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
It's an interesting and at least partly logical theory, but I can't imagine the creators thinking that let alone the audience.
"If Bond so good at shooting his assailant, why didn't he shoot Eve?"
He's locked in hand to hand combat. Plus, it's some 15 minutes after the barrel.
The same argument could be used even if it's at the end of the film. Or, by then, did Bond relearn how to shoot the person gunning for him?
I guess, in a way, it's weird to start a scene with a barrel and Bond shooting and end it with a scope and Bond getting shot. But only if you consciously thought about it.
As for the rumour that something replaces the barrel at the start, is this confirmed?
If they're really afraid a gunbarrel doesn't fit the tone of a modern film, or perhaps it hampers a serious directors vision, they could simply make it the EON logo.
By that I mean do the MGM lion, Columbia pictures logo, etc. Then, play the gunbarrel, have the circle become the O in EON and have the words "an EON production" appear on screen. Fade to black.
(Beat). Movie then opens however the director wants it to.
Interesting. So pretty much a gunbarrel...without a gun ;)
Nope. Keep everything the same as the classic barrel. But instead of having it open the movie, by literally having the circle open up into the movie scene, bringing with it the music and all, it's just the studios logo.
This gives the creative team freedom to officially "open" the movie however their vision sees fit. They don't complain MGM's logo at the start messes with their vision. They wouldn't complain EONs new logo messes with their vision.
does it seem to blend in with something,? without any spoilers though plz.
I agree. It doesn't work. They should have continued playing WHATTITW right until the end. The mood shouldn't have been lightened. This is the worst part about OHMSS for me not that there are many bad parts in it. It's my second favourite Bond film. I was never one for wanting the 007 theme at the end of Bond films. It worked for CR though.
I always thought they should have played "We Have All The Time in The World" at the end of OHMSS, but watching it recently I found it perfect to have the Bond theme there. After such a low and emotional scene it was good to bring it back up with a high. Not sure why I changed heart, but I now think it was the best thing to do. I think back then a lot of people might have left feeling disappointed it ended on such a low.
I'm prepared to give the film every chance, but there is nothing they could have done that will justify the gunbarrel at the end. I heard all the same schtick before QoS and was left underwhelmed. I fully expect the same here.
yeah, I had the same opinion and I was really miffed about it. but to my suprise, it fits to movies atmosphere at the ending.... at least for me it does :)
but of course, for BOND 24 I want it back to the beginning! no excuses if not!
HerrBond, what did you think of the film?
Please, tell me it's not true.
QOS is NOT Skyfall.
The funny thing is that almost nobody here has seen the film, and so we don't know why or how it turns out the way it is. Just relax.
Before anyone says don't be daft, it only takes one,didn't someone shoot up a cinema recently.
?
:D
I honestly can't see any reason for putting it at the end unless the new thing they have at the start is awesome.
Well...I'm officially disturbed. Should we report this comment to EON?
do you really want to know that? they somehow introduce bond to the audience in a very stilistic way! the audience in my cinema liked it!
I really liked SF. It has some very "bondian" scenes, many good jokes and a very special atmosphere (I think I've never ever seen such beautiful shots in a bond movie! thx to deakins+mendes). And the main actors are just brilliant (Craig, Dench, Bardem especially). And Whishaw gives a great Q, Harris was also good, Berence was good but has not much screen time, to be honest!
So I would say it's a real classical bond movie, with all the elements you want to see in a bond movie, but it has also something special and new, which you wouldn't expect from a bond movie. And, of course, it is a Sam Mendes movie, so the characters show feelings and the script seems to be very good, although not every detail of the story convinced me... but okay, it still is a action blockbuster and no Michael Haneke movie :)
So I think the general audience will love SF (what we already see from all the good reviews), but I don't know if every hardcore bondfan will be 100% happy with it, because it's somehow a very special bond story. but of course, you can't suit everybody.
I loved CR, and I also liked QOS and SF is for sure a much better bond movie than QOS!
Read my post again.
Even if it is 'awesome' it will not be more appropriate than the gunbarrel as an opening. Using this sequence at the end makes no sense either.
No excuses this time really though, is there? CR was a reboot, so it showed us the origin of the gunbarrel - fair enough. QoS was a straight continuation of CR, so it didn't start with a gunbarrel. Putting it at the end was pointless and so I felt even this was a failed exercise. So what excuse with Skyfall? It's a stand alone Bond film. The gunbarrel, no matter what 'cool' or 'arty' method they've come up with for kicking things off, should be at the beginning. Marks off for it not being is what I'm saying.
I think in CR, QOS and also in SF bonds character and all the known bond elements are still "under construction"... only now, at the end of SF, everything is as it should be...
that was at least my personal interpretation why they may have put it there, when I saw the movie. and so it was fine for me, afterwards.
but I think the producers will be answering that question very soon.
Bond's character is still under construction three movies in? No deal. It was bad enough stretching it over two films.
Who me? I stated my age on this thread already, although what relevance that has to anything I don't know.
Thanks for your answers, HerrBond. And yes, use spoiler tags, but we want to know... :D
What is the first shot instead of GB?? First shot of a film can´t spoil anything for me...