Likewise, I along with others don't see why the gun barrel MUST be at the start. Yes you may well prefer it there & that's fine, but some of the comments elsewhere on the boards that have stated that they were actually going to walk out of the cinema with the entire film yet to be shown just don't make sense to me (& probably many others).
I am still astounded that this seems to be such a huge issue for some folks. I like the gunbarrel at the start because I think it's a nifty way for the film to open and I have become accustomed to that, having been a fan of the Bond movies since the series began. But if the film itself is good, does it really matter about the gunbarrel sequence? I don't get it.
Hello Thunderpussy, I just joined the boards so greetings to you and everyone here in 007world, and if you folks are debating gunbarrel sequences I know I have come to the promised land-British Secret Service Shangri-La. I will play newbie diplomat here and approach the issue in an even handed fashion, or try to at any rate.
Keep the Gunbarrel Sequence Where It Is: If you feel this way, you are a traditionalist--you want 007 continuity, dammit, you want to settle in as you have since whenever you saw Bond first, and wait for the second that big white circle hits the screen and the music starts. Ah it's time again for 007 adventure, there he is, James Bond The Man, reassuring you that he has indeed returned as the last picture promised. As the worst assassin of all time for the last 50 yrs gets blasted by OHMSS Tux Boy yet again ((cmon think about it, he's firing at Bond who's walking sideways and doesn't see him)) and red blood covers the barrel you want that white dot to become the opening scene so bad you can taste it. Yes, the traditionalist, the standard opening slowly immerses you into your good Bond mood, as it ever has. You crave the step by step process you have come to love over the years.
Let's Get Creative With The Gun Barrel: If you would like to fiddle with arguably the most famous opening movie sequence of all time, you may be a Reconstructionist. Perhaps you actually enjoy being tantalized by the elusive white dot--"ok if it's not here in very start, i wonder where it will pop up...hmmm...oh there it is. hey that was an interesting touch..." Sure you like tradition, but you'll accept creativity, a fresh way of doing tried and true things. You're the type that doesn't mind seeing DaVinci next to a self portrait of Andy Warhol in 10 different colors. Both art, expression, valid statements?? You are perhaps more likely to accept the changing face of Bond himself--and look forward to and don't especially mourn the loss of the old guy as long as the new guy is up to the task.
I will say that I lean toward the Reconstructionist view--one of the best variations, additions IMHO was Goldeneye opener when Pierce flew off, Tina Turner was about to sing, and a gunbarrel aimed at the audience formed under Broccoli's name and a bullet fired right at you and then we saw it speed off and disappear, and there was Pierce's name as James Bond in Goldeneye, and a new era began. I recall looking around and audience members were stunned going "whoa didya see that bullet--it was coming right at me."
Anyway, a few different ways of looking at it. Looking forward to ajb007 community.
Hello Thunderpussy, I just joined the boards so greetings to you and everyone here in 007world, and if you folks are debating gunbarrel sequences I know I have come to the promised land-British Secret Service Shangri-La. I will play newbie diplomat here and approach the issue in an even handed fashion, or try to at any rate.
Keep the Gunbarrel Sequence Where It Is: If you feel this way, you are a traditionalist--you want 007 continuity, dammit, you want to settle in as you have since whenever you saw Bond first, and wait for the second that big white circle hits the screen and the music starts. Ah it's time again for 007 adventure, there he is, James Bond The Man, reassuring you that he has indeed returned as the last picture promised. As the worst assassin of all time for the last 50 yrs gets blasted by OHMSS Tux Boy yet again ((cmon think about it, he's firing at Bond who's walking sideways and doesn't see him)) and red blood covers the barrel you want that white dot to become the opening scene so bad you can taste it. Yes, the traditionalist, the standard opening slowly immerses you into your good Bond mood, as it ever has. You crave the step by step process you have come to love over the years.
Let's Get Creative With The Gun Barrel: If you would like to fiddle with arguably the most famous opening movie sequence of all time, you may be a Reconstructionist. Perhaps you actually enjoy being tantalized by the elusive white dot--"ok if it's not here in very start, i wonder where it will pop up...hmmm...oh there it is. hey that was an interesting touch..." Sure you like tradition, but you'll accept creativity, a fresh way of doing tried and true things. You're the type that doesn't mind seeing DaVinci next to a self portrait of Andy Warhol in 10 different colors. Both art, expression, valid statements?? You are perhaps more likely to accept the changing face of Bond himself--and look forward to and don't especially mourn the loss of the old guy as long as the new guy is up to the task.
I will say that I lean toward the Reconstructionist view--one of the best variations, additions IMHO was Goldeneye opener when Pierce flew off, Tina Turner was about to sing, and a gunbarrel aimed at the audience formed under Broccoli's name and a bullet fired right at you and then we saw it speed off and disappear, and there was Pierce's name as James Bond in Goldeneye, and a new era began. I recall looking around and audience members were stunned going "whoa didya see that bullet--it was coming right at me."
Anyway, a few different ways of looking at it. Looking forward to ajb007 community.
Felix The LeiterCat, regards.
Based on your first contribution, you will indeed be a most welcome addition to this forum. Good to have you! -{
I really don't know why you have such a huge hang-up about this
Because there is no reason for it not to be at the start.
I don't mind change so long as it's a change for the better. Change for the sake of change is pointless, and I think there is no reason why the gunbarrel couldn't have been at the very start of the last three films. Some argue that it wouldn't fit at the start, but I strongly disagree - the gunbarrel sequence, over the first 20 films, has proven to be very versatile. I do not believe the gunbarrel sequence makes sense anywhere else. It is designed as an opening sequence.
Likewise, I along with others don't see why the gun barrel MUST be at the start. Yes you may well prefer it there & that's fine, but some of the comments elsewhere on the boards that have stated that they were actually going to walk out of the cinema with the entire film yet to be shown just don't make sense to me (& probably many others).
I don't believe anyone has actually said that. If you can find the quote, that would be great.
I do, however, believe that the film could have been better but for the placement of the gunbarrel. I never said that I would walk out of the cinema if it wasn't at the start (I wouldn't want to waste AUD$20 or so).
I don't believe anyone has actually said that. If you can find the quote, that would be great.
I do, however, believe that the film could have been better but for the placement of the gunbarrel. I never said that I would walk out of the cinema if it wasn't at the start (I wouldn't want to waste AUD$20 or so).
There were more than one posters who stated this in an old thread that I think eventually got deleted (pretty sure it was about spoilers - stand to be corrected on that though). I'm pretty sure that a few eyebrows were raised at the time after it was said. When I get more time I may well trawl through to see if I can see it elsewhere.
I have not said or intimated that "the walking out" comment was made by you & it certainly was not directed at you ... it was more in line with some of the particular history to do with this particular topic.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,675Chief of Staff
I clearly remember the 'walking out' comment....when I have time I'll find it...pretty sure that Firemass said it...but I apologise if I'm wrong about him saying it...I remember it clearly because it sparked a number of conversations via PM...
I understand you want it at the start but if you can't or won't understand why it is where it is in the last three films, then I'm mystified as there are very CLEAR reasons for it...
This might not help but in my mind there's always a gunbarrel at the start. ) , and like
others I too think " The Gunbarrel will return in .................. ".
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Thanks Blackleiter and let's give a hand to Jeff Wright, see you are a fan, as pulling off one of the few original conceptions of Felix--that he and Bond are NOT buddy buddy, and regard each other with wariness like experienced agents should cause you never know if the other guy is always on the up and up, but yes they share respect and they can/will team up. It's a relief from the old Roger Moore days when 007 and Felix met and it was 2 old frat guys at the reunion: "JJAAAAAMMMMEESSS!! FEEEELIX, HOW GOOD TO SEEEEE YOU...."
Wright also plays it cagey the way, well, a real agent in the field would, hangs back, observes, looks for an opening with Bond, times his revelation that they work in the same business. In real life they might not even know each other just be aware of each other through dossiers, computer profiles. So Wright is much better than the usual buddy,buddy Felix approach.
Thunderpussy, thanks for the welcome. You know YouTube actually has 007 fan edit videos that have cut all the gunbarrel sequences together. We can can have a fashion show with judges, look at the 60s guy with the hat, look at Roger Moore's 70s bell bottoms, some Bonds go down on bended knee and put their arm out as they fire like ballet, style points, degrees of difficulty. Medal ceremonies. This thread is hilarious. ajb007 a fine place to be.
Yes I've see the video you mention. I wonder how many prefer the Tux gunbarrel to the new
more casual DC from Skyfall. I know I like the less formal suit gunbarrel, IMNO it makes
Bond seem more business like. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I've always thought an interesting story would be where Leiter has been accused of going over to eh other side (really hasn't, has been set up) and Bond is given the mission to take him out.
I honestly don't get how such a straight forward topic can span so many pages of discussion. Honestly, what more is left to say about this?
It may be "straight forward" in the sense that it's only a matter of placement, but evidently it is also a very divisive issue. If it had been placed at the start of the film where it belongs, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It may be "straight forward" in the sense that it's only a matter of placement, but evidently it is also a very divisive issue. If it had been placed at the start of the film where it belongs, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It should be made clear that the bolded element is in your opinion, rather than speaking for us all on here.
I'm more than happy to let the talents of Mr Mendes et al make their own decision as to where this is placed in the movie.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,675Chief of Staff
It may be "straight forward" in the sense that it's only a matter of placement, but evidently it is also a very divisive issue. If it had been placed at the start of the film where it belongs, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It should be made clear that the bolded element is in your opinion, rather than speaking for us all on here.
If we were talking about CR or QoS I would agree with you, but in all the discussions we had before SF came out the general consensus seemed (to me) to be that in the next film the gunbarrel would be at the start because the whole origins story had now been done. I suppose what SF did was (re-)establish the origins of MI6, so if the gunbarrel had been at the start and this conversation had come up people might have said "it would have worked at the end as well" but I highly doubt anybody would have claimed that the gunbarrel being at the start had made no sense, or ruined the entire film.
I definitely wouldn't say that SF was ruined by the placement of the gunbarrel. I would have preferred it at the beginning, and I don't really think there was a good reason for it to be at the end. If they aren't going to put it at the start I think I'd honestly prefer it (and possibly not even notice) if it wasn't in the film at all.
JediM
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and everyone dies.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,675Chief of Staff
I definitely wouldn't say that SF was ruined by the placement of the gunbarrel. I would have preferred it at the beginning, and I don't really think there was a good reason for it to be at the end. If they aren't going to put it at the start I think I'd honestly prefer it (and possibly not even notice) if it wasn't in the film at all.
JediM
No good reason ? A male M in an oak-paneled office and a return of Moneypenny and Q...I think that's good reason...but if you don't think so, fine.
YNWA 97
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,778MI6 Agent
Is this old chestnut STILL gaining posts?! I recently got myself Skyfall on DVD (highlighted in another thread) and completely forgot about the gunbarrel until it appeared at the end of the film.
The way I see it, Dr No - CR-06 the gun barrel it a tag prologue, in QoS its a post credits advert for bladder weakness, in SF if an Epilogue. Thanks, and Good Night!
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
The way I saw it, the gunbarrel in SF being at the end was symbolism for the franchise now being back on track.
CR was DC's initiation into the role with his Bond only just being assigned a 00 number. QoB was a continuation of that role with our new 00 fookin up a bit n trying to find himself etc and SF was Bond using the bridge incident as a way out for a bit, coming back and getting back on his feet.
All that tied in with a new M, moneypenny back in the picture, a new Q and the decimation of the only icon of Bond's childhood (the lodge), it's a final episode to the 3 parter that has been the reboot of the franchise and the finalisation of wiping the slate clean.
Having the gunbarrel at the end of SF, for me at least, signified that the reboot is complete and here's our new Bond.
It's almost as if EoN were saying "Now he's James Bond."
You couldn't tie up all that with a gunbarrel at the start of SF.
That's my two cents on it.
Now if people wanna chuck the rattle over it still then knock yourselves out, but like I've said before I think we've been over this until the cows come home.
I like the Gun barrel and think it should be at the beginning the whole instrumental thing gets my blood pumping for the pts, I think it is a shame they screwed around with it over the last few years and hope to see it at the beginning again in 24 -{
I think it should be in the middle for the next one and keep moving it to different parts of each new film so to keep people guessing and have Idris Alba do all the gun barrel scenes from now on )
Comments
I am still astounded that this seems to be such a huge issue for some folks. I like the gunbarrel at the start because I think it's a nifty way for the film to open and I have become accustomed to that, having been a fan of the Bond movies since the series began. But if the film itself is good, does it really matter about the gunbarrel sequence? I don't get it.
In Others we don't get a Q scene and now in some we don't get the
gunbarrel.
We do...its just not at the start...although I fully expect it to be in the next...
Keep the Gunbarrel Sequence Where It Is: If you feel this way, you are a traditionalist--you want 007 continuity, dammit, you want to settle in as you have since whenever you saw Bond first, and wait for the second that big white circle hits the screen and the music starts. Ah it's time again for 007 adventure, there he is, James Bond The Man, reassuring you that he has indeed returned as the last picture promised. As the worst assassin of all time for the last 50 yrs gets blasted by OHMSS Tux Boy yet again ((cmon think about it, he's firing at Bond who's walking sideways and doesn't see him)) and red blood covers the barrel you want that white dot to become the opening scene so bad you can taste it. Yes, the traditionalist, the standard opening slowly immerses you into your good Bond mood, as it ever has. You crave the step by step process you have come to love over the years.
Let's Get Creative With The Gun Barrel: If you would like to fiddle with arguably the most famous opening movie sequence of all time, you may be a Reconstructionist. Perhaps you actually enjoy being tantalized by the elusive white dot--"ok if it's not here in very start, i wonder where it will pop up...hmmm...oh there it is. hey that was an interesting touch..." Sure you like tradition, but you'll accept creativity, a fresh way of doing tried and true things. You're the type that doesn't mind seeing DaVinci next to a self portrait of Andy Warhol in 10 different colors. Both art, expression, valid statements?? You are perhaps more likely to accept the changing face of Bond himself--and look forward to and don't especially mourn the loss of the old guy as long as the new guy is up to the task.
I will say that I lean toward the Reconstructionist view--one of the best variations, additions IMHO was Goldeneye opener when Pierce flew off, Tina Turner was about to sing, and a gunbarrel aimed at the audience formed under Broccoli's name and a bullet fired right at you and then we saw it speed off and disappear, and there was Pierce's name as James Bond in Goldeneye, and a new era began. I recall looking around and audience members were stunned going "whoa didya see that bullet--it was coming right at me."
Anyway, a few different ways of looking at it. Looking forward to ajb007 community.
Felix The LeiterCat, regards.
Based on your first contribution, you will indeed be a most welcome addition to this forum. Good to have you! -{
Because there is no reason for it not to be at the start.
I don't mind change so long as it's a change for the better. Change for the sake of change is pointless, and I think there is no reason why the gunbarrel couldn't have been at the very start of the last three films. Some argue that it wouldn't fit at the start, but I strongly disagree - the gunbarrel sequence, over the first 20 films, has proven to be very versatile. I do not believe the gunbarrel sequence makes sense anywhere else. It is designed as an opening sequence.
I don't believe anyone has actually said that. If you can find the quote, that would be great.
I do, however, believe that the film could have been better but for the placement of the gunbarrel. I never said that I would walk out of the cinema if it wasn't at the start (I wouldn't want to waste AUD$20 or so).
There were more than one posters who stated this in an old thread that I think eventually got deleted (pretty sure it was about spoilers - stand to be corrected on that though). I'm pretty sure that a few eyebrows were raised at the time after it was said. When I get more time I may well trawl through to see if I can see it elsewhere.
I have not said or intimated that "the walking out" comment was made by you & it certainly was not directed at you ... it was more in line with some of the particular history to do with this particular topic.
I understand you want it at the start but if you can't or won't understand why it is where it is in the last three films, then I'm mystified as there are very CLEAR reasons for it...
others I too think " The Gunbarrel will return in .................. ".
Wright also plays it cagey the way, well, a real agent in the field would, hangs back, observes, looks for an opening with Bond, times his revelation that they work in the same business. In real life they might not even know each other just be aware of each other through dossiers, computer profiles. So Wright is much better than the usual buddy,buddy Felix approach.
Felix The Leitercat, regards.
Felix The Leitercat, regards.
more casual DC from Skyfall. I know I like the less formal suit gunbarrel, IMNO it makes
Bond seem more business like.
I honestly don't get how such a straight forward topic can span so many pages of discussion. Honestly, what more is left to say about this?
I'm almost willing the black bond thread to come back.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
All of which I strongly disagree with. The gunbarrel could simply have been placed at the start of the film without affecting the quality of it.
It may be "straight forward" in the sense that it's only a matter of placement, but evidently it is also a very divisive issue. If it had been placed at the start of the film where it belongs, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It should be made clear that the bolded element is in your opinion, rather than speaking for us all on here.
I'm more than happy to let the talents of Mr Mendes et al make their own decision as to where this is placed in the movie.
So you are saying the quality WAS affected by moving the gunbarrel ? Laughable
I'm happy if you don't agree...that's personal choice...but Eon stump up the money - you don't - its THEIR choice.
Oh...and I've been informed it was Chrisisall that made the comment about walking out of the film...surprised me, that....
Hey...I'm up for a bit of that ;%
I already have both ;%
If we were talking about CR or QoS I would agree with you, but in all the discussions we had before SF came out the general consensus seemed (to me) to be that in the next film the gunbarrel would be at the start because the whole origins story had now been done. I suppose what SF did was (re-)establish the origins of MI6, so if the gunbarrel had been at the start and this conversation had come up people might have said "it would have worked at the end as well" but I highly doubt anybody would have claimed that the gunbarrel being at the start had made no sense, or ruined the entire film.
I definitely wouldn't say that SF was ruined by the placement of the gunbarrel. I would have preferred it at the beginning, and I don't really think there was a good reason for it to be at the end. If they aren't going to put it at the start I think I'd honestly prefer it (and possibly not even notice) if it wasn't in the film at all.
JediM
No good reason ? A male M in an oak-paneled office and a return of Moneypenny and Q...I think that's good reason...but if you don't think so, fine.
The way I see it, Dr No - CR-06 the gun barrel it a tag prologue, in QoS its a post credits advert for bladder weakness, in SF if an Epilogue. Thanks, and Good Night!
CR was DC's initiation into the role with his Bond only just being assigned a 00 number. QoB was a continuation of that role with our new 00 fookin up a bit n trying to find himself etc and SF was Bond using the bridge incident as a way out for a bit, coming back and getting back on his feet.
All that tied in with a new M, moneypenny back in the picture, a new Q and the decimation of the only icon of Bond's childhood (the lodge), it's a final episode to the 3 parter that has been the reboot of the franchise and the finalisation of wiping the slate clean.
Having the gunbarrel at the end of SF, for me at least, signified that the reboot is complete and here's our new Bond.
It's almost as if EoN were saying "Now he's James Bond."
You couldn't tie up all that with a gunbarrel at the start of SF.
That's my two cents on it.
Now if people wanna chuck the rattle over it still then knock yourselves out, but like I've said before I think we've been over this until the cows come home.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org