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
And even when people got the gun barrel back to normal in SP, the mewling continued. It disturbs me how fans can never be satisfied with anything these days.
Agree. Binder and Hunt didn't spend their time contributing to the DNA of Bond for people to just skip it. I don't understand the argument from @patb, which I've heard a lot. No, it may not make the film, but it doesn't break it, so stop fucking about and open the film in typical bombastic fashion. It's the same as removing the SW crawl. It's beautiful. Leave it alone.
The DB5 can do one as far as I'm concerned. The gun barrel is far more iconic.
Agreed; if you don't care enough to open up the film with it, then there's no point in placing it before the end credits.
There may be explainations for the head and whatsoever - having the GB at the beginninh just "feels" right and it just belongs there. For me it would also work without doubt in SF without any change to the opening shot.
For me personally the SP PTS is infinitely better than the SF one.
I have to say though that I'd like to see a PTS that didn't necessarily involve OTT action for a change.
I agree the construction site chase in CR is incredibly well done, but it front loads the movie too much. None of the action after that lives up to it and I agree the Miami sequence can't hold a candle to the PTS.
QoS is transparently relying on the action throughout to paper over the lack of a script, which Forster has openly acknowledged. Having said that, I've always Liked QOS and I love the PTS and think the car chase is one of the best in a Bond movie - may be any movie.
Almost all of Mendes's action sequences are a disappointment on some level. The only real exception for me is the train fight in SP which i thought was brilliantly done.
The title sequence names those involved in the film and sets the stage for it through visual motifs, so you can't put it at the end of the film. These sections also change every time for each film, while the gun barrel, outside of a few random design choices, doesn't. That argument just doesn't hold up, I'm afraid.
The gun barrel is barely ten seconds and whether or not you put it at the beginning, middle or end, it doesn't matter or change anything.
Bottom line is, both are part of the grammar of Bond films. QoS and SF could easily have started with the GB, but ego got in the way.
The opening titles (not the closing titles, by the way) are always different (unlike the minor changes that happen with a gun barrel), and the variety of design we've seen over the years make these sections of a film a viable part of the movies into the modern age. You see motifs of the film set up, hints at what is to come, and enjoy a new song that all come together to prepare the stage behind the curtain before a Bond film begins in earnest following the PTS, which the opening titles give breathing room and anticipation to.
How a blink and you miss it piece (no matter how traditional it is) gets viewed as more viable than a sequence that is always creatively different in design, sound and atmosphere is beyond me.
I just don't get the thinking behind any of this.
I'd only prefer if the film that they give us is top notch.
What I'm arguing is that it's clear which item proves more sustainable and interesting over the course of 24 films.
But I agree, the film itself is what matters, and some complaints distract from that.
I don't think anyone was suggesting the GB is more viable than the titles. They are both equally important. Shifting the GB to the end is a piss take. The fact you refer to it as 'blink and you'll miss it', is disturbing. If graphic design were listed, it would be Grade 1. How any fan can so easily dismiss it is, to me, insane.
Excellent post. Agree about the Miami sequence. I was expecting something epic but it pales in comparison to Raiders similar chase. I can't believe they shot the tanker punching through the fuselage of a plane but then cut it. You're trying to say Bond is back in a balls out action sequence at an airport so let's get some planes involved. One of the highlights is when the 747 jet blasts the police car down the runway so I'm mystified why they cut this moment which can't have been cheap to film. And as I recall it looked pretty good in the deleted scenes.
Absolutely. What are EON playing at here? Someone needs to say 'For the 50th the film starts with an unf**ked up GB sequence. After that you can do what you want.'
But Mendes thinks Bond walking down a corridor out of focus until he comes into focus is such a moment of unparalleled genius that all the fans can piss off? Sorry mate but although you seem to think you are Hitchcock or Welles you really ain't so have a bit of respect for the series rather than forcing your own misguided whims on us. Perhaps if someone at EON had taken note of Sam's ego at this point we might have been spared the shitty Guiness explosion down the line.
Agree entirely mate. Because the opening 20 seconds of NSNA really blows you away doesn't it?
Anyone seriously think McClory would have served up that inspid shite rather than use the GB if he could have?
Indeed. I find it disturbing that so many people on here are seemingly unable to follow Partridge's first law:
STOP GETTING BOND WRONG!!!
Its not rocket science folks.
It is a blink and you miss it moment, though. I'm not being dismissive, that's just what it basically is. If a viewer is sitting in the movie theater, waiting for the picture to start, then decides to take a bit of popcorn and follow that up with a sip of their drink, they would miss most or all of the gun barrel. It just doesn't add as much to the film as many want to argue it does, that's all. These defenses are driven by tradition and nostalgia.
The DB5 is worthy, as some were questioning it, because cars in films can become like characters themselves, and are centerpieces in great sequences of drama, action, thrills, etc, and can charactered the man or woman that drives the vehicle as well, as is the case with Bond. The DB5 has appeal because it is such a recognizable and iconic character in the movies. It doesn't just show up to say, "look at me!" It's a viable part of the action when introduced, and has a function beyond a quick visual to the films that adds layers and resonance to what is on the screen, the action it takes part in and who Bond is at its driver.
I respect the tradition of the gun barrel and I get the love for it, I do, but if one thing from the Bond formula had to go, it would be it for me, because to me, it offers the least.
So let me get this right - your resting case on the attention span of some cheese nachos guzzling, 2 litre coke swilling, bucket of popcorn chomping imbecile that makes going to the cinema a misery these days? Yeah I wish EON would target the IQ under 100 audience more myself too.
Well you might as well wave goodbye to the TMWTGG barrel roll, TSWLM ski jump and the GE bungee too then; because all those iconic moments only last as long as the GB so would also be missed by your hypothetical Mr Creosote in the audience.
Except ever since its post TB resurrection (which was indubitably based on nostalgia - something you're dead against but only when it applies to the GB apparently) thats precisely what it has done:
GE: Crappy 'comedy' chase which has zero bearing on the plot.
TND: A few shots along with the Bond theme to say, 'Look this a Bond film'.
TWINE: An utterly pointless reference.
CR: Painfully shoehorned in to scream at the audience, 'Yes. We know its a reboot but its still Bond. Here's the DB5 to reassure you see.'
SF: 'Its the 50th so we simply have to have it so that people know its a Bond film. Particularly since clever bollocks behind the camera has seen fit to bin the GB to the end again. Shall we worry about it being right hand drive all of a sudden and having all the gadgets from GF which dont exist in this timeline? Nah CR was 6 years ago and these popcorn bingeing cretins are too thick to remember that far back.' At least, in fairness, it contributes to the action in SF.
SP: To quote Reeves and Mortimer back when they were funny: 'You wouldnt let it lie'. Blown to buggery in SF but such is the indispensability of the DB5 we had to have it pieced back together again and forced down our throats like we were a Strasbourg goose.
'Adds layers and resonance to what is on the screen'? The overuse of the DB5 since 95 has done nothing of the sort. It drips nostalgia and, more pertinently, creative desperation from every pore like a fat lass plodding up a broken escalator.
Obviously I'm referring to the tanker smashing through the side of a plane I mentioned earlier, but I'll admit that sentence was poorly structured. Apologies.
My meaning was the planes interacting with the chase worked well when the 747 wash hit the car for six so why didnt we have more of that? Especially since they filmed it.