QOS gun barrel rumours
A Kristatos
Posts: 18MI6 Agent
It's been a long time since I have posted here since I'm usually on the other Bond board. But a couple of their posters (upon seeing the media screening of the film) are saying that the gun barrel has been moved to the end of QOS, symbolizing that Bond has come "full circle" so to speak.
Now I'm still looking for official confirmation from Forster or anyone else associated with EON that this is indeed the case. Also, if the rumours are true, being a media screening can the film still be edited before official release? I'm looking for confirmation because while I believe this will be another great entry into the series, I'm not too keen on EON tampering with one of the greatest traditions in the Bond canon. Any info (other elements spoiler free of course) would be greatly appreciated!
Now I'm still looking for official confirmation from Forster or anyone else associated with EON that this is indeed the case. Also, if the rumours are true, being a media screening can the film still be edited before official release? I'm looking for confirmation because while I believe this will be another great entry into the series, I'm not too keen on EON tampering with one of the greatest traditions in the Bond canon. Any info (other elements spoiler free of course) would be greatly appreciated!
Comments
Were you at the actual screening? And is this the last and final version of the film that will be released?
That was the final version of the film that will be released.
Thanks for the info! I think I'm the opposite of your friend in that I love the direction they have taken with Craig. I'm just not too crazy about EON tampering with the gun barrel. However, I'm willing to give it a chance and hopefully like your friend said, it will fit in nicely at the end.
Yeah, just like that, except it's DBS headlights 'cos a bat signal would be just daft 8-)
It feels to me they've tacked it on at the end to appease the fans, just so they can say: "It's there so stop moaning!"
The more I think about it, the more absurd it seems. I know I haven't seen the film yet, but even when I do, I won't see any justification for it being there.
It needs to come after the MGM logo. It announces Bond on a grand, recognisable scale. For the film to start without it, yes, it is just like the opening to any other action movie
It's got everyhing to do with it, othwerwise u could just watch any other spy flick , How about True Lies with Arnie or any other ****e. The gunbarrell initiates your whole viewing experince. That's why all proga have a signature tune and theme and opening credits to mark them from the competition. How about watching a Mission Impossible movie or TV series and not hearing the theme.
And also on leaving 'Bond james Bond ' out as well as 'vodka Martini' would it have bloody well hurt to leave it in. Like a crack dealer they have weaned us on all this for the past 46 years and now we are accustomed to it, start ****ing around with the formula.
In that case u must have really enjoyed Never Say Never Again.
I certainly did! In my own humble opinion, it was a better Bond outing that summer than OP...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
As others have said, the gunbarrel is a relatively minor concern in my opinion. It is the rest of the film that I am interested in.
Just a quick question - does anyone know if the the main titles are in their usual place?
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Sorry, craigspicturenexttoamonkey.com!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Was it? Oh, I never noticed. I've only seen the film twenty odd times.
Listen Jack, the gunbarrel was tweaked in CR to both highlight the fact the franchise had been rebooted and to demonstrate the origin of the sequence. Excellent. Job done.
To continue f**king about with it in QoS makes no sense. It is the one tradition EVERY single Bond film has carried to kick off the movie before and is a key signature for the franchise.
Even Sir Sean referenced it on the South Bank Show last night.
I'm getting sick to the back teeth of people saying it's no big deal. It is.
It's removing a key identifier. Bourne doesn't have any. You don't know you're watching a Bourne film until you hear a character from the series called by their name.
The gunbarrel sequence tells you immediately that you're watching a Bond film. It also acts as a warm up act to get you in the mood for the action to come. Putting it at the end of the film is like putting a warm-up act on stage after the comedian has finished his set - ergo pointless.
Now, I'm glad the producers decided to get gritty again. God knows the franchise needed it. No more invisible cars, no more tarzan calls when swinging from trees, no more telling snakes to 'hiss off.' Excellent.
But please, why dick about with the gunbarrel and Bond theme? I'll tell you why. I reckon the producers are embarrassed of Bond's history and heritage and are now solely guided by the Bourne franchise. If that's the case they should step aside and let someone who is a genuine Bond fan take over. Someone who hasn't inherited the franchise through family.
Good to hear it my Brummy friend. I was getting the feeling I was on my own with this.
He says that though some Bond fans will consider it heresy, he was glad to break tradition.
"I feel free," he said during a location shoot in Chile last spring. "We always "had "to have those scenes in the movie. Now we have scenes only if they're necessary."
Now, he may have been referring to the 'Shaken, not stirred' or 'Bond, James Bond' lines, but I think he's lassooed the gunbarrel with those comments, too.
I've said countless times why the gunbarrel is 'necessary' at the start of the film, Mr Wilson, and it is heresy, yes. Time to go for you, methinks.
As far as a genuine fan taking over is concerned, that is risky territory. Sure it will most likely never happen, but it is an interesting idea. I have dreamed of being the producer of this franchise for years. I always joke that I will marry one of Wilson of Broccoli's daughters and take over the franchise when they kick it. But the problem with a rabid fan running the show is that after a while he may, without realizing it, begin to only make the Bond films that he prefers. That will not be good because not all of the fans will be pleased all the time. Seriously, we even have parties on here just like in real politics based on how we think the films ought to be. I have mentioned before that the Bond films more or less change in cycles from spy thriller types (FRWL, CR) to light-hearted adventures (DAF, OP) and even to extravagant epics that border sci-fi (MR, DAD). It is undeniable that there are plenty of fans that like one or even all of these types of 007 films and they all need to be represented. I attribute the franchise's longevity to this very idea. Had the films continued to take the Terence Young route of cold, spy thrillers after TB then I believe the franchise would have been in serious condition in the early 70s. Luckily kick ass adventures like GF and light-hearted, humorous approaches like DAF came along to change things up a bit. The same thing is happening today with Craig's films. But the Craig films, unlike the first 20 films, are throwing away the traditions and institutions that make Bond great. The Craig films have so far succeeded in getting rid of invisible cars and tarzan yells, but have failed in throwing out too many other necessary aspects that have nothing to do with the foolish moments mentioned earlier.
So I think that keeping it a family business is the best idea. Michael and Barbara are nothing compared to Cubby, but they do have some of his genes (at least Barbara does) and they were around when Cubby was still running the show working under him. Therefore they are the best for the job because of experience. I do feel that they are trying to honor the legacy as best they can, but some of their ideas are just bad. I think that maybe both of them, Wilson especially, feel like they need to escape Cubby's shadow and put their own mark on the films. Well let me tell you something. Changing around and throwing out the aspects of the films that have worked for over 40 years is not putting your own mark on this series. It is dishonoring the legacy that Cubby created. If I were them I would think of other ways to change the franchise in a way that their reign as producers would be remembered. I would want to be remembered in a good way, not in a bad way, which is the route they are on with me so far. Change for the sake of change is ridiculous.
No mate, I had a similar rant on page 1 of this thread. And I read somewhere or someone quoted in one of the posts on here that the gunbarrell move will only ruffle the feathers of the hardcore fans and the greateer casual viewing public would not notice or realise - or something similar.
I would have thought the opposite - as the general public/ casual viewer who dips in and out will not know of the continuity, references etc like we do and the only thing they will identify with is the gunbarrel logo and the Bond theme when something exciting happens.
As for the gunbarrel being at the end and it not fitting. Has any of you actually seen it in context yet?