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
Obviously. Are you one of those that doesn't care whether or not the gunbarrel is at the beginning, I'm assuming?
With SKYFALL, I accept the reasoning for why it didn't. And it's Bond history, now.
QoS definitely could've used it, too. I wonder if Forster omitted it because CR didn't open up with it, and it was a direct sequel. I think it was @Birdleson that mentioned how he thinks the opening of the title sequence could be seen as the gunbarrel in a way, with Bond standing there staring down the circular sun, and he fires and we follow the bullet throughout the entire thing.
In a way, these producers, directors and actors have all been caught in a box since CR. That film was just so masterfully executed (including the toilet GB & Lake Como Bond 'James Bond' finale moment) that they have been trying to live up to it ever since by fiddling around with the GB, but nothing has come close to what they achieved so perfectly there. It's all about timing, and the timing was right for all of this back then.
They're both equally pretentious. The rationale for QoS doesn't even stand up. CR was completely justified - that is the moment he becomes 007. SF was an ego thing. I'd actually argue Forster was more pretentious, at least Sam was ballsy enough to admit he thought what he was doing was better.
Totally agree. Mendes reasoning doesn't stand up
It's a mystery. I do like Forster's first shot though.
I may be in the minority, but I don't care for music over the MGM and Sony logos.
I'm fine with having renowned directors working on the Bond films, but the producers need to put their foot down sometimes, and make these filmmakers adjust better to the traditions and parameters of these movies. If you're going to change something, you have to have a good reason, and something like the gunbarrel can't be tampered with all the time; otherwise, it becomes meaningless. The star of the Bond films is Bond, not the directors.
Having said that, of Mendes' films, I like Skyfall, but it's my least favorite of the Craig era. I love Spectre, and it's my second favorite. Mendes is a good director, but his films sometimes give me the uncomfortable feeling the world of Bond is not enough for him, and the thematic depth he tries to infuse each film with feels slightly at odds with the rest of it. It doesn't mesh all that well. It's as if he comes up for a theme to be explored and then tries to make a Bond film around it, instead of taking the premise of Bond and finding the depth within it. He gets away with it in Skyfall, but not in Spectre, with its sibling story. For me, this was clearly not the case with Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace. I must say I still prefer Spectre to Skyfall simply because it's a more entertaining; Sykfall is a rather somber, slow-paced entry.
I feel the script writers have either ran out of ideas or overdosed on cocaine because, for a while now, they've been mostly mixing up "Bond clichés" with those of other franchises; for instance in "Die another day" the movie was (actually) not going very badly up until the moment they added "Knight Rider's K.I.T.T.(on steroids)" to it, and "Quantum of Solace" felt more like an episode of "Starsky and Hutch" in which Starsky was (no longer) dark haired and wore an evening jacket and Hutch was a (dark haired) female, and while I watched "Specter" I was almost expecting Macaulay Culkin (from "Home alone") would pop by playing "Bond's American nephew" to help him set the traps inside the "Bond's family house".
Also I have to say I find Sam Mendes to be a lousy (let me repeat lousy) director because under the excuse/guise of "Cinematography" he turns any film into a slow, boring and dry experience.
The best cinematography is the kind that is so embedded/blended into the film that it cannot delay the pace of its action or, even, be specifically/particularly "noticed" in isolated (usually also dragged/tediously and needlessly slow) scenes of it. As an example of excellent cinematography there are (the vast majority of) Stanley Kubrick's films.
I suspect Sam Mendes suffers from a maladie called "Manoel De Oliveiritis" which takes its name from a Portuguese (like Mendes ancestry) movie director called Manoel De Oliveira (who died in 2015 at the age of 106) whose movies (the last came out in 2013) are renown (both among the real/general public and the truly artistic circle) for being overly slow and, often, uninterestingly scripted because he used words like "cinematography" and "art" as (pretentious) guises/excuses to hide his lack of (real) talent; much in the same way the fabled "Emperor" would say "his lovely, new, clothes could only be seen by highly intelligent (but, in truth, merely sycophantic) people".
I felt I had to say this, therefore I said it; thanks for reading; feel free to agree and/or disagree with me.
Thank you.
Particularly noticeable in SF when Newman's score starts up along with background noises of Istanbul. Sat there in the premiere for the 50th anniversary I had thought there's no way they were going to cock the GB up this time round so when the Bond theme didn't start I thought something was amiss and so it proved. I didn't even notice Mendes' poncey opening shot as I was seething too much for the first 2 mins of the film.
SP just as annoying with half the Bond theme over before the first white dot starts across the screen.
Also am I the only one who is getting irked by those 2 notes they keep playing (it started in the final scene of CR with Mr White but most noticeable in the DB5 reveal in SF) that they seem to think are integral to the Bond theme but were never heard before 06?
Given the last time we heard the perfect original version was in OHMSS I guess we're never getting that back again but I'm getting tired of the current iteration which for some reason feels to me like an arrangement of the Bond theme that has been composed by committee.
This and other things in the last four films feel like EoN desperately needed to distance themselves from the past to show that "this era is different!".
They give the impression to me at least that they are partially ashamed of their legacy. That it's beneath them and they are better than their past. This is evidenced by the subtle digs in films like SF & CR. While initially amusing, such indirect jabs in the long run have the potential to taint their own legacy from within imho. From my perspective at least, that's one of the reasons why the car and watch gags in SP didn't work. I kept wondering why they were evoking elements of the past which they had denigrated in the prior film and therefore I wasn't able to enjoy the humour in the manner I normally would.
I really like your attitude!
Then SP happened. I think the retcon, yellow filter, score, Madeleine Swann, C, theme song, boring action and editing, bloated running time, and awful plot twists sinks the film and has killed my excitement for Bond 25. Especially since Craig is back. Mendes doesn't do a terrible job but his style doesn't work whatsoever with the more classic movie they were trying to make. Now he's a Guy Hamilton. Made a film that was gold but just couldn't do it again. I actully like those three films though.
Forster was pretentious but I've always loved his work on QOS. The nostalgia doesn't hurt my opinion.
Yeah I've really grown to hate that arrangement of the Bond theme. Felt epic in CR because it was a novelty and the whole film had been building up to it but it feels so played out now and makes all Craig's endings feel too similar.
For the GB in the next one I hope they use a new arrangement, and for the credits I hope they don't use the Bond theme at all (maybe use YKMN? Bring things full circle).
Yeah I could've worded that better. In an interview, he seemed hellbent on showing the effects of Bond aging. Why? It's too early in Craig's tenure and isn't a good idea to begin with anyway. That's just my opinion. I wanted to continue to see Craig kicking ass but I guess both he and Mended didn't. I still enjoy the movie nonetheless.
There was something kind of special about the old silent UA logos preceding the gunbarrel. Complete silence while we saw the blue lines form the T during the United Artists/ Transamerica period. The black background helped. Then the gunbarrel would kick in with, which back then was always a re-recording of the Bond theme. Whether we were watching, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, MR or FYEO. They got the right mood and tone.
While viewing SP and hearing a slow building Bond Theme over the MGM and Columbia logos, I was instantly reminded of SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE in which the Superman theme had played over the Warner Bros. logo, followed by a cheap cheesy version of their traditional space titles sequence.
The out of sync Bond theme during the gunbarrel, the lack of a movement post gunfire, the dimming of Craig's image, and finally the awful Dead Are Alive caption, AGAIN ruined the moment.
I stand in awe on how such a simple iconic image, that for decades had thrilled audiences and put them in the James Bond mood, can be screwed up multiple times in one era.
I agree.
The left? Get with the times, @Thunderfinger, next time he will enter from the bottom.