Gunbarrel Placement?

Andy A 007

What did everyone thing of the gunbarrel at the end of the film? While I'm sure many of you are in uproar about it, I thought it was an inspired Idea, and it fit perfectly at the end of the film. IMO when you really think about it, the gunbarrel wouldn't have worked half as well at the beginning. Your thoughts...

Asp9mm

The way the film started with Arnolds excellent score and the tension building up with the quick shots of the Aston and Lake Garda, the gunbarrel at the beginning would have blown this subtle build up. The end is fitting with Bonds quip about never being away, and it leaves you feeling that his maturation period is over.

7289

I am not one of those folks absolutely wedded to having the gunbarrel at the beginning of the film. I lost my fascination for that device years ago.

However, I just knew it would end up in QOS at some point. It never hurts to shake the bag now and again. Bond needed shaking and it's paid off. Now if only EON could be made to realise that Bond outside of Fleming is only 50 proof. Once they finally figure that out oo7 will return to his original glory!

Gassy Man

Placement is okay but it happens a little too fast.

Agent Wade

I was damn worried. I mean really really worried when I didn't see the gunbarrel at the beginning or anywhere in the title sequence. When Craig fired and they followed the bullet, I thought that at some point it would swing back to 1st person perspective and end with a familiar shot, but no dice.

However, I see the intention and applaud the stamina and duration. As much as Casino Royale made us wait for a proper Bond theme, this one made us wait to get the official gunbarrel.

I was commenting to friends afterward that Craigs walk was definitely the fastest I had ever seen. He looked like his mommy just told him he couldn't play with his friends after school, and he was scurrying off in a temper.

Mr Martini

After seeing the film and thinking about it for a few I like the placement. This is almost like the second half of Casino Royale. Would it have been nice at the beginnig?, Yes, of course. But, like I said, this is the second half of Casino Royale, so, the way I see it, Bond was still on the same mission. Next mission will be the next movie, so gunbarrel will be at the beginning.

bigzilcho

7289 wrote:

I am not one of those folks absolutely wedded to having the gunbarrel at the beginning of the film. I lost my fascination for that device years ago.

However, I just knew it would end up in QOS at some point. It never hurts to shake the bag now and again. Bond needed shaking and it's paid off. Now if only EON could be made to realise that Bond outside of Fleming is only 50 proof. Once they finally figure that out 007 will return to his original glory!

7289...whats this? Not "wedded" to the gunbarrel? Lost your fascination...YEARS ago?

Shocking. Positively shocking.

I am one those old neanderthal Bond-fans who EXPECTS a couple of things in every single Bond movie. One, Bond in a tux. Call me old-fashioned. Bond MUST ,just once, strut in the tux, the single most styllistically iconic image in the series.

And two...the gunbarrel walk. Without any doubt, question or deliberation every Bond movie MUST, I repeat, MUST open with the gunbarrel. Why? Tradition. It is the signature image of the entire series. It is the definition of Bond. And the absolute epitome of Bondian cool.

Check out Robert Davi in the LTK doc talking about what a glorious thrill it is to be a Bond-fan, sitting back with your popcorn and watching those dots appear as the film opens. He's 100% right, and then some.

I can't tell you how disappointing I was with both CR and QOS opening moments. For me, a Bond film proper ALWAYS begins with the dots and the walk. Period. Without it...well, its just not a Bond beginning, old boy.

Oh, sure, I can allow for the the fact that CR/QOS is the re-boot and, therefore, the gunbarrels appear in there own sweet time.

But, fellow Bond-fans, enough with the re-boot mentality, if you please. Not EVERYTHING has to be tweaked. If the next Bond film does NOT open with Craig's gunbarrel (which looked very cool) I will be disappointed three times in a row. Not a pleasant picture to contemplate.

So unlike 7289, I am of the belief that certain things should stay absolutely the same in the Bond universe. Call me stubborn, a Bond traditionalist or just another inmate in an asylum full of Bond-fans who cannot allow a stylistic change of this degree without a word of protest.

And 7289's point that he lost his "fascination" with the gunbarrel "device" is very telling. Yes, it is simply a device...and all power to the fact that its just a device.

But it is the first and, in someways, greatest device in the series. Sure its old hat, and you've seen it all before. And THATS the point. We HAVE seen it before. In fact, every single movie. And thats what gives this image its special hold over the series.

If it ain't broke.....



"I can't find the...stationary."

urhash

This is a great edit of the QoS gunbarrel. It slows it down to a more appropriate pace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q90nIyIM0U8

kinserfan11

What is the big deal; i heard they did that to continue the series a different way{[]

Fatsnbul

I would have liked to have seen it Dr. No style, at the very begining.

Agent Wade

When the gunbarrel finally appeared, I said to my friends, "It's about f***ing time!"

Moonraker 5

The placement was all wrong. That 5 seconds of darkness at the end of the film, pre-gunbarrel, already had the audience in my preview showing standing up, rustling their rubbish papers, looking behind them for their jackets, and when the (seemed like a rather weak sounding rendition of the - but that could be contributed to background noise now drowning it out) Bond theme started it was to the beat of chairs tipping back on themselves. All wrong.

It was too quick, it seemed a little too "zoomed in", and like the rest of Mk12's animations, I thought the gunbarrel itself was an afterthought. Maybe because it was too dark (dark blue or something?) or because it was over in the blink of an eye, or because I could hardly see it because it was so close in, I don't know. Regardless, it had no impact on me.

But by then, I was bored anyway and just wanted out. The first film that I didn't wait to see the "James Bond Will Return" footnote.

Mr Martini

Moonraker 5 wrote:

But by then, I was bored anyway and just wanted out. The first film that I didn't wait to see the "James Bond Will Return" footnote.

I sat through the credits to make sure the footnote was still there. And it was. So at least they haven't changed that. At least, not yet.

8420

The gunbarrel was great and i think they should do it at the end from now on it is better.

Agent Wade

8420 wrote:

The gunbarrel was great and i think they should do it at the end from now on it is better.

Oh no no no no no no no no no no no no no. I must respectfully disagree on this one. Putting it at the end from here on out places the franchise into the horrible trend of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. James Bond doesn't need a coda. I can accept the alterations in CR and QOS because of the nature of their tales and the relavence of the Bond character. But if I don't see the gunbarrel at the beginning of Bond 23, I am going to have words for the Broccoli family.

Andy A 007

Asp9mm wrote:

The way the film started with Arnolds excellent score and the tension building up with the quick shots of the Aston and Lake Garda, the gunbarrel at the beginning would have blown this subtle build up. The end is fitting with Bonds quip about never being away, and it leaves you feeling that his maturation period is over.

Couldn't agree with you more. The subtle build up at the beginning would have been ruined if the gunbarrel had come before it. And I also agree that Quantum of Solace is kind of the second half of Casino Royale. They have a linking story arc. Bond didn't really become Bond until the end of QOS and thats why the gunbarrel is so inspiringly fitting at the end of the film.

yodboy007

While I prefer the gunbarrel to always be at the beginning it did not bother me that much. Even though I dislike the whole "reboot" thing and the arc of "Bond becoming Bond" I suppose it makes sense to be at the end.

My audience did the same thing that M5's did when the gunbarrel finally came: they were getting up and leaving. I missed part of Craig's walk on my second viewing because someone got up right in front of me.

I must say that I do like Craig's walk. I did not mind it being fast at all and I am glad he finally did one that we can remember forever along with the other five Bonds. I do feel that the blood came down a little too fast. Give this guy a kiss on the cheek from Moneypenny, a few gadgets from Q and the James Bond Theme during one of his chase scenes and he will be a full-fledged James Bond actor.

MonsieurGreen

If Quantum was the biggest pre-open of the history of the Bond franchise

Lets see it that way, in all movies there was always a mission at the beginning that had a certain link thru the films, and if you remember the longest was in The World is not enough.

Could Quantum be like that and lead to something bigger in the next film, maybe or maybe not but thats the way I see it, Quantum was only a passage from Casino Royale to the next movie.

Future will tell

rennervision

The lack of an opening gunbarrel is one of many details that makes me say fans claiming over the years that NSNA isn't official is now a moot argument. I would argue NSNA is now MORE official than the last two EON Bonds.

But I'm one of those people that was annoyed the last Die Hard movie did not start with the words "DIE" and "HARD" crashing together, and had that weird-colored tint throughout the film. At least the last Indiana Jones movie opened with a mountain shot. So some franchises still believe in tradition!

Agent Wade

rennervision wrote:

But I'm one of those people that was annoyed the last Die Hard movie did not start with the words "DIE" and "HARD" crashing together, and had that weird-colored tint throughout the film. At least the last Indiana Jones movie opened with a mountain shot. So some franchises still believe in tradition!

And the X-Men movies all started with the Cerebro doors closing right after the opening credits.

sharpshooter

Never once did I feel like I wasn't watching a Bond film.

There's a high speed car chase along a dangerous road in an exotic location and bad guys are sent flying off cliffs. The PTS is a great, old fashioned Bond opening for a new generation.

The dispute that removing such things like the gun barrel destroys the franchise does not register. The things that make a James Bond movie are not the gun barrel, theme or main titles. That is all window dressing, one could make an entirely worthy Bond film without them. The barrel is there anyway, just reshuffled.

Usually the series is criticized for being formulaic and predictable, here it feels like anything can happen.

It was a great surprise for the audience and ended the film on a high.

Moonraker 5

sharpshooter wrote:

It was a great surprise for the audience and ended the film on a high.

Hmmm. I don't think most of our audience noticed it as they were too busy preparing to leave, gathering jackets and already talking to those next to them. That definitely ruined any enjoyment I could've had for the gunbarrel, but the preview audience seemed to have decided the film had already ended, so there was no high generated by the "end titles" (that includes gunbarrel).

A lot of people would also argue that it is little things like theme, gunbarrel, little bits and pieces of formula. Which to me, anyway, left this film as nothing more than a Jason Bourne film; which in fact is being unfair, as the Bourne films were gripping and had plot. It just made it a run-of-the-mill action film.

Lady Rose

Moonraker 5 wrote:

A lot of people would also argue that it is little things like theme, gunbarrel, little bits and pieces of formula. Which to me, anyway, left this film as nothing more than a Jason Bourne film; which in fact is being unfair, as the Bourne films were gripping and had plot. It just made it a run-of-the-mill action film.

Totally agree M5. I have no problem with Craig as Bond and like his more 'earthy' approach but I really miss all the things that make it 'Bond'.The gunbarrel just being one of them.

You can go on about lack of Q, Moneypenny, gadgets et al and if one or two of these things are missing occassionally its no great loss but for all of them to be jettisoned in one fell swoop is a bit harsh and takes away all the elements that make it Bond.

The gunbarrell for me is an essential part of the film.Its the signal to buckle up and to be taken on a glamourous, dangerous adventure and I believe this is the case for most of the audience.

Like you M5, the gunbarrell was totally wasted on the audience I was with as they were all leaving.

sharpshooter

Moonraker 5 wrote:

sharpshooter wrote:

It was a great surprise for the audience and ended the film on a high.

Hmmm. I don't think most of our audience noticed it as they were too busy preparing to leave, gathering jackets and already talking to those next to them. That definitely ruined any enjoyment I could've had for the gunbarrel, but the preview audience seemed to have decided the film had already ended, so there was no high generated by the "end titles" (that includes gunbarrel).

Like I said, it was a different story for me - and I appreciate the concept behind the placement.

Mr White

It made absolutely no sense to put it at the end of the movie. They should have saved it for the beginning of the next Bond movie where it belongs.

the headlight

I didn't think the placement made any sense and Craig's gunbarrel is poor.

c_a_r_t_e_r_3_5

It would be interesting to see people's responces if they had left out the gun barrel completely. Would people complain more, or less?

Moonraker 5

c_a_r_t_e_r_3_5 wrote:

It would be interesting to see people's responces if they had left out the gun barrel completely. Would people complain more, or less?

You know, I actually think I'd have preferred it if they left it out entirely. I'd rather not have one at all than relegating it to the end of the film when everyone is more interested in knowing if they're covered in popcorn or they've remembered their scarf.

c_a_r_t_e_r_3_5

You say that with hindsight, but if they'd left it out you might have another view?

Then again, if they didn't do it, nobody would ever think of putting it at the end.

Blofeld

I was terribly dissapointed with the placement of the gun barrel scene. In fact, i will go as far as say that i prefer it wasnt even included at all if all they could think of was the end.

But i guess the film itself dissapointed me enough by then that i was almost immune to what it had left to throw at me.

QoS can thank CR for its good ratings. But im afraid EoN has probably 1 more good shot at making a good film otherwise people will speak will their pockets and the Bond films will start to become box office disasters.

The gun barrel scene must return and must return to its true spot and that is right after the MGM Lion roars.....