QOS gun barrel rumours

A Kristatos

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!

Asp9mm

It is at the end, but it fits. I'm a great advocate of the gunbarrel, but this beautifully sets us up for the third film and a return of more familiar 'things'. You'll have to see it for it to make sense.

A Kristatos

Asp9mm wrote:

It is at the end, but it fits. I'm a great advocate of the gunbarrel, but this beautifully sets us up for the third film and a return of more familiar 'things'. You'll have to see it for it to make sense.

Were you at the actual screening? And is this the last and final version of the film that will be released?

Asp9mm

I wasn't, but a good friend was. He is not keen on the direction the Bond films have taken with Craig, but he is dead excited about the next one and he says that it fits well at the end of QOS. I pretty much quoted him word for word in the first post.

That was the final version of the film that will be released.

A Kristatos

Asp9mm wrote:

I wasn't, but a good friend was. He is not keen on the direction the Bond films have taken with Craig, but he is dead excited about the next one and he says that it fits well at the end of QOS. I pretty much quoted him word for word in the first post.

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.

Sweepy the Cat

I thought Bond became Bond at the end of CR after the death of Vesper

emtiem

A bit like the end of Batman and Robin where Alicia Silverstone joins them in that running-away-from-the-bat-signal thing, then

Asp9mm

emtiem wrote:

A bit like the end of Batman and Robin where Alicia Silverstone joins them in that running-away-from-the-bat-signal thing, then

Yeah, just like that, except it's DBS headlights 'cos a bat signal would be just daft 8-)

Fitzochris

If this is true it's both ridiculous and ruinous.

Fitzochris

Anyone up for starting a petition to get the gunbarrel moved to he start of the film?

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

Asp9mm

Nah, doesn't bother me. It's only five seconds of film thats nothing to do with story or, well, anything. I don't understand why people are getting so wound up about this. It's by far the least of my concerns and doesn't enhance the film in any way at all. I'll see the film first and see how it fits. So far, I've only heard positive things about it.

A7ce

Asp9mm wrote:

Nah, doesn't bother me. It's only five seconds of film thats nothing to do with story or, well, anything.

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.

Apocrypha23

I don't know, it seems a bit like saying it's not a Bond movie without Sean Connery or it's not Bond without a scene of him throwing his hat onto a rack across the room. There are just SOOO many things that we associate with these films that I, for one, can live without a few. And I'm certainly not worried about seeing one of the conventions moved to a different place if there is a reason. I think the reason is to reaffirm that this is a revamp. When I saw Die Another Day a few weeks after seeing Bourne Identity I was crushed. Bourne was so good on so many levels and DAD was terrible. It had gotten stale, the whole series had. I'm glad to see the reinvention and now they have an opportunity to reintroduce some of the things we've grown accustom to slowly and carefully so that they become a fresh part of a 21st Century series instead of dried up cliche's... rant over.

Asp9mm

I don't need a gun barrel logo to tell me it's a Bond movie 8-) I don't think that many people outside of fandom really care or will notice if it is or isn't there either. It's a huge stretch to claim that the lack of gunbarrel will make or break the movie and not make it stand out as a Bond film.

Pud2002

I don't think anyone needs a gunbarrel logo to know they are watching a bond film, however its something thats been with the series all this time and doesn't hurt to have it in it's usual place.

A7ce

Pud2002 wrote:

I don't think anyone needs a gunbarrel logo to know they are watching a bond film, .

In that case u must have really enjoyed Never Say Never Again.

Loeffelholz

A7ce wrote:

Pud2002 wrote:

I don't think anyone needs a gunbarrel logo to know they are watching a bond film, .

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...

Apocrypha23

Loeffelholz wrote:

A7ce wrote:

Pud2002 wrote:

I don't think anyone needs a gunbarrel logo to know they are watching a bond film, .

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'm going to have to second you on that one.

Golrush007

I'm definitely not a fan of NSNA, but the lack of a gunbarrel is not what makes a film good or bad. It is absurd to suggest that a logo determines the quality of a film. Having said that, there is something about seeing the gunbarrel at the beginning of a Bond which gets you in the mood straight away. But if shifting it to the end means the movie ends with a bang (literally) I can't complain. I will obviously have to see the film before really forming an opinion on this, though.

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?

Loeffelholz

Golrush007 wrote:

Just a quick question - does anyone know if the the main titles are in their usual place?

) You're right, we should assume nothing.

A7ce

Can we even assume Daniel Craig is still in it???

Loeffelholz

Okay, maybe we can assume that...

Sorry, craigspicturenexttoamonkey.com!

Stryke

I don't see a big deal. I hope most of you complainers noticed that the gun barrel sequence was moved in Casino Royale as well.

Fitzochris

Stryke wrote:

I don't see a big deal. I hope most of you complainers noticed that the gun barrel sequence was moved in Casino Royale as well.

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.

A7ce

Fitzochris, I think u feel pretty much the same on this as I do.

Fitzochris

A7ce wrote:

Fitzochris, I think u feel pretty much the same on this as I do.

Good to hear it my Brummy friend. I was getting the feeling I was on my own with this.

Pud2002

I'm with you on that to. It just seems a pointless move.

Fitzochris

Pointless indeed. A comment from Michael G Wilson suggests as much:
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.

yodboy007

Fitzochris wrote:

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.

I agree with your reasoning the most when it comes to the gunbarrel issue, Fitzochris. Placing it at the end does not end the film with a "bang". If cheap and tired gimmicks are what EON wants to avoid then they are doing a bad job because that is a cheap and tired gimmick. It's all about identifying Bond and separating him from characters in other action films. The Bourne films have obviously influenced these Craig films and that is normal because over time a lot of the 007 films reflected the times in which they were made. But we must remember to still keep the ingredients that make it a James Bond film.

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.

A7ce

Fitzochris wrote:

A7ce wrote:

Fitzochris, I think u feel pretty much the same on this as I do.

Good to hear it my Brummy friend. I was getting the feeling I was on my own with this.

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.

Asp9mm

Most people associate the Bond theme with some dorky-tongue-in-cheek get-out. It has become over used and cliched, time for a rest and to build it back up for use in momentous moments.

As for the gunbarrel being at the end and it not fitting. Has any of you actually seen it in context yet?