Home › Bond Movies › SPECTRE
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
SPECTRE: Wouldn't a James Bond-less Pre Title Sequence be a ingenious thing to do?
I have been thinking about this a great deal. And most likely 007 will show up in the PTS of Bond 24. Still, there were three Bond films in which Bond physically did not appear:
--> The first ever PTS in "From Russia With Love"
--> The first Bond-film for Roger Moore, "Live And Let Die"
--> And also his second film "The Man With The Golden Gun"
I think it could add some mystery to the new Bond film. And it shouldn't be a boring PTS off course. There could still be plentiful action in it. One can think of the fight sequence in the Blayden Safehouse in "The Living Daylights" between Necros and the security agent. I thought it was gripping, perfectly executed! Let's do something like that in the PTS of Bond 24. Perhaps another 00-agent could be killed off in the PTS? Or perhaps it's a member of QUANTUM/SPECTRE who desperately tries to free himself from the organization.
Any thoughts?
--> The first ever PTS in "From Russia With Love"
--> The first Bond-film for Roger Moore, "Live And Let Die"
--> And also his second film "The Man With The Golden Gun"
I think it could add some mystery to the new Bond film. And it shouldn't be a boring PTS off course. There could still be plentiful action in it. One can think of the fight sequence in the Blayden Safehouse in "The Living Daylights" between Necros and the security agent. I thought it was gripping, perfectly executed! Let's do something like that in the PTS of Bond 24. Perhaps another 00-agent could be killed off in the PTS? Or perhaps it's a member of QUANTUM/SPECTRE who desperately tries to free himself from the organization.
Any thoughts?
^ 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
Past pre-title sequences without Bond haven't exactly fared the best. Live & Let Die is actually my all-time least favorite, and From Russia With Love's and The Man with the Golden Gun's were certainly decent, though hardly among the most thrilling or most memorable of the series—for me, at least. But as you've suggested, @Gustav_Graves, there are certainly ways to make an exciting PTS without Bond.
For some reason I expect entire B24 to tie up loose ends from SF
Second, why stop there? Why not have a Bond movie that doesn't have Bond in it? Why not have a title sequence with Bond lip synching the song? Would that NOT be ingenious?
The answer is no. These things are not ingeniouis. Let's keep to realistic threads.
Mod edit: or realistic members... IFM everyone.
I did think if they did a spin off of the novel of TSWLM they could delay Bond's intro for 25 mins or so, then have Craig's Bond appear at Vivienne Mitchell's motel door as he does in the novel, he would do that well. Then, all out Bond.
And for people saying we can have a good action packed PTS without Bond again I would feel short changed. Look at TDKR - the best action in the film is the 'PTS' and it doesn't feature Batman. If I go to see a Bond or Batman film I want to see the hero involved in the big action sequences.
I would happily go back to a TSWLM or MR style PTS whereby we see some nefarious activity by the villain to set up the plot then cut to Bond with a bird, big action sequence then into the title sequence. Textbook.
It might be cool if, for instance, a Bond movie ended YOLT-style, with Bond having an amnesia, and then next movie's PTS dealt with Bond disappearance, only for him to appear just two seconds before the song started.
However we already had Bond disappearing/faking his death in Skyfall, so it'd feel a bit redundant if it were done now.
That's my kind of PTS Wiz. Doesn't have to be non stop action for its duration. TSWLM is an excellent PTS as it's got a lot going on. And contains enough action in the few minutes left we get one of the best stunts of all time ever!
A Bondless PTS is something I'd rather not have. It's a Bond film. Bond should be onscreen.
"A gunbarrel not at the start of a Bond film I'd rather not have. It's a Bond film. The gunbarrel must be at the start."
Look where we are now after three Bond films :-).
I'm hoping Bond 24 will restore this glitch. Then an excellent Pts that has nothing to do with the main story.
They're very rare in the Bond series actually.
Indeed. Enough messing about now. If it doesn't happen in B24 then it's clear Mendes is taking the piss.
About the Bondless PTS, i think it's not a great idea. The PTS of TMWTGG and FRWL were both incredibly stupid in my opinion. The "fake Bond" thing is laughable to me. Who in the world would have a cutout of Bond/go to the effort to make a mask of him? Not even a psycho supervillain would have that. For a Bondless PTS to work, it would have to be important to the plot like in LALD (also because i think PTS that have nothing to do with the plot are really dumb), and even then I wouldn't recommend doing it.
Now to my main point: can we remove the horrid double-negative from the title?
"Wouldn't a James Bond-less Pre Title Sequence not be a ingenious thing to do?"
Should read:
"Wouldn't A Pre-Titles-Sequence Absent Of James Bond Be Great? Genius? A Fresh Take? Fun?" or something of the sort.
There is a rule of titles that states any topic/article title that is poised as a question can automatically be answered "no". I'm not saying that is the case here, but you could make the argument ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
Perhaps "Bond 24's Pre-Titles-Sequence Shouldn't Feature Bond" would be more to the point and stir up some more enthusiastic conversation.
(I'm not trying to pick on anyone, so please do not yell at me.)
I 100% agree with @hildebrand_rarity
Because in a world where everything is disposable it's important to stand up for things you value. Where you and others see a couple of seconds that have nothing to do with the movie, I see one of the greatest visual icons of cinema, a definitive piece of art, the likes of which wouldn't even get made today. Because unfortunately, studio execs have the same mindset as yourself, they don't like creativity for the sake of creativity. You're right, it has no bearing on the film you're about to see, but for people like me who don't view the world as disposable and don't think everything is up for grabs, I value the legacy of Maurice Binder and I think they need to quit messing about with it. There's nothing more exciting than sitting in a cinema and seeing those white dots.
...you get that blaring sound of the Bond theme, the two dots chasing across the screen and in comes Bond from screen right. He fires and the dot dances around the screen, opening up to reveal where we are. You should already be pumped to be seeing a Bond film. But this just pushes you up to 11.
They are a piece of Bond history. They establish the movie in a unique way. If over the years we continue to change these little things, then after a while Bond just wont be Bond. He'll be any other action character and become insignificant. Why change such an iconic part of the films?
If we lose the gunbarrel, then how about lose the pts, or the gadgets. Lose the OO prefix perhaps. Obviously I'm exaggerating here somewhat, but small changes now, mean more changes down the road. Let's not lose this little sequence that sets us up for a one of a kind film series.
I find it baffling that people who call themselves Bond fans need this explaining to them.
Now it's time for "a little plain solid work", as 'M' put it in DAF :-).
Also, the new films are trying to be a bit different, and starting off in the old style might seem anachronistic, just as they tried to avoid the Bond theme in GE.
I'd see it as following the villain, or a character tied to the the movie's plot, and have the action follow him, maybe have a chase scene and have Bond suddenly popping up in the action and we start to discover what is going on. Kind of like that Person of Interest episode I mentionned in this post. I think that would be more ingenious than a Bond-less PTS only. Having the film's continuity non-linear like what Christopher Nolan does with his some of his films. Craig's era do seem to be taking the franchise 'outside-of-box', and it would cool if they continued to make Bond films that people wouldn't expect. Of course there is a limitation to how much different the outings can be, but I am sure there is a sufficient scope of ideas that can be thrown around.
I don't think that the absence of the gun barrel sequence at the beginning makes the film any "different" and if they think it does, then they have much to think about. If they want to be different they'll inject more character movement into the story, have a little less action to make room for this and highlight more of Bond's little follies and quirks such as how he dislikes shoelaces. It's just little things like this that do actually add depth to a character. They're also amusing. What is sorely missing from the Craig films is that he never discusses wine or food. This is an important part of Bond's character.
Back on to the PTS, there is no reason for Mendes to leave it out at the beginning of the film. I remember him saying that it would have messed up the transition in SF or something like that. The screen could have simply turned to black following the gun barrel and the 007 music could have merged into the mosque sounds...
Good idea.