to the hallway shot. Still would've been iffy, though.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I adore Skyfall's opening. The sudden sharp note of the Bond theme as Bond walks center frame, coming closer and closer down the hallway to meet the camera while a more subtle score plays; brilliance. As I have often said, I don't care if the gun barrel is there or not, and that opening was a good excuse to kick it to the curb for sure.

    This is something I agree with.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    I understood it in CR, and that was cool. In QOS I sort of was okay with it. By SF I was like "WHERE'S MY GORRAM FRONT END GUNBARREL ALREADY?!?!?!" :-??
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited December 2013 Posts: 18,269
    and that opening was a good excuse to kick it to the curb for sure.

    I think it was a crap excuse, especially considering it was the 50th anniversary.
    Dragonpol wrote:
    and of course it was a real-world representation of the gun-barrel in some ways, too.

    Why do we need a "real world representation"? What's wrong with the proper one?

    Like I said: Old school gunbarrel complete with John Barry. That's brilliance, not Bond walking down a corridor.

    It's feels like overdone familiarity to me. I love that the films have backed away from some of the franchise's long-running elements and dared to do something new with the opening shots for once. Skyfall's opening shot didn't need the gun barrel, and it's better off without the tired old thing.

    We're singing off the same hymn sheet on this one, Brady. Some folks still don't get that the Craig era is by and large about shaking things up in the Bond world. It's called the reboot for a reason, and things like the gunbarrel, iconic as they undoubtedly are, are surely more "old memory than new" if I may be permitted to entend the computer metaphor?
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 2,162
    A couple I've been stewing over:

    I dont understand the moaning about the gunbarrel being at the end. A Bond film is many things, one of them being the gunbarrel. But a Bond film is not solely defined by it, so if its been removed from the beginning to make the opening stronger or flow better, so be it.

    All of Brosnan's theme songs are terrible. Goldeneye is a poor mans Goldfinger, both TND and TWINE are snooze inducing and DAD's just 3 minutes of nothingness.

    Sherrif J W Pepper, whilst horribly outdated, does have some chuckle worthily lines.

    Thomas Newman's score for Skyfall, whilst lacking a coherent theme to tie everything together, is by far and away the best Bond score since John Barry's A View to a Kill.

    On that subject, Skyfall's song by Adele has strong orchestration (and the instrumental is rather lovely) but lyrically is very poor.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    pachazo wrote:
    Since we've eliminated the gun barrel, why even have the PTS anymore? Let's just go straight into the opening titles.

    And why, indeed, even have an opening title sequence? Bond is just about the only prominent film series to still have those. Why waste time on a song and a bunch of CGI nonsense?

    @002, I very much like your explanation of the gunbaarrel. I'd thought of some of those before, but you really put them all together well.

    Because opening titles are by and large a distinctly individual part of the Bond films, an element I think the gun barrel lacks. Sure, the gun barrel can change a little in style and have a variety of different tonal music playing to underscore it, but it will still just be the opening crawl with Bond walking and shooting his gun straight at the camera, the screen dripping with blood. With the opening titles we are promised that each film will feature a new artist (most times) singing a new song with fresh lyrics which also has different title designs than what came before, making those titles individual to that same film. The gun barrel can only change so much, and to be frank, there's nothing overly fresh or distinct about them beyond the music choice and basic design. No matter what you change about that sequence, it's always the same old footage we have seen 23 times before whereas each title design of every film is special, unique and completely individual to that year's adventure.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    pachazo wrote:
    Since we've eliminated the gun barrel, why even have the PTS anymore? Let's just go straight into the opening titles.

    And why, indeed, even have an opening title sequence? Bond is just about the only prominent film series to still have those. Why waste time on a song and a bunch of CGI nonsense?

    @002, I very much like your explanation of the gunbaarrel. I'd thought of some of those before, but you really put them all together well.

    Because opening titles are by and large a distinctly individual part of the Bond films, an element I think the gun barrel lacks. Sure, the gun barrel can change a little in style and have a variety of different tonal music playing to underscore it, but it will still just be the opening crawl with Bond walking and shooting his gun straight at the camera, the screen dripping with blood. With the opening titles we are promised that each film will feature a new artist (most times) singing a new song with fresh lyrics which also has different title designs than what came before, making those titles individual to that same film. The gun barrel can only change so much, and to be frank, there's nothing overly fresh or distinct about them beyond the music choice and basic design. No matter what you change about that sequence, it's always the same old footage we have seen 23 times before whereas each title design of every film is special, unique and completely individual to that year's adventure.

    Honestly, I think you're completely underestimating the importance of the GB. I say this knowing how much you understand/care about the series. For me it's up there with the Mona Lisa in terms of iconography. Maurice Binder created history.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    RC7 wrote:
    pachazo wrote:
    Since we've eliminated the gun barrel, why even have the PTS anymore? Let's just go straight into the opening titles.

    And why, indeed, even have an opening title sequence? Bond is just about the only prominent film series to still have those. Why waste time on a song and a bunch of CGI nonsense?

    @002, I very much like your explanation of the gunbaarrel. I'd thought of some of those before, but you really put them all together well.

    Because opening titles are by and large a distinctly individual part of the Bond films, an element I think the gun barrel lacks. Sure, the gun barrel can change a little in style and have a variety of different tonal music playing to underscore it, but it will still just be the opening crawl with Bond walking and shooting his gun straight at the camera, the screen dripping with blood. With the opening titles we are promised that each film will feature a new artist (most times) singing a new song with fresh lyrics which also has different title designs than what came before, making those titles individual to that same film. The gun barrel can only change so much, and to be frank, there's nothing overly fresh or distinct about them beyond the music choice and basic design. No matter what you change about that sequence, it's always the same old footage we have seen 23 times before whereas each title design of every film is special, unique and completely individual to that year's adventure.

    Honestly, I think you're completely underestimating the importance of the GB. I say this knowing how much you understand/care about the series. For me it's up there with the Mona Lisa in terms of iconography. Maurice Binder created history.

    And I think you're overestimating it. We both feel differently about it, and there's nothing that'll change that, but you're right, it can't be debated that the sequence has forever found a firm place in cinematic history. That being said, I respect it but don't miss its presence in the Bond films, whether it arrives before or after the film, or not at all.
  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    Without the gunbarrel...Bond films dont have a signature...its a bit like watching Doctor Who without the opening credits unthinkable...only Craigs films and Never Say Never Agian dont have gunbarrels....

    It feels like the producers are ashamed of honouring their own history/creations
    Reboot or not why have the bond theme in it? then if the gunbarrel is not important then why not remove the monty norman Bond theme if it makes little diffrence

  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    Mallory wrote:
    A couple I've been stewing over:


    All of Brosnan's theme songs are terrible. Goldeneye is a poor mans Goldfinger, both TND and TWINE are snooze inducing and DAD's just 3 minutes of nothingness.
    Agreed on Die Another Day- maybe take out the vocals and its decent, disagree on the others

    Sherrif J W Pepper, whilst horribly outdated, does have some chuckle worthily lines.
    He was more funny in Man with the golden gun

    Thomas Newman's score for Skyfall, whilst lacking a coherent theme to tie everything together, is by far and away the best Bond score since John Barry's A View to a Kill.
    Ahem what about The Living Daylights? Tommorow Never Dies? Licence to Kill?
    On that subject, Skyfall's song by Adele has strong orchestration (and the instrumental is rather lovely) but lyrically is very poor.
    Agreed
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    002 wrote:
    Without the gunbarrel...Bond films dont have a signature...its a bit like watching Doctor Who without the opening credits unthinkable...only Craigs films and Never Say Never Agian dont have gunbarrels....

    It feels like the producers are ashamed of honouring their own history/creations
    Reboot or not why have the bond theme in it? then if the gunbarrel is not important then why not remove the monty norman Bond theme if it makes little diffrence

    But the Craig films do have gun barrels. You're acting like they've up and disappeared...
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    002 wrote:
    Without the gunbarrel...Bond films dont have a signature...its a bit like watching Doctor Who without the opening credits unthinkable...only Craigs films and Never Say Never Agian dont have gunbarrels....

    It feels like the producers are ashamed of honouring their own history/creations
    Reboot or not why have the bond theme in it? then if the gunbarrel is not important then why not remove the monty norman Bond theme if it makes little diffrence

    Um, not sure if you bothered to watch the films to the end, just before the end credits but the Craig movies do have the gunbarrel and CR has the gunbarrel just before the title sequence.

  • Posts: 7,653
    002 wrote:
    Without the gunbarrel...Bond films dont have a signature...its a bit like watching Doctor Who without the opening credits unthinkable...only Craigs films and Never Say Never Agian dont have gunbarrels....

    It feels like the producers are ashamed of honouring their own history/creations
    Reboot or not why have the bond theme in it? then if the gunbarrel is not important then why not remove the monty norman Bond theme if it makes little diffrence

    But the Craig films do have gun barrels. You're acting like they've up and disappeared...

    It feels like the next step is dissapearance, as such the DC movies are indeed a step away from the previous Broccoli series. And so far the NEW 007 has added nothing of greatness to its new style. In fact most of the iconic aspects of the previous series get the most response and are enjoyed best by the general audience.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Really? Most of the iconic stuff from the past are often ridiculed and parodied and then often criticised for not daring to be "different". That's the problem with change; so many people demand it and then complain when they do get it. SF is/ was critically acclaimed and the biggest and most successful Bond movie since Bond Mania. Fans whinging about the placement of the gunbarrel means sod all. I think we should all count ourselves lucky that it's still there at all because it sure as hell doesn't need to be.
  • doubleoego wrote:
    Really? Most of the iconic stuff from the past are often ridiculed and parodied and then often criticised for not daring to be "different". That's the problem with change; so many people demand it and then complain when they do get it. SF is/ was critically acclaimed and the biggest and most successful Bond movie since Bond Mania. Fans whinging about the placement of the gunbarrel means sod all. I think we should all count ourselves lucky that it's still there at all because it sure as hell doesn't need to be.

    Yes, by people who hate Bond to begin with. Sod them because they won't be happy until Bond is converted in an anti-Bond freak.

  • Mallory wrote:
    A couple I've been stewing over:

    I dont understand the moaning about the gunbarrel being at the end. A Bond film is many things, one of them being the gunbarrel. But a Bond film is not solely defined by it, so if its been removed from the beginning to make the opening stronger or flow better, so be it.

    All of Brosnan's theme songs are terrible. Goldeneye is a poor mans Goldfinger, both TND and TWINE are snooze inducing and DAD's just 3 minutes of nothingness.

    Sherrif J W Pepper, whilst horribly outdated, does have some chuckle worthily lines.

    Thomas Newman's score for Skyfall, whilst lacking a coherent theme to tie everything together, is by far and away the best Bond score since John Barry's A View to a Kill.

    On that subject, Skyfall's song by Adele has strong orchestration (and the instrumental is rather lovely) but lyrically is very poor.

    Of the Broz songs I rate GE as one of the best in the series, TWINE as underrated and lyrically perhaps the best of all Bond tunes, TND and DAD as ghastly.

    I love JayDub in LALD, but he added very little to Gun.

    I like the SF score quite well, but it's not a patch on any Barry score except for OP.

    Adele's song is brilliant in most respects and is easily the best since GE. It deserves an honored spot in the Bond song pantheon.

  • doubleoego wrote:
    Really? Most of the iconic stuff from the past are often ridiculed and parodied and then often criticised for not daring to be "different". That's the problem with change; so many people demand it and then complain when they do get it. SF is/ was critically acclaimed and the biggest and most successful Bond movie since Bond Mania. Fans whinging about the placement of the gunbarrel means sod all. I think we should all count ourselves lucky that it's still there at all because it sure as hell doesn't need to be.

    Yes, by people who hate Bond to begin with. Sod them because they won't be happy until Bond is converted in an anti-Bond freak.

    That's not entirely fair. People around here criticize the Brosnan movies for feeling too overdone, and while I want the gunbarrel and some other traditional elements back, they have a point. Making Bond vulnerable and changing up the formula to some extent was a necessary development.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited December 2013 Posts: 28,694
    doubleoego wrote:
    Really? Most of the iconic stuff from the past are often ridiculed and parodied and then often criticised for not daring to be "different". That's the problem with change; so many people demand it and then complain when they do get it. SF is/ was critically acclaimed and the biggest and most successful Bond movie since Bond Mania. Fans whinging about the placement of the gunbarrel means sod all. I think we should all count ourselves lucky that it's still there at all because it sure as hell doesn't need to be.

    Yes, by people who hate Bond to begin with. Sod them because they won't be happy until Bond is converted in an anti-Bond freak.

    And by the people that love Bond, apparently. For instance, I can recall with ease the palpable stink brought up by the DB5 appearance in Skyfall, with comments criticizing the film for relying on iconic elements of the past and being erroneous for not daring to create its own memorable moments even though the car is about as iconic as you can get in the world of James Bond. The truth is, not everyone is going to be pleased, and it must be noted that some never will, especially when they need a reason to complain and will find it eventually no matter the quality of the final product. I'm of the group that respects Bond's traditions and iconography but is also more than happy to see things change when the results are as fair as what the Craig era has given us, Bond films full of thematic content that act as brilliant and nearly unprecedented character studies on 007 and those in his world. If this is change, may it long continue.
  • "Bond films full of thematic content that act as brilliant and nearly unprecedented character studies on 007 and those in his world."

    There is nothing about this that is a radical departure, let alone is it a facet that deletes Bond icons and traditions. What's more, it harks back to Fleming himself, and no genuine Bond fan can complain about that.
Sign In or Register to comment.