Not official no, I asked a critic who was at the press screening was the gunbarrel in the film and he replied its there but not at the start. This is my only source on this. It could be untrue (I hope it is) but I see no reason for him to lie
I would hate it if they really are not going to put it at the beginning of the movie. And I'm very curious to know WHY they choose to do it.
It's an artistic choice; it demonstrates an anti-retro cinematic nihilism that destroys the standard accepted reality creating a subconscious strata of instability within expected visual norms.
Or maybe some dumass just thought it was a good idea....
Not official no, I asked a critic who was at the press screening was the gunbarrel in the film and he replied its there but not at the start. This is my only source on this. It could be untrue (I hope it is) but I see no reason for him to lie
It's all over the other fora that the gunbarrel sequence is at the end, a la QoS. Leaked from the press screening.
Your opinion doesn't offend...but your lack of manners certainly does...there is no need, or call for, calling another member a "dickhead" or "cockend"...everyone is entitled to their opinion and people can agree to disagree and debate that in an adult manner...or should be able to anyway... 8-)
I would suggest an apology to Asp9mm from yourself...and his remark had a smilie at the end of it, denoting that he was laughing at the statement rather than the person making it....that would appear obvious to all...
Laughing at the statement is the same as laughing at the person making it in my book. No apology from me I'm afraid... And yet I bet the sun still comes up tomorrow and the earth continues to turn.
Really ? Then you are an arrogant idiot and I bet you make friends easily 8-)
It's funny that someone can ridicule my opinion yet I'm the one branded an arrogant idiot. Guess you need over 1,000 posts to be above reproach eh?
I will be gutted if the rumours are true, there is no need to move it, artistic reasons or otherwise.
Anyway, I was searching on twitter regarding the matter and came across some interesting results...
Alot of people are asking reviewers if the rumours are true, some of the replies stated that they were giving nothing away while other replies sounded more promising, one person stated that he was looking forward to the film but wanted to know if the gunbarrel opening was returning and he got a reply saying that it was and that he wouldn't be dissapointed. The more intriguing thing I found was one person asked a reviewer (from Total Film if memory serves) if the gunbarrel was at the start of the film and the reviewer replied, "It's even better that that." which I thought was an interesting reply to say the least!
So now I'm really confused, alot of people are stating/assuming its at the end but after reading those statements I dont know what to believe. Maybe the reviewers (at least some of them) are just stirring things a bit to tease fans, maybe they are telling the truth and it's at the end (but if that is the case then the people who are hyping the gunbarrel up obviously didnt notice it at the end of Quantum) or maybe its somewhere else judging by the comment about it being better than at the start? Maybe, just maybe its at the end of the title sequence to signify Bond coming back to life??
Im sorry that I cant post direct quotes from twitter as I searched on my mobile phone and really cant be bothered trailing through all the replies again on my laptop ha.
I personally hope it is at the beginning though and that the reviews are spinning us porkies as i dont feel the gunbarrel has any significance or impact anywhere else, I understood the change in CR but it is silly to play with it, It sounds silly but it really does affect my enjoyment of the film over all without a gunbarrel OPENING, as that is what it is, an OPENING. IT has no impact or significance anywhere else IMO.
I will be gutted if the rumours are true, there is no need to move it, artistic reasons or otherwise.
Anyway, I was searching on twitter regarding the matter and came across some interesting results...
Alot of people are asking reviewers if the rumours are true, some of the replies stated that they were giving nothing away while other replies sounded more promising, one person stated that he was looking forward to the film but wanted to know if the gunbarrel opening was returning and he got a reply saying that it was and that he wouldn't be dissapointed. The more intriguing thing I found was one person asked a reviewer (from Total Film if memory serves) if the gunbarrel was at the start of the film and the reviewer replied, "It's even better that that." which I thought was an interesting reply to say the least!
So now I'm really confused, alot of people are stating/assuming its at the end but after reading those statements I dont know what to believe. Maybe the reviewers (at least some of them) are just stirring things a bit to tease fans, maybe they are telling the truth and it's at the end (but if that is the case then the people who are hyping the gunbarrel up obviously didnt notice it at the end of Quantum) or maybe its somewhere else judging by the comment about it being better than at the start? Maybe, just maybe its at the end of the title sequence to signify Bond coming back to life??
Im sorry that I cant post direct quotes from twitter as I searched on my mobile phone and really cant be bothered trailing through all the replies again on my laptop ha.
I personally hope it is at the beginning though and that the reviews are spinning us porkies as i dont feel the gunbarrel has any significance or impact anywhere else, I understood the change in CR but it is silly to play with it, It sounds silly but it really does affect my enjoyment of the film over all without a gunbarrel OPENING, as that is what it is, an OPENING. IT has no impact or significance anywhere else IMO.
Also I feel EON are being hypocritical about the whole concept of the Gunbarrel. They continue to use all the elements of the sequence to promote Bond and the film series i.e. in the Skyfall teaser and theatrical posters, advertisments for merchandise and the soundtracks, video games etc. etc. yet completely neglect it in the recent films, yes the DAD variation was horrible but at least it was there, shoving it at the back end of the film is just wrong, EON clearly understand that it is a staple of the Bond film universe as, like I stated earlier, it is used heavily and prominently within marketing strategies etc. and people recognise it all across the globe as Bond's trademark/logo (aside from the 007 gun logo) yet in the films of recent years it has been left out or shoved aside for one 'artistic' reason or another. Leave it alone!
It makes me so irate to see the cast, director and producers within all of the behind-the-scenes vlogs and videos that I've seen for skyfall to talk about how big the anniversary is and how much it all means to them to make something special for the fans of the franchise. It especially gets to me how Sam Mendes, Babs and Mikey G on the M.I.C. talk about how much Bond means to them and that they want to bring together all the classic elements of the films yet they reject the one thing that has always been there and that means so much to alot of people!
I understand some fans do not let this hinder their enjoyment of the films but I am not one of them, I don't even feel like I'm watching Bond if it isnt there to introduce the film and I'm sure this causes a similar reaction to other fans aswell.
EDIT: If I see Skyfall and see that the whole gunbarrel thing was just a ruse and it is in fact at the beginning I will retract my comments and make a public apology.
Maybe, just maybe its at the end of the title sequence to signify Bond coming back to life??
I wouldn't mind this. I think it would be cool actually. I could also see it being halfway through the film. After Bond returns from "death", he needs to retrain his muscle memory for shooting. Once he completes his training the film makers work the gun barrel into the final training shot Bond makes.
We have no idea how the film begins. Maybe we catch up to Bond in the middle or end of another mission. We get the title sequence, Bond enjoying "death" then back to MI6. Bond retrains then we get the gun barrel at the completio n of his training and the start of the mission the get Silva. Just my thoughts.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
Yeah but when considering the whole film, the cinematography, special effects, soundtrack, acting, editing, plot and story, product placement, camera work, lighting, locations, characters, sets and costumes, the one thing that brings the score down by a fifth is if the start has a gunbarrel? Really? A FIFTH of the score balances on where a gunbarrel gets used?
The gunbarrel might be iconic bond, but if its used at the end, does it make much difference? It's certainly not the be all and end all of film making.
It might not be the "be all and end all of film making", but when it comes to Bond films in particular, it definitely is.
I'm with the majority of fans here, that not having a gunbarrel sequence at the start is absolutely needless meddling on the part of the producers. There are no good reasons (in my mind, no reason whatsoever) not to have the gunbarrel sequence at the start. It takes all of 30 seconds - if that, yet it has been and still is the iconic sequence with which Bond films begin.
And yes, if Skyfall doesn't have a gunbarrel sequence at the start, it's going to go down in the ratings for me, no matter how good the film itself turns out to be.
In my opinion, and it is only that, the placement of the gunbarrel is absolutely critical to the make-up of a Bond film.
All the composites you mentioned are critical too, of course, and, as I said, I could well deem Skyfall a five-star movie based on those elements. But if it doesn't start with those white dots and that booming score, it loses its Bondian edge. It felt really strange watching both CR and QoS when they didn't start this way. While I understand why this was the case with these movies, I cannot for one second see why it would be so with Skyfall, especially as we are celebrating 50 years of the franchise.
So, as I say, the film will be tarnished to a degree by the absence of this key, key sequence at its start.
I must admit that the lack of the traditional gun barrel opening is disappointing, but if the movie is as good as it's purported to be, I can live with it.
I do not understand why EON continues to insist on messing with the Gunbarrel. I actually understood what they were trying to do with it in CR and QOS (Bond becoming Bond and all that stuff). But "Skyfall" apparently takes place some years after CR and QOS and Bond is a veteran "oo". Why can't they just put the bloody thing where it belongs and stop trying to be all cute and creative with it.
I'm not THAT bothered about the opening gunbarrel sequence - perhaps I should be stripped of my Mod status for daring to say so )
I was very happy with what they did with it in CR....and I quite liked the idea of having it at the end of QoS - as it showed that 'Bond' had been born...
I thought they would return to having it back at the beginning of Skyfall...but I'm prepared to wait and see how it's been used this time around before I cast any negativity around...and it CERTAINLY will not spoil the film for me if it isn't at the start...that would be stupid...
Maybe, just maybe its at the end of the title sequence to signify Bond coming back to life??
I wouldn't mind this. I think it would be cool actually. I could also see it being halfway through the film. After Bond returns from "death", he needs to retrain his muscle memory for shooting. Once he completes his training the film makers work the gun barrel into the final training shot Bond makes.
We have no idea how the film begins. Maybe we catch up to Bond in the middle or end of another mission. We get the title sequence, Bond enjoying "death" then back to MI6. Bond retrains then we get the gun barrel at the completio n of his training and the start of the mission the get Silva. Just my thoughts.
But we had all this with CR and QoS. Time to stop the messing about and get back to basics. I mean, how often does Bond have to reinvent/find himself etc, etc?
Bond is back, it's his 50th anniversary on screen, so start the thing in bloody style with a good ol' classic gunbarrel. It's what most fans want and it mystifies me how EON can't see this.
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
Was once a time I'd have been mortified at EON messing with conventions. The gunbarrel logo was sacrosant for me, but I found myself strangely unperturbed at its 'misuse' in the last two outings. In fact on the contrary, it's the very tinkering with this trademark which in part made CASINO ROYALE so memorable. Perhaps the device of putting it at the end of the film is the stamp of a Daniel Craig 007 film. I can see how some may be dismayed at what EON are doing but for me its omission from the start isn't a deal-breaker.
I know its just a little thing ( I heard that many times ) but
The idea of the gunbarrel is to raise the hair on the back of your
neck to let you know for the next two hours or so. You are in for
one hell of a ride. ( something I don't hear too often )
So having it after all the excitement, Doesn't make sence.
I can understand why it was used at the end of QOS, as it
was the end of the Vesper story and Bond was now fully formed
as 007.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I really hope that there is an obvious, justified reason for this meddling. It made sense for Casino Royale, felt like a stretch for Quantum of Solace, but this is supposed to be the Bond film for the 50th anniversary. And then they go and do this. As a kid, the gunbarrel was my favourite thing about the Bond films - as Thunderpussy says, it lets you know that you're in a for a hell of a ride. I'm really disappointed that they've felt the need to move it once again.
It's funny that someone can ridicule my opinion yet I'm the one branded an arrogant idiot. Guess you need over 1,000 posts to be above reproach eh?
It's not about the number of posts...it's about manners...and your opinion wasn't ridiculed...but I do wonder as to why you would think that...perhaps that often happens with you ? I suggest you either apologise and drop this silly nonsense or PM me from here on in.
The gunbarrel is looming large in the publicity poster, referencing its original design (and it's elsewhere, too; e.g. on Adele's website, for the title song). Before reading this thread I was taking this as a positive sign that the gunbarrel sequence would be back with a vengeance in the movie itself - in its rightful place at the beginning of the film. It would make sense for it to be there again now, as the 'adjustments' to the Bond mythos associated with the Craig reboot/Vesper saga were formally completed at the end of QoS and the equilibrium restored. Call me a traditionalist, but I'll be disappointed if in 'Skyfall' we don't get the gunbarrel sequence back where it properly belongs - at the start. Because if we don't, this time, when it makes thematic sense to do so (i.e. in recognition of a completed transitioning to a 'readjusted' anniversary Bond), there'll be no particular thematic pretext for ever putting it back there subsequently. If you see what I mean.
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
I think positioning the gunbarrel sequence at the end of the filmis open to reasoned criticism. There are good film making reasons why it is relatively ineffective.
The sequence is designed as an opener, not a closer. The dots and music establish an atmosphere of suspense and mystery, which in its climax shows the dangerous efficiency of Bond's character as he gets the assassin before the assassin can get him. All of this is designed to prepare the audience for a riveting tale of spy against spy - where danger lurks around every corner. All of the sequence's effectiveness is lost by putting it at the end of the film. Morever, the minor variation on the James Bond theme during the sequence helps establish each film's individual tone. All of this value is lost by putting it at the end of the film. It just becomes a relic, a tradition without a narrative or storytelling purpose.
Having the gunbarrel end the pre-title sequence in Casino Royale still serves these purposes. In fact, I would argue that the PTS is just an extended gunbarrel. It establishes the danger and brutality of Bond's profession and culminates in the suspenseful moment of him getting the other guy before he gets Bond.
To me, that is a more powerful argument for having the gunbarrel at the opening. Screw tradition for the sake of tradition - that is how we get movies like Die Another Day. Tradition is only so good as the purpose it serves remains. The gunbarrel became tradition because using it as the opening for Bond films was a very effective piece of film making - it was a way of setting a tone and mood for the rest of the film.
The gunbarrel became tradition because using it as the opening for Bond films was a very effective piece of film making - it was a way of setting a tone and mood for the rest of the film.
Agreed.
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
Though it doesn't bother me where the gunbarrel is I appreciate the argument that it is indeed most effective at the start. That said, there have been subtle tinkerings with it in the past. The producer presentation credit over the ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE dots & the DIE ANOTHER DAY bullet being most obvious. But there've also been musical mess-ups, Marvin Hamlisch's omission of the brass opening fanfare being the biggest crime. One that David Arnold insisted on repeating for TOMORROW NEVER DIES & THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. So it's not as if there isn't precedence for unecessary interference.
I noted in the trailer there's a shot of Bond in a darkened corrider, walking into a big close-up of his eyes. I wonder if this will effectively be the new dramatic opening shot for SKYFALL.
I think positioning the gunbarrel sequence at the end of the filmis open to reasoned criticism. There are good film making reasons why it is relatively ineffective.
The sequence is designed as an opener, not a closer. The dots and music establish an atmosphere of suspense and mystery, which in its climax shows the dangerous efficiency of Bond's character as he gets the assassin before the assassin can get him. All of this is designed to prepare the audience for a riveting tale of spy against spy - where danger lurks around every corner. All of the sequence's effectiveness is lost by putting it at the end of the film. Morever, the minor variation on the James Bond theme during the sequence helps establish each film's individual tone. All of this value is lost by putting it at the end of the film. It just becomes a relic, a tradition without a narrative or storytelling purpose.
Having the gunbarrel end the pre-title sequence in Casino Royale still serves these purposes. In fact, I would argue that the PTS is just an extended gunbarrel. It establishes the danger and brutality of Bond's profession and culminates in the suspenseful moment of him getting the other guy before he gets Bond.
To me, that is a more powerful argument for having the gunbarrel at the opening. Screw tradition for the sake of tradition - that is how we get movies like Die Another Day. Tradition is only so good as the purpose it serves remains. The gunbarrel became tradition because using it as the opening for Bond films was a very effective piece of film making - it was a way of setting a tone and mood for the rest of the film.
I appreciate your support of my opinion. However, if you are going to cut and paste someone's post from another forum, you really should put it quotes and give the author some credit for his or her ideas.
I think positioning the gunbarrel sequence at the end of the filmis open to reasoned criticism. There are good film making reasons why it is relatively ineffective.
The sequence is designed as an opener, not a closer. The dots and music establish an atmosphere of suspense and mystery, which in its climax shows the dangerous efficiency of Bond's character as he gets the assassin before the assassin can get him. All of this is designed to prepare the audience for a riveting tale of spy against spy - where danger lurks around every corner. All of the sequence's effectiveness is lost by putting it at the end of the film. Morever, the minor variation on the James Bond theme during the sequence helps establish each film's individual tone. All of this value is lost by putting it at the end of the film. It just becomes a relic, a tradition without a narrative or storytelling purpose.
Having the gunbarrel end the pre-title sequence in Casino Royale still serves these purposes. In fact, I would argue that the PTS is just an extended gunbarrel. It establishes the danger and brutality of Bond's profession and culminates in the suspenseful moment of him getting the other guy before he gets Bond.
To me, that is a more powerful argument for having the gunbarrel at the opening. Screw tradition for the sake of tradition - that is how we get movies like Die Another Day. Tradition is only so good as the purpose it serves remains. The gunbarrel became tradition because using it as the opening for Bond films was a very effective piece of film making - it was a way of setting a tone and mood for the rest of the film.
I appreciate your support of my opinion. However, if you are going to cut and paste someone's post from another forum, you really should put it quotes and give the author some credit for his or her ideas.
Sorry, I haven't quite got to grips with quoting from outwith this forum. My only intended input, which I think is clear, is 'this'... As for giving you credit, you only have a moniker.
One thing that has somewhat eased my pain over the Skyfall's gunbarrel is the FANTASTIC gunbarrel sequence at the start of the 'Everything Or Nothing' documentary which used all six actors. Did anybody else see it? If it ever gets a DVD release I'll buy it just for that!
One thing that has somewhat eased my pain over the Skyfall's gunbarrel is the FANTASTIC gunbarrel sequence at the start of the 'Everything Or Nothing' documentary which used all six actors. Did anybody else see it? If it ever gets a DVD release I'll buy it just for that!
According to this article Mendes has still been editing for the past fortnight, even after the press reviews, so maybe they will have seen the fan reactions and do the right thing...
According to this article Mendes has still been editing for the past fortnight, even after the press reviews, so maybe they will have seen the fan reactions and do the right thing...
Interesting article....however there is a pretty heavy spoiler so please give fair warning next time.
According to this article Mendes has still been editing for the past fortnight, even after the press reviews, so maybe they will have seen the fan reactions and do the right thing...
EDIT: Contains Spoilers! Sorry guys!
I really hope so... But someone has already said the prints will have been shipped already. I guess Friday will be the only time we know for sure.
Comments
Or maybe some dumass just thought it was a good idea....
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
It's all over the other fora that the gunbarrel sequence is at the end, a la QoS. Leaked from the press screening.
It's funny that someone can ridicule my opinion yet I'm the one branded an arrogant idiot. Guess you need over 1,000 posts to be above reproach eh?
Anyway, I was searching on twitter regarding the matter and came across some interesting results...
Alot of people are asking reviewers if the rumours are true, some of the replies stated that they were giving nothing away while other replies sounded more promising, one person stated that he was looking forward to the film but wanted to know if the gunbarrel opening was returning and he got a reply saying that it was and that he wouldn't be dissapointed. The more intriguing thing I found was one person asked a reviewer (from Total Film if memory serves) if the gunbarrel was at the start of the film and the reviewer replied, "It's even better that that." which I thought was an interesting reply to say the least!
So now I'm really confused, alot of people are stating/assuming its at the end but after reading those statements I dont know what to believe. Maybe the reviewers (at least some of them) are just stirring things a bit to tease fans, maybe they are telling the truth and it's at the end (but if that is the case then the people who are hyping the gunbarrel up obviously didnt notice it at the end of Quantum) or maybe its somewhere else judging by the comment about it being better than at the start? Maybe, just maybe its at the end of the title sequence to signify Bond coming back to life??
Im sorry that I cant post direct quotes from twitter as I searched on my mobile phone and really cant be bothered trailing through all the replies again on my laptop ha.
I personally hope it is at the beginning though and that the reviews are spinning us porkies as i dont feel the gunbarrel has any significance or impact anywhere else, I understood the change in CR but it is silly to play with it, It sounds silly but it really does affect my enjoyment of the film over all without a gunbarrel OPENING, as that is what it is, an OPENING. IT has no impact or significance anywhere else IMO.
Agree with you 100%
It makes me so irate to see the cast, director and producers within all of the behind-the-scenes vlogs and videos that I've seen for skyfall to talk about how big the anniversary is and how much it all means to them to make something special for the fans of the franchise. It especially gets to me how Sam Mendes, Babs and Mikey G on the M.I.C. talk about how much Bond means to them and that they want to bring together all the classic elements of the films yet they reject the one thing that has always been there and that means so much to alot of people!
I understand some fans do not let this hinder their enjoyment of the films but I am not one of them, I don't even feel like I'm watching Bond if it isnt there to introduce the film and I'm sure this causes a similar reaction to other fans aswell.
EDIT: If I see Skyfall and see that the whole gunbarrel thing was just a ruse and it is in fact at the beginning I will retract my comments and make a public apology.
I wouldn't mind this. I think it would be cool actually. I could also see it being halfway through the film. After Bond returns from "death", he needs to retrain his muscle memory for shooting. Once he completes his training the film makers work the gun barrel into the final training shot Bond makes.
We have no idea how the film begins. Maybe we catch up to Bond in the middle or end of another mission. We get the title sequence, Bond enjoying "death" then back to MI6. Bond retrains then we get the gun barrel at the completio n of his training and the start of the mission the get Silva. Just my thoughts.
It might not be the "be all and end all of film making", but when it comes to Bond films in particular, it definitely is.
I'm with the majority of fans here, that not having a gunbarrel sequence at the start is absolutely needless meddling on the part of the producers. There are no good reasons (in my mind, no reason whatsoever) not to have the gunbarrel sequence at the start. It takes all of 30 seconds - if that, yet it has been and still is the iconic sequence with which Bond films begin.
And yes, if Skyfall doesn't have a gunbarrel sequence at the start, it's going to go down in the ratings for me, no matter how good the film itself turns out to be.
I agree with that entirely.
But we had all this with CR and QoS. Time to stop the messing about and get back to basics. I mean, how often does Bond have to reinvent/find himself etc, etc?
Bond is back, it's his 50th anniversary on screen, so start the thing in bloody style with a good ol' classic gunbarrel. It's what most fans want and it mystifies me how EON can't see this.
The idea of the gunbarrel is to raise the hair on the back of your
neck to let you know for the next two hours or so. You are in for
one hell of a ride. ( something I don't hear too often
So having it after all the excitement, Doesn't make sence.
I can understand why it was used at the end of QOS, as it
was the end of the Vesper story and Bond was now fully formed
as 007.
It's not about the number of posts...it's about manners...and your opinion wasn't ridiculed...but I do wonder as to why you would think that...perhaps that often happens with you ? I suggest you either apologise and drop this silly nonsense or PM me from here on in.
Back to topic...
I think positioning the gunbarrel sequence at the end of the filmis open to reasoned criticism. There are good film making reasons why it is relatively ineffective.
The sequence is designed as an opener, not a closer. The dots and music establish an atmosphere of suspense and mystery, which in its climax shows the dangerous efficiency of Bond's character as he gets the assassin before the assassin can get him. All of this is designed to prepare the audience for a riveting tale of spy against spy - where danger lurks around every corner. All of the sequence's effectiveness is lost by putting it at the end of the film. Morever, the minor variation on the James Bond theme during the sequence helps establish each film's individual tone. All of this value is lost by putting it at the end of the film. It just becomes a relic, a tradition without a narrative or storytelling purpose.
Having the gunbarrel end the pre-title sequence in Casino Royale still serves these purposes. In fact, I would argue that the PTS is just an extended gunbarrel. It establishes the danger and brutality of Bond's profession and culminates in the suspenseful moment of him getting the other guy before he gets Bond.
To me, that is a more powerful argument for having the gunbarrel at the opening. Screw tradition for the sake of tradition - that is how we get movies like Die Another Day. Tradition is only so good as the purpose it serves remains. The gunbarrel became tradition because using it as the opening for Bond films was a very effective piece of film making - it was a way of setting a tone and mood for the rest of the film.
Agreed.
I noted in the trailer there's a shot of Bond in a darkened corrider, walking into a big close-up of his eyes. I wonder if this will effectively be the new dramatic opening shot for SKYFALL.
I appreciate your support of my opinion. However, if you are going to cut and paste someone's post from another forum, you really should put it quotes and give the author some credit for his or her ideas.
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/164562#Comment_164562
Sorry, I haven't quite got to grips with quoting from outwith this forum. My only intended input, which I think is clear, is 'this'... As for giving you credit, you only have a moniker.
This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSzVXmUoDaw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
According to this article Mendes has still been editing for the past fortnight, even after the press reviews, so maybe they will have seen the fan reactions and do the right thing...
EDIT: Contains Spoilers! Sorry guys!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Interesting article....however there is a pretty heavy spoiler so please give fair warning next time.
I really hope so... But someone has already said the prints will have been shipped already. I guess Friday will be the only time we know for sure.
If Sam Mendes has been editing for the past fortnight, as the Guardian says, then how can the prints and DCPs have been shipped?