Thanks for confirming my worst fears - that the placement of the gunbarrel is in the wrong place. I haven't seen the film as it doesn't come out in Australia until 22 November, but this knowledge has dampened my enthusiasm for it somewhat. I'll still go and see it, of course.
I couldn't really give a stuff about the sodding gunbarrel anymore.
What I will say is that I think too many people round here need to start using spoiler tags, as there are many member who for various reasons haven't seen the film yet and open discussion about the film's contents is just gonna spoil it for them.
A little consideration for others wouldn't go amiss in this area guys.
I couldn't really give a stuff about the sodding gunbarrel anymore.
What I will say is that I think too many people round here need to start using spoiler tags, as there are many member who for various reasons haven't seen the film yet and open discussion about the film's contents is just gonna spoil it for them.
A little consideration for others wouldn't go amiss in this area guys.
Completely agree with you Geff ... This was my gripe a couple of pages back, yet seemed to be apparently told that if I didn't want to learn anything, then don't click on the thread. Quite why it's necessary to try to ruin the "surprise" for others, be it from including direct Press opinions / Quotes from the Director or via having seen the film is beyond me. Can it be so hard not to use the spoiler facility or even put the words spoiler above any such posts?? There's even a separate spoilers thread available!!
I couldn't really give a stuff about the sodding gunbarrel anymore.
What I will say is that I think too many people round here need to start using spoiler tags, as there are many member who for various reasons haven't seen the film yet and open discussion about the film's contents is just gonna spoil it for them.
A little consideration for others wouldn't go amiss in this area guys.
This is why my post was spoiler free. I wanted to say more, but I knew it'd spoil it and I've completely forgotten how to add spoiler tags - how do you add them?
I couldn't really give a stuff about the sodding gunbarrel anymore.
What I will say is that I think too many people round here need to start using spoiler tags, as there are many member who for various reasons haven't seen the film yet and open discussion about the film's contents is just gonna spoil it for them.
A little consideration for others wouldn't go amiss in this area guys.
Completely agree with you Geff ... This was my gripe a couple of pages back, yet seemed to be apparently told that if I didn't want to learn anything, then don't click on the thread. Quite why it's necessary to try to ruin the "surprise" for others, be it from including direct Press opinions / Quotes from the Director or via having seen the film is beyond me. Can it be so hard not to use the spoiler facility or even put the words spoiler above any such posts?? There's even a separate spoilers thread available!!
But that's just me I guess ...
Same for me Ens007... they basically told me to shut the hell up. Glad to see im not the only one
My more detailed thoughts on the gunbarrel, in the form of spoiler:
Like many, I would have liked to see it at the start of the film. And regarding the opening shot, it could have easily been done as the gunbarrel could have faded to black, rather than into the shot (like what FRWL did). However, I can definitely see why they put the gunbarrel at the end, due to the revelations, and the fact that the bond that we know is now back. For this, I definitely think that the gunbarrel will be at the start of the next movie now, because the traditional bond formula was 'set up' at the end of skyfall. I presume this is the reason that those who had seen the film early were referring to. It's like a 'bond is back' statement. I know QOS did this, but I saw that as 'bond is back as an individual who has now got closure', whereas SF is more like 'the traditional bond formula is back'. That's how I saw it anyway.
My more detailed thoughts on the gunbarrel, in the form of spoiler:
Like many, I would have liked to see it at the start of the film. And regarding the opening shot, it could have easily been done as the gunbarrel could have faded to black, rather than into the shot (like what FRWL did). However, I can definitely see why they put the gunbarrel at the end, due to the revelations, and the fact that the bond that we know is now back. For this, I definitely think that the gunbarrel will be at the start of the next movie now, because the traditional bond formula was 'set up' at the end of skyfall. I presume this is the reason that those who had seen the film early were referring to. It's like a 'bond is back' statement. I know QOS did this, but I saw that as 'bond is back as an individual who has now got closure', whereas SF is more like 'the traditional bond formula is back'. That's how I saw it anyway.
I personally think they did that with the first 2, i think the Gunbarrel should have been at the start of the movie. Its one of by bug bares on an otherwise fantastic f
ilm.
I didn't feel it had to be there at all. After the last line it could have easily gone into the "James Bond Will Return" with the 50th anniversary logo, still playing out the bond theme. I get the reasoning, but just didn't think it was necessary. In no way did it spoil the film though.
I guess that is where we differ....for me...the gunbarrel HAD to be where they placed it...it wouldn't have made sense to place it anywhere else and it tied it all up....perfectly...
So perfectly even that I finally allowed that tear to run down my cheek.
Was waiting there for some time of course.
I think it worked where it was, but I don't think it was "perfect" or that it "couldn't possibly have been anywhere else" ... lets not exaggerate this, it's only a silly clip of an actor walking across the screen and firing a gun!
I was sitting through the PTS wondering why the opening felt so abrupt until I realised what was missing! But at the same time this was the final film about Bond becoming Bond so it does make sense for it to be at the end... I don't care as long as next time it's at the beginning!
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and everyone dies.
Look, the gunbarrel in Skyfall was awful. Rushed, horrible design, out of sync with the Bond theme tune and at the bloody end. A real mess. The film itself was awesome. Just put it back at the start of Bond 24, make it look and sound right, and we'll all be happy! We move on...
I was sitting through the PTS wondering why the opening felt so abrupt until I realised what was missing! But at the same time this was the final film about Bond becoming Bond so it does make sense for it to be at the end... I don't care as long as next time it's at the beginning!
I thought Quantum of Solace's placement of the gunbarrel was about Bond becoming Bond. How many times does he need to 'become' Bond before he actually is?
Well at risk of stirring up the proverbial, I thought it was in the right & logical place, especially based upon what had just happened in the movie. Different strokes for different folks I guess. Hopefully seeing it again early this afternoon, so if my opinion changes I'll edit this post.
Well at risk of stirring up the proverbial, I thought it was in the right & logical place, especially based upon what had just happened in the movie. Different strokes for different folks I guess. Hopefully seeing it again early this afternoon, so if my opinion changes I'll edit this post.
Yes the music wasn't right, it wasn't perfect as I said.
If you actually take a step back and look at the gun-barrel sequence for what it is... it's really stupid! How many other films would have something so cheesy and ridiculous?! Don't get me wrong, I love it! But I think we might be taking it a wee bit too seriously!
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and everyone dies.
Yes the music wasn't right, it wasn't perfect as I said.
If you actually take a step back and look at the gun-barrel sequence for what it is... it's really stupid! How many other films would have something so cheesy and ridiculous?! Don't get me wrong, I love it! But I think we might be taking it a wee bit too seriously!
i'm sorry i don't get what you're saying.
you say 'its really stupid', what is, the actual concept of using a gunbarrel sequence or the fact so many people are so bothered about it? and then you go on to say you love it, eh? you think its ridiculous but you love it?
i just can't understand what you're trying to say here.
maybe i'm having a bit of a thick day or something.
It's a stupid thing to put into a film, really cheesy and 4th wall breaking, and therefore we shouldn't get too worked up about it despite the fact that it is now an integral part of the franchise and we all love it very much!
Does that make more sense!? I'm not sure I really know what I'm trying to say myself!
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and everyone dies.
It's a stupid thing to put into a film, really cheesy and 4th wall breaking, and therefore we shouldn't get too worked up about it despite the fact that it is now an integral part of the franchise and we all love it very much!
Does that make more sense!? I'm not sure I really know what I'm trying to say myself!
I don't think it breaks the fourth wall. Bond doesn't chat to the audience at any point during the sequence. He shoots an assassin, from who's point of view (or at least his gun's) we are invited to see the sequence.
Alright it doesn't break the fourth wall but it is pretty silly!
The QoS and Skyfall ones look silly, I agree. They don't have to look this way, though. There are a lot of fan-made YouTube clips that demonstrate this. Using footage of DC, slowed down, within a decent gunbarrel, with realistic blood and a decent fanfare - they demonstrate that a modern sequence could easily be created to kick off a film.
It just needs more forethought and less afterthought.
In CR and QoS they sort of explained why they did what they did with the gunbarrel sequence. How do they justify it this time?
Very, very well -{
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,699MI6 Agent
Not sure where to ask this, so I'll ask it here (since I don't want to go into the spoiler thread). I remember hearing somewhere that there's something about the first two seconds of this film that you can not miss? Am I crazy, or is the first two seconds anything great? Please put it in a spoiler tag so it's not ruined for anyone.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
Not sure where to ask this, so I'll ask it here (since I don't want to go into the spoiler thread). I remember hearing somewhere that there's something about the first two seconds of this film that you can not miss? Am I crazy, or is the first two seconds anything great? Please put it in a spoiler tag so it's not ruined for anyone.
the first 2 seconds of footage are blurred and show a figure walking towards us down a dimly lit corridor that's lined with wood panelling and sunlight coming through a shuttered window in the background. The figure walks towards us still, in silhouette and gets closer until he starts to come into our field of focus, a letterbox effect of light highlights just his eyes. It's Bond. A noise alerts him and he raises his ppk....
As much as I am a "Gunbarrel Walk" at the beginning where it belongs person, at this juncture taking into consideration the generally excellent reviews the film is getting I'll wait until I actually see it next week to form an opinion.
Comments
What I will say is that I think too many people round here need to start using spoiler tags, as there are many member who for various reasons haven't seen the film yet and open discussion about the film's contents is just gonna spoil it for them.
A little consideration for others wouldn't go amiss in this area guys.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I am gutted that even a mod ( Scaramanga1) would post spoilers, thank you very much.
I am booked for 2 nd Nov. btw
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Completely agree with you Geff ... This was my gripe a couple of pages back, yet seemed to be apparently told that if I didn't want to learn anything, then don't click on the thread. Quite why it's necessary to try to ruin the "surprise" for others, be it from including direct Press opinions / Quotes from the Director or via having seen the film is beyond me. Can it be so hard not to use the spoiler facility or even put the words spoiler above any such posts?? There's even a separate spoilers thread available!!
But that's just me I guess ...
This is why my post was spoiler free. I wanted to say more, but I knew it'd spoil it and I've completely forgotten how to add spoiler tags - how do you add them?
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Same for me Ens007... they basically told me to shut the hell up. Glad to see im not the only one
1. GoldenEye 2. Goldfinger 3. Skyfall 4. OHMSS 5. TWINE
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I personally think they did that with the first 2, i think the Gunbarrel should have been at the start of the movie. Its one of by bug bares on an otherwise fantastic f
ilm.
So perfectly even that I finally allowed that tear to run down my cheek.
Was waiting there for some time of course.
Curtsey, sir.
Well put.
I was sitting through the PTS wondering why the opening felt so abrupt until I realised what was missing! But at the same time this was the final film about Bond becoming Bond so it does make sense for it to be at the end... I don't care as long as next time it's at the beginning!
I thought Quantum of Solace's placement of the gunbarrel was about Bond becoming Bond. How many times does he need to 'become' Bond before he actually is?
I'm glad you enjoyed it -{
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
If you actually take a step back and look at the gun-barrel sequence for what it is... it's really stupid! How many other films would have something so cheesy and ridiculous?! Don't get me wrong, I love it! But I think we might be taking it a wee bit too seriously!
i'm sorry i don't get what you're saying.
you say 'its really stupid', what is, the actual concept of using a gunbarrel sequence or the fact so many people are so bothered about it? and then you go on to say you love it, eh? you think its ridiculous but you love it?
i just can't understand what you're trying to say here.
maybe i'm having a bit of a thick day or something.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
It's a stupid thing to put into a film, really cheesy and 4th wall breaking, and therefore we shouldn't get too worked up about it despite the fact that it is now an integral part of the franchise and we all love it very much!
Does that make more sense!? I'm not sure I really know what I'm trying to say myself!
I don't think it breaks the fourth wall. Bond doesn't chat to the audience at any point during the sequence. He shoots an assassin, from who's point of view (or at least his gun's) we are invited to see the sequence.
Who knows? How does a playing card kill a man during the CR opening titles? It's all conceptual.
The QoS and Skyfall ones look silly, I agree. They don't have to look this way, though. There are a lot of fan-made YouTube clips that demonstrate this. Using footage of DC, slowed down, within a decent gunbarrel, with realistic blood and a decent fanfare - they demonstrate that a modern sequence could easily be created to kick off a film.
It just needs more forethought and less afterthought.
Very, very well -{
Quite a cool sequence, but longer than 2 seconds.
Hope this helps,
MG -{
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Please don't...that would get AJB closed down...