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
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.
Precisely.
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.
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.
Also Colonel Sun needs to be adapted one day.
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 agree with all of that! =D>
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.
This is something I agree with.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.