It seems as though you and I read the same magazine. Just out of curiosity which Bond cover did you choose?
What counts is what the heroine provokes, or rather what she represents. She is the one, or rather the love or fear she inspires in the hero , or else the concern he feels for her, who makes him act the way he does.
Author of 'Pussy Galore - A Representation of Women in James Bond Films'.
Active tweeter and tumbler - https://twitter.com/surrie_fullard
Producer Michael G. Wilson had this to say in an interview for the newest edition of Total Film magazine:
"We’ll probably go back to the traditional style [qunbarrel]."
Wilson does say "probably," so it must not be a done deal. I hope they do it.
I very much hope they do it. The gun barrel IMO is one of the most important things in a Bond film, and I would hope that there are some traditions which are sacrosanct.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Having watched the latest QOS trailer I've developed a horrible feeling.
The bit where Bond falls from a rope but twists and shoots upward has been presented like the gunbarrel scene from Casino Royale. I sincerely hope that this isn't going to be the way the gunbarrel is presented from now on.
Not only would it spoil the uniqueness of Casino Royale's reboot, it destroys one of the most recognisable and important traditions of the Bond movie franchise.
For me, and all the other Bond fans I know, it is imperative the traditional gunbarrel sequence is restored. By all means keep the gritty, Flemingesque style of Casino Royale - it's important - but restore the gunbarrel.
Like I said, it would ruin the whole franchise if that's the way they were going with this.
It worked in Casino Royale as he was Bond with no kills and it was a reboot. It would look plain stupid if they contrived to find a new set piece to set up a gunbarrel in every movie from now on.
The brassy notes and gunbarrel are iconic with Bond on screen. Remove these and you might as well be watching Never Say Never Again or any other Bond imitator.
Having watched the latest QOS trailer I've developed a horrible feeling.
The bit where Bond falls from a rope but twists and shoots upward has been presented like the gunbarrel scene from Casino Royale. I sincerely hope that this isn't going to be the way the gunbarrel is presented from now on.
I'm not sure what you mean; it's from the scaffolding fight. Do you mean that you think it might be the end of the fight which then leads into the titles as with CR? I suppose that's possible, but I don't think that's what'll happen there.
It's just a trailer, and a stylish and explosive way to put the title up on the screen. I highly, highly doubt that the rope fight will lead into the gunbarrel in this fashion. It wouldn't make sense.
It's just a trailer, and a stylish and explosive way to put the title up on the screen. I highly, highly doubt that the rope fight will lead into the gunbarrel in this fashion. It wouldn't make sense.
Exactly; it doesn't feel like an end to a sequence. I'm not even sure where the rope fight is in the movie.
Steady now. I didn't say this was definite. I said it was how it appeared to me. The producers did it with the CR trailer and it turned out that that was the new gunbarrel.
Having seen the Coke Zero ad too, there's a sniff of some kind of animated gunbarrel at the start of that n'all. We'll just have to wait and see won't we.
Like I said, it would ruin the whole franchise if that's the way they were going with this.
I'm not sure that it would "ruin" the franchise.
Er, yes it would my American friend. It would be removing a signature element, something that is globally recognisable. Look at all the Bond movie literature and paraphenalia around the planet. Most if it incorporates the gunbarrel in some way.
No, I'm interested in others' points of view, just less so when they blow it all out of proportion. Losing the gunbarrel would not destroy the Bond series- it's just a graphic. Some viewers might shrug and say 'I liked that bit where he used to turn and shoot at the camera' but then they'd enjoy all the bangs and ladies.
One nice little visual detail is not the keystone upon which a 40-year series of films has been built; there's a bit more to it than that. To say it is is to be using hyperbole just ever so slightly.
No, I'm interested in others' points of view, just less so when they blow it all out of proportion. Losing the gunbarrel would not destroy the Bond series- it's just a graphic. Some viewers might shrug and say 'I liked that bit where he used to turn and shoot at the camera' but then they'd enjoy all the bangs and ladies.
One nice little visual detail is not the keystone upon which a 40-year series of films has been built; there's a bit more to it than that. To say it is is to be using hyperbole just ever so slightly.
I disagree with you. It may 'just be a graphic', but it's an iconic one. The minute it appears on screen you're watching a Bond film. Even a casual Bond fan will know they're in Bond territory when they see the gunbarrel.
To remove it will destroy a heritable trait of the franchise. In my opinion, there is no need to remove, so why do so?
I disagree with you. It may 'just be a graphic', but it's an iconic one. The minute it appears on screen you're watching a Bond film. Even a casual Bond fan will know they're in Bond territory when they see the gunbarrel.
To remove it will destroy a heritable trait of the franchise. In my opinion, there is no need to remove, so why do so?
I don't disagree with that; but to say that losing it will bring down the whole series is a bit OTT, no?
To lose the gunbarrel would be, I feel, pretty damn catastrophic. Before I was a 'full-on' Bond fan, my favourite thing about the series used to be the gunbarrels, I remember spending ages taping them all together ;%
Maybe I'm sentimental about it, but I think its an essential part of the institution, the symbol of Bond :007)
I agree that the gunbarrel is a staple in the Bond series. I always got a giddy, excited feeling when I saw those white dots bounce across the screen--especially when I was watching a Bond flick that I hadn't yet seen.
In retrospect, though, it's just a stylistic gimmick. It obviously serves no narrative purpose--and therefore does not really align itself to the new direction the series is going. Yes, I'd like to see it, but it's really not necessary. The story is what interests me this time around, not merely the 'fact' that it's a 007 movie, which was more or less the case in the Brosnan era.
Omitting it will not 'ruin the franchise' simply because it's expected and recognizable in the series. By that logic, getting rid of Q, high tech gadgets (aka deus ex machina, bad writing) and Moneypenny should have ruined the franchise, but as we all know, Casino Royale did exactly the opposite to an almost unfathomable extent.
I think QoS will be a superb film, gunbarrel or not.
It obviously won't stop people going to see the movies, but it wouldn't be the same anymore, so, in that respect, it would be ruined.
If you want the same film as one you've already seen, get one of the other 21 from off the shelf.
I'd like to see it as I like it a lot, but it's far from essential for making a Bond movie.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
I think we'll have a traditional gunbarrel for QoS; Michael G. Wilson has hinted as much.
Of course, each actor's gunbarrel sequence (at least, since the actor actually started appearing in them!) is unique to him. I'm curious to see Craig's take.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,680Chief of Staff
I have to say that it wouldn't bother me one jot if the gunbarrel sequence didn't return for DC's tenure. I loved what they did with CR and if they could come up with something like that again I'd be happy.
I'm with emtiem on this one though - ditching the gunbarrel sequence will not 'ruin' the Bond franchise one bit.
Emtiem, I'm not interested in watching the same movie 21 times over and I feel that's a slightly childish response to my argument. I loved CR and the new direction the series has taken. Removing Q and Moneypenny are indeed bold moves, but the film didn't suffer for it.
But I maintain removing the gunbarrel would be a step too far. What next? Get rid of the Bond theme altogether?
Let's not move too far away from some of the key visual and audio triggers that make the franchise so popular.
Someone said they got excited when those 'white dots' bounce across the screen. That's the point of the gunbarrel in my opinion. It tells the viwer 'here we go again, another Bond adventure'. It adds atmosphere and intrigue.
Also, the point was made that each actor has his own gunbarrel walk. I feel this is important in establishing each actor's Bond on a subconcious level.
But I maintain removing the gunbarrel would be a step too far. What next? Get rid of the Bond theme altogether?
Well oddly, I think there's a case for that even, afer CR showed that it can exist without it. And indeed, when it made its big appearance in the end credits, I was a dubious about how well it fitted: we had a very modern movie and suddenly a very 1960's theme tune for the hero, which didn't quite work for me. That was more the way it was performed than the tune itself, though- a bit less twangy guitar this time hopefully.
But if we look at Never Say Never Again which is missing the Bond theme and logo- yes, it's a shame not to have them, but it's still a Bond movie and any discrepancies in it compared to the proper series aren't down to some graphics and music.
I do think there's a case for getting rid of the old stuff; CR's new feel was slightly hampered by the old stuff they felt they had to put in (what was the DB5 doing there?), but generally I think some of it is just too good to ditch altogether, like the gunbarrel and theme. I see no reason to think that it couldn't survive without them, but there's no real reason to ditch them.
Comments
Author of 'Pussy Galore - A Representation of Women in James Bond Films'.
Active tweeter and tumbler - https://twitter.com/surrie_fullard
The bit where Bond falls from a rope but twists and shoots upward has been presented like the gunbarrel scene from Casino Royale. I sincerely hope that this isn't going to be the way the gunbarrel is presented from now on.
Not only would it spoil the uniqueness of Casino Royale's reboot, it destroys one of the most recognisable and important traditions of the Bond movie franchise.
For me, and all the other Bond fans I know, it is imperative the traditional gunbarrel sequence is restored. By all means keep the gritty, Flemingesque style of Casino Royale - it's important - but restore the gunbarrel.
It worked in Casino Royale as he was Bond with no kills and it was a reboot. It would look plain stupid if they contrived to find a new set piece to set up a gunbarrel in every movie from now on.
The brassy notes and gunbarrel are iconic with Bond on screen. Remove these and you might as well be watching Never Say Never Again or any other Bond imitator.
I'm not sure what you mean; it's from the scaffolding fight. Do you mean that you think it might be the end of the fight which then leads into the titles as with CR? I suppose that's possible, but I don't think that's what'll happen there.
I'm not sure that it would "ruin" the franchise.
Exactly; it doesn't feel like an end to a sequence. I'm not even sure where the rope fight is in the movie.
Having seen the Coke Zero ad too, there's a sniff of some kind of animated gunbarrel at the start of that n'all. We'll just have to wait and see won't we.
Er, yes it would my American friend. It would be removing a signature element, something that is globally recognisable. Look at all the Bond movie literature and paraphenalia around the planet. Most if it incorporates the gunbarrel in some way.
One nice little visual detail is not the keystone upon which a 40-year series of films has been built; there's a bit more to it than that. To say it is is to be using hyperbole just ever so slightly.
I disagree with you. It may 'just be a graphic', but it's an iconic one. The minute it appears on screen you're watching a Bond film. Even a casual Bond fan will know they're in Bond territory when they see the gunbarrel.
To remove it will destroy a heritable trait of the franchise. In my opinion, there is no need to remove, so why do so?
I don't disagree with that; but to say that losing it will bring down the whole series is a bit OTT, no?
Maybe I'm sentimental about it, but I think its an essential part of the institution, the symbol of Bond :007)
While I didn't like the idea at the time, I did like the CR gun barrel and personally wouldn't mind if it were like this in future.
The James Bond Dossier | SPECTRE | Q-Branch James Bond Podcast
In retrospect, though, it's just a stylistic gimmick. It obviously serves no narrative purpose--and therefore does not really align itself to the new direction the series is going. Yes, I'd like to see it, but it's really not necessary. The story is what interests me this time around, not merely the 'fact' that it's a 007 movie, which was more or less the case in the Brosnan era.
Omitting it will not 'ruin the franchise' simply because it's expected and recognizable in the series. By that logic, getting rid of Q, high tech gadgets (aka deus ex machina, bad writing) and Moneypenny should have ruined the franchise, but as we all know, Casino Royale did exactly the opposite to an almost unfathomable extent.
I think QoS will be a superb film, gunbarrel or not.
If you want the same film as one you've already seen, get one of the other 21 from off the shelf.
I'd like to see it as I like it a lot, but it's far from essential for making a Bond movie.
Of course, each actor's gunbarrel sequence (at least, since the actor actually started appearing in them!) is unique to him. I'm curious to see Craig's take.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm with emtiem on this one though - ditching the gunbarrel sequence will not 'ruin' the Bond franchise one bit.
Emtiem, I'm not interested in watching the same movie 21 times over and I feel that's a slightly childish response to my argument. I loved CR and the new direction the series has taken. Removing Q and Moneypenny are indeed bold moves, but the film didn't suffer for it.
But I maintain removing the gunbarrel would be a step too far. What next? Get rid of the Bond theme altogether?
Let's not move too far away from some of the key visual and audio triggers that make the franchise so popular.
Someone said they got excited when those 'white dots' bounce across the screen. That's the point of the gunbarrel in my opinion. It tells the viwer 'here we go again, another Bond adventure'. It adds atmosphere and intrigue.
Also, the point was made that each actor has his own gunbarrel walk. I feel this is important in establishing each actor's Bond on a subconcious level.
Well oddly, I think there's a case for that even, afer CR showed that it can exist without it. And indeed, when it made its big appearance in the end credits, I was a dubious about how well it fitted: we had a very modern movie and suddenly a very 1960's theme tune for the hero, which didn't quite work for me. That was more the way it was performed than the tune itself, though- a bit less twangy guitar this time hopefully.
But if we look at Never Say Never Again which is missing the Bond theme and logo- yes, it's a shame not to have them, but it's still a Bond movie and any discrepancies in it compared to the proper series aren't down to some graphics and music.
I do think there's a case for getting rid of the old stuff; CR's new feel was slightly hampered by the old stuff they felt they had to put in (what was the DB5 doing there?), but generally I think some of it is just too good to ditch altogether, like the gunbarrel and theme. I see no reason to think that it couldn't survive without them, but there's no real reason to ditch them.