For me the gun barrel is like; A long time ago in a galaxy far far away. You know it's a Star Wars film and all the nostalgic feelings come rushing back.
It's also a transition from being in the cinema into being in the movie and helps to suck you in
straight away.
I have very very strong feelings that it should always go at the beginning.
As a child my brother and I would reenact the gunbarrel walk when ever a film was on TV.
I think my all time favourite is Goldeneye as it's the first one I saw on the big screen when I was 11.
wherever it is, its usually there for a reason and i'm happy to let EoN make the choice as to where it appear.
walking out of the cinema because its not where you want it? the phrase 'petulant spoilt child' springs to mind.
ok, everyone's entitled to an opinion, but walking out would be a tad childish imo.
ya never know, someone at EoN might read these 11 pages of childish wining and take note, and place the gunbarrel at the start of bond 24. there again, they probably won't read this, and if they did they'd probably be joking around the office saying "what a bunch of wining w@nkers".
It doesn't really bug me. The gunbarrel was a cool way to give us the opening pre-credit scene, but often times those pre-credit scenes had little to do with the plot(for example Goldfinger's pre-credit scene had nothing to do with the rest of the movie).
Personally I think it makes more sense nowadays to have the gunbarrel scene at the end of the movie.
I see the gunbarrel almost like an intro. For instance, TV shows have intros to every episode. I'm not saying that bond is like a TV show, but it does/did have an episodic format. And I think that's part of the reason so many people want it at the beginning (including myself). To stick with that tradition, which makes bond bond.
Walking out of the cinema is obviously an overreaction. And Skyfall was an absolutely brilliant film, despite where the gunbarrel was. But I do wish to see it back at the beginning of bond 24, and I think it will be.
It's where it is FOR A REASON....not just because they fancied a change...or couldn't fit it in anywhere else...how difficult a concept is that to grasp ?:)
So I have to agree with that reason, whatever it happens to be?
"Whatever it happens to be".....are you being serious ?
Is the reason not good enough..?...or do you not understand why it's placed at the end this time around ? I'm at a genuine loss as to why you would say that.... ?:)
Is the reason not good enough..?...or do you not understand why it's placed at the end this time around ? I'm at a genuine loss as to why you would say that.... ?:)
The former.
I'm happy to agree to disagree, but I'm getting rather tired of being told by implication for the umpteenth time that I simply have to accept that there is a reason for the placement of the gunbarrel where it is in the film, and that I should quit whinging, build a bridge and get over it.
As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason good enough not to place the gunbarrel sequence where it should rightfully be - at the start of the film. The fact that it isn't spoils the film somewhat for me.
As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason good enough not to place the gunbarrel sequence where it should rightfully be - at the start of the film. The fact that it isn't spoils the film somewhat for me.
This will probably not come across as I mean it to, but are you saying that the lack of a few seconds of sequence effectively spoilt the 2 & 1/2 hours of film that followed (and that we had all waited for, for so long)? Perhaps I'm a heathen for saying it, but I can't get my head round this. Then again the gunbarrel doesn't carry as much weighty importance for me as it seems for others, so each to their own.
This will probably not come across as I mean it to, but are you saying that the lack of a few seconds of sequence effectively spoilt the 2 & 1/2 hours of film that followed (and that we had all waited for, for so long)?
Not in the sense that the film is crap and I'll walk out of the cinema after the first minute, but in the sense that the film could have been better but for the placement of the gunbarrel.
Think about it this way- two people give you a copy of the same Fleming novel, one is missing the cover but is otherwise perfectly intact, the other has the nice stylized lettering of the title and the 007 logo and such. Either way, the book itself is the same, but a nice cover just helps you into the feel of the story as you open it to start reading.
Is the reason not good enough..?...or do you not understand why it's placed at the end this time around ? I'm at a genuine loss as to why you would say that.... ?:)
The former.
I'm happy to agree to disagree, but I'm getting rather tired of being told by implication for the umpteenth time that I simply have to accept that there is a reason for the placement of the gunbarrel where it is in the film, and that I should quit whinging, build a bridge and get over it.
As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason good enough not to place the gunbarrel sequence where it should rightfully be - at the start of the film. The fact that it isn't spoils the film somewhat for me.
Me too....happy to agree to disagree that is....and I'm heartily fed up of people scriking that they don't understand why it was moved...it was...deal with it
So to be clear, what exactly is the consensus on why the gunbarrel sequence is at the end?
Cos Mendes thought it didn't work at the start, and having it at the end polished all the 'new M, new Moneypenny, new (temporary) office, new bond, new gunbarrel thing off.
Bond will return....
Or at least I thought that was what it's all about.
So to be clear, what exactly is the consensus on why the gunbarrel sequence is at the end?
Cos Mendes thought it didn't work at the start, and having it at the end polished all the 'new M, new Moneypenny, new (temporary) office, new bond, new gunbarrel thing off.
Bond will return....
Or at least I thought that was what it's all about.
Ok, so editing choice, and with all the introductions at the end, Mendes didn't agree that Quantum of Solace's end gunbarrel brought Craig to true Bond, but rather this new settled cast and having done his first classic Bond-style movie is what now makes Craig's Bond really James Bond at the end of SkyFall.
I mind the decision a little less now, though I'll be pissed if it isn't at the beginning next time. )
And this thread should probably now be marked for spoilers...
How do we know it is only temporary? Surely it could easily be worked around?
Anyway I still agree with the people that believe the gunbarrel not at the start leaves the movie feeling like its lacking something. I understand Mendes didn't think it worked at the start so put it at the end, and for that reason alone I don't think the new M, Moneypenny etc. setup had anything to do with the gunbarrel being placed there. That scene would still of been there without the barrel if it had been placed correctly at the start BUT I can see why some think it worked better.
I still stand by my comments that they have felt the need to try and 'explain' the sequence in the past 3 films but it doesn't need explaining to us, all it needs is to be left where it belongs - with the odd re-design every now and then. I think for the next film they need to redesign it again to use more permanantly, the SkyFall one was OK but too big, also it was very soft looking around the edges. Also need to use a different walk, it was classy and better than QoS, the walk was a good speed this time but the point where he turns and shoots is too slow, theres a very slight delay, i enjoyed the version that you can see being filmed in the 'Secrets of Skyfall' video, he has a very similar stance but it is more aggressive and effective.
Anyway I still agree with the people that believe the gunbarrel not at the start leaves the movie feeling like its lacking something. I understand Mendes didn't think it worked at the start so put it at the end, and for that reason alone I don't think the new M, Moneypenny etc. setup had anything to do with the gunbarrel being placed there. That scene would still of been there without the barrel if it had been placed correctly at the start BUT I can see why some think it worked better.
Personally, I think if Mendes indeed thought that it didn't really work at the start, he should've made it fit at the start, to the extent of altering the PTS.
But I also honestly can't see why it wouldn't have worked at the start. Every Bond film bar the two previous have had a gunbarrel sequence before the PTS, and they work perfectly well. What makes Skyfall so special?
"And it's into page 12 of the 'what's with the gunbarrel?!' thread on AJB. Things seem to be heating up as Sir Miles and others start to loose patience with the constant 'whyyyy? Whyyyyy? Whyyyyy?' tactics of Defiant. Where will it all end? Will the thread reach 20 pages? Is it really that big a deal? And most importantly, is it beans on toast or baked spud for din dins? Stay tuned folks, and remember, when it comes to my lunchy munchies, you read it here first on AJB, the home of strung out conversation!!"
IMO, it does not work at the start because the first shot that we see is a long black corridor, with a source of white light and bonds silouette at the end, actually visually similar to the gunbarrel itself. The effect of opening the dot to that shot would have been lost or diminished.
To open with the gunbarrel would have required another shot to be the first, like an Istambul general view, but they intented to show Bond is in Istambul when he goes out in the street. So they should have altered that too.
IMO, it does not work at the start because the first shot that we see is a long black corridor, with a source of white light and bonds silouette at the end, actually visually similar to the gunbarrel itself. The effect of opening the dot to that shot would have been lost or diminished.
To open with the gunbarrel would have required another shot to be the first, like an Istambul general view, but they intented to show Bond is in Istambul when he goes out in the street. So they should have altered that too.
Well it could have worked if the gunbarrel faded to black instead of the dot opening (like they did for FRWL)
You couldn't have a gunbarrel opening to the cityscape of Istanbul, as there needed to be some mystery about it. Where are we, who's that in the corridor, what building is this?
You couldn't have a gunbarrel to the corridor shot as there needed to be some surprise as bond appeared, out of focus.
Remember, a gunbarrel sequence ends with a revelation, a scene setter, a clear view. Mendes wanted done suspense and mystery, so couldn't use a gunbarrel.
And now on to FAR more important matters than where the gunbarrel was placed....
...come on minigeff....was it beans on toast OR baked spud for din dins...???...
....don't leave me hanging....which is something I'd rather do than read through the last 12 pages again
Well I had baked spud with chicken tikka. Trouble is, I couldn't decide, does the chicken tikka go on top of the spud, by the side, or do I put the whole lot in a banjo? I spent so long trying to make my mind up, the spud went cold so I threw it all in the bin. Then I got real hungry so retrieved it. Ya know when last nights pizza tastes better cold the morning after? Well it goes to a whole new level when it's come back out the bin.
IMO, it does not work at the start because the first shot that we see is a long black corridor, with a source of white light and bonds silouette at the end, actually visually similar to the gunbarrel itself.
This is exactly how I feel about it. I'm over the fact the gun barrel isn't at the beginning. The movie was fantastic and I will be going to see it again.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
You couldn't have a gunbarrel opening to the cityscape of Istanbul, as there needed to be some mystery about it. Where are we, who's that in the corridor, what building is this?
You couldn't have a gunbarrel to the corridor shot as there needed to be some surprise as bond appeared, out of focus.
Remember, a gunbarrel sequence ends with a revelation, a scene setter, a clear view. Mendes wanted done suspense and mystery, so couldn't use a gunbarrel.
Exactly. Suspense, not a revelation. It´s different, not traditional, but it´s good.
Would we be having a similar discussion if the gunbarrel had been at the beginning, but instead it would be those who feel its current placement removed the editing conflict between the hallway scene and the gunbarrel sequence? Would the support for its current placement be here had it been at the beginning all along?
Would we be having a similar discussion if the gunbarrel had been at the beginning, but instead it would be those who feel its current placement removed the editing conflict between the hallway scene and the gunbarrel sequence? Would the support for its current placement be here had it been at the beginning all along?
I don´t think so, we would all be happy because it´s at the beginning again. But then the gunbarrel would open to an Istambul shot, not a dark hallway.
IMO, with the dark hallway, they tried to imply a gunbarrel. The same idea is also in the movie teaser poster.
Things seem to be heating up as Sir Miles and others start to loose patience with the constant 'whyyyy? Whyyyyy? Whyyyyy?' tactics of Defiant.
Excuse me?
I know why the gunbarrel isn't where it should be. I just don't agree that the reason is good enough to shift it from its rightful place at the beginning of the film. I also believe that the film could have been better but for the placement of the gunbarrel. Is THAT so hard to understand??
Remember, a gunbarrel sequence ends with a revelation, a scene setter, a clear view.
Not always. The Dr No gunbarrel ended with the opening credits. The From Russia With Love gunbarrel ended with darkness, then a view of the feet of somebody snooping around in the dark. The Goldfinger gunbarrel ended with what appeared to be a duck in a pond, in darkness.
I fail to see why Skyfall couldn't have opened with a gunbarrel fading into the corridor scene. I don't agree that it won't work.
Would we be having a similar discussion if the gunbarrel had been at the beginning, but instead it would be those who feel its current placement removed the editing conflict between the hallway scene and the gunbarrel sequence? Would the support for its current placement be here had it been at the beginning all along?
I don't think so. The fact that we've had 12 pages of discussion on a 10 second sequence is that it isn't placed where it should rightfully be. If it were in fact in the beginning, I don't think we'd be seeing anyone suggest that it shouldn't be there.
The fact that we've had 12 pages of discussion on a 10 second sequence is that it isn't placed where it should rightfully be. If it were in fact in the beginning, I don't think we'd be seeing anyone suggest that it shouldn't be there.
Well I for one don't think it should have been at the start of SF and there appears to be a few others who have shared a similar opinion. I think it sits in absolutely the right place for the film.
If in the next movie it is at the beginning then great - if this is the absolutely correct place (bearing in mind what is about to follow).
Personally speaking, I really don't get the furore that not even 10 seconds of film seems to be causing - I'd rather have & focus upon the 2 & a half hours of (hopefully!) great movie.
The fact that we've had 12 pages of discussion on a 10 second sequence is that it isn't placed where it should rightfully be. If it were in fact in the beginning, I don't think we'd be seeing anyone suggest that it shouldn't be there.
Well I for one don't think it should have been at the start of SF and there appears to be a few others who have shared a similar opinion. I think it sits in absolutely the right place for the film.
If in the next movie it is at the beginning then great - if this is the absolutely correct place (bearing in mind what is about to follow).
Personally speaking, I really don't get the furore that not even 10 seconds of film seems to be causing - I'd rather have & focus upon the 2 & a half hours of (hopefully!) great movie.
Haven't you learnt yet that if the gunbarrel isn't at the start, the rest of the film is irrelevant. )
Comments
It's also a transition from being in the cinema into being in the movie and helps to suck you in
straight away.
I have very very strong feelings that it should always go at the beginning.
As a child my brother and I would reenact the gunbarrel walk when ever a film was on TV.
I think my all time favourite is Goldeneye as it's the first one I saw on the big screen when I was 11.
wherever it is, its usually there for a reason and i'm happy to let EoN make the choice as to where it appear.
walking out of the cinema because its not where you want it? the phrase 'petulant spoilt child' springs to mind.
ok, everyone's entitled to an opinion, but walking out would be a tad childish imo.
ya never know, someone at EoN might read these 11 pages of childish wining and take note, and place the gunbarrel at the start of bond 24. there again, they probably won't read this, and if they did they'd probably be joking around the office saying "what a bunch of wining w@nkers".
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Personally I think it makes more sense nowadays to have the gunbarrel scene at the end of the movie.
Walking out of the cinema is obviously an overreaction. And Skyfall was an absolutely brilliant film, despite where the gunbarrel was. But I do wish to see it back at the beginning of bond 24, and I think it will be.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
"Whatever it happens to be".....are you being serious ?
Is the reason not good enough..?...or do you not understand why it's placed at the end this time around ? I'm at a genuine loss as to why you would say that.... ?:)
The former.
I'm happy to agree to disagree, but I'm getting rather tired of being told by implication for the umpteenth time that I simply have to accept that there is a reason for the placement of the gunbarrel where it is in the film, and that I should quit whinging, build a bridge and get over it.
As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason good enough not to place the gunbarrel sequence where it should rightfully be - at the start of the film. The fact that it isn't spoils the film somewhat for me.
This will probably not come across as I mean it to, but are you saying that the lack of a few seconds of sequence effectively spoilt the 2 & 1/2 hours of film that followed (and that we had all waited for, for so long)? Perhaps I'm a heathen for saying it, but I can't get my head round this. Then again the gunbarrel doesn't carry as much weighty importance for me as it seems for others, so each to their own.
( two of those are Salt and Pepper )
Not in the sense that the film is crap and I'll walk out of the cinema after the first minute, but in the sense that the film could have been better but for the placement of the gunbarrel.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Me too....happy to agree to disagree that is....and I'm heartily fed up of people scriking that they don't understand why it was moved...it was...deal with it
Cos Mendes thought it didn't work at the start, and having it at the end polished all the 'new M, new Moneypenny, new (temporary) office, new bond, new gunbarrel thing off.
Bond will return....
Or at least I thought that was what it's all about.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Ok, so editing choice, and with all the introductions at the end, Mendes didn't agree that Quantum of Solace's end gunbarrel brought Craig to true Bond, but rather this new settled cast and having done his first classic Bond-style movie is what now makes Craig's Bond really James Bond at the end of SkyFall.
I mind the decision a little less now, though I'll be pissed if it isn't at the beginning next time.
And this thread should probably now be marked for spoilers...
How do we know it is only temporary? Surely it could easily be worked around?
Anyway I still agree with the people that believe the gunbarrel not at the start leaves the movie feeling like its lacking something. I understand Mendes didn't think it worked at the start so put it at the end, and for that reason alone I don't think the new M, Moneypenny etc. setup had anything to do with the gunbarrel being placed there. That scene would still of been there without the barrel if it had been placed correctly at the start BUT I can see why some think it worked better.
I still stand by my comments that they have felt the need to try and 'explain' the sequence in the past 3 films but it doesn't need explaining to us, all it needs is to be left where it belongs - with the odd re-design every now and then. I think for the next film they need to redesign it again to use more permanantly, the SkyFall one was OK but too big, also it was very soft looking around the edges. Also need to use a different walk, it was classy and better than QoS, the walk was a good speed this time but the point where he turns and shoots is too slow, theres a very slight delay, i enjoyed the version that you can see being filmed in the 'Secrets of Skyfall' video, he has a very similar stance but it is more aggressive and effective.
Personally, I think if Mendes indeed thought that it didn't really work at the start, he should've made it fit at the start, to the extent of altering the PTS.
But I also honestly can't see why it wouldn't have worked at the start. Every Bond film bar the two previous have had a gunbarrel sequence before the PTS, and they work perfectly well. What makes Skyfall so special?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
To open with the gunbarrel would have required another shot to be the first, like an Istambul general view, but they intented to show Bond is in Istambul when he goes out in the street. So they should have altered that too.
Well it could have worked if the gunbarrel faded to black instead of the dot opening (like they did for FRWL)
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
You couldn't have a gunbarrel opening to the cityscape of Istanbul, as there needed to be some mystery about it. Where are we, who's that in the corridor, what building is this?
You couldn't have a gunbarrel to the corridor shot as there needed to be some surprise as bond appeared, out of focus.
Remember, a gunbarrel sequence ends with a revelation, a scene setter, a clear view. Mendes wanted done suspense and mystery, so couldn't use a gunbarrel.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
...come on minigeff....was it beans on toast OR baked spud for din dins...???...
....don't leave me hanging....which is something I'd rather do than read through the last 12 pages again
Well I had baked spud with chicken tikka. Trouble is, I couldn't decide, does the chicken tikka go on top of the spud, by the side, or do I put the whole lot in a banjo? I spent so long trying to make my mind up, the spud went cold so I threw it all in the bin. Then I got real hungry so retrieved it. Ya know when last nights pizza tastes better cold the morning after? Well it goes to a whole new level when it's come back out the bin.
Mmmmm cold bin fodder......
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
This is exactly how I feel about it. I'm over the fact the gun barrel isn't at the beginning. The movie was fantastic and I will be going to see it again.
Exactly. Suspense, not a revelation. It´s different, not traditional, but it´s good.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I don´t think so, we would all be happy because it´s at the beginning again. But then the gunbarrel would open to an Istambul shot, not a dark hallway.
IMO, with the dark hallway, they tried to imply a gunbarrel. The same idea is also in the movie teaser poster.
Excuse me?
I know why the gunbarrel isn't where it should be. I just don't agree that the reason is good enough to shift it from its rightful place at the beginning of the film. I also believe that the film could have been better but for the placement of the gunbarrel. Is THAT so hard to understand??
Not always. The Dr No gunbarrel ended with the opening credits. The From Russia With Love gunbarrel ended with darkness, then a view of the feet of somebody snooping around in the dark. The Goldfinger gunbarrel ended with what appeared to be a duck in a pond, in darkness.
I fail to see why Skyfall couldn't have opened with a gunbarrel fading into the corridor scene. I don't agree that it won't work.
I don't think so. The fact that we've had 12 pages of discussion on a 10 second sequence is that it isn't placed where it should rightfully be. If it were in fact in the beginning, I don't think we'd be seeing anyone suggest that it shouldn't be there.
Well I for one don't think it should have been at the start of SF and there appears to be a few others who have shared a similar opinion. I think it sits in absolutely the right place for the film.
If in the next movie it is at the beginning then great - if this is the absolutely correct place (bearing in mind what is about to follow).
Personally speaking, I really don't get the furore that not even 10 seconds of film seems to be causing - I'd rather have & focus upon the 2 & a half hours of (hopefully!) great movie.
Haven't you learnt yet that if the gunbarrel isn't at the start, the rest of the film is irrelevant.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org