The Gunbarrel Sequence...

davidelliott101

I'm a long time Bond fan... I have enjoyed the Craig films, but wondering about the logic behind sticking the ganbarrel sequence before the closing credits?

I could see the reasoning in CR and QoS, but in Skyfall, why is it again tacked onto the end of the film? Have the producers addressed this?

I'm sure it's not a big deal in the long run, but without it at the beginning, Skyfall didn't seem (to me) quite like a Bond film. All through the movie, things didn't feel right. Loved the movie, but it just didn't seem right without the traditional opening.

Will it be restored with the next film?

ZorinIndustries

This is the million dollar question, my friend. This has been my number one pet peeve of the Craig era thus far, and I'm sure I speak for others.

For Bond 24 on the other hand, it seems that there is no reason to put the gunbarrel at the end. Every Bond aspect is finally in place, but maybe this is a new trend they're starting? Who knows... Sorry I don't have the answers

ZorinIndustries

And welcome to the site, David :007)

Mr Beech

The consensus here seems to be that Bond wasn't Bond at the start of Casino Royale, so they did the very cool and clever alternative gun barrel.

For Quantum of Solace, supposedly it was the continuation of Casino Royale and Bond was not Bond as we always knew him before Craig, because he needed to get over his emotional issues and attachment to Vesper before he could really be Bond. So, at the end of Quantum of Solace, once he had closure and was now the cold, calculating agent we were waiting for, the gun barrel introduces him.

For SkyFall, cast changeovers were due to set up the MI6 cast and to make SkyFall a more classically inspired Bond film for itself and those after to follow. Because of this, the film payed tribute to the gun barrel sequence using clever light and the hallway at the opening of SkyFall, but they didn't feel until the end of the film with the whole new team set up that they had the absolute, classic Bond to introduce for the Craig era.

So, while SkyFall was in itself guided by the classic standalone Bond films, it isn't until the end that it feels it has led you to a new Bond order with an MI6 they want you to remember, a closing introduction again, if you will.

davidelliott101

ZorinIndustries wrote:

And welcome to the site, David :007)

Thanks for the welcome!

I could understand Casino Royale... it's a reboot and relaunch and there was a sloppy gunbarrel AT THE BEGINNING!

I can understand QoS... it was a continuation and I figured the gunbarrel at the end would pave the way for Skyfall featuring it at the beginning.

With Skyfall's finale giving the films a '60's feel of sets and atmosphere, along with other classic elements, I don't see any reason to shove the gunbarrel at the end again. I just got done watching a piece about Maurice Binder on one of the 007 Blu Rays I just got, and oh everyone was raving how the gunbarrel is such an iconic way to OPEN each Bond film, that it is ironic they shove it at the end.

Oh well, just was wondering if there was a reason from TPTB...

davidelliott101

Mr Beech wrote:

The consensus here seems to be that Bond wasn't Bond at the start of Casino Royale, so they did the very cool and clever alternative gun barrel.

For Quantum of Solace, supposedly it was the continuation of Casino Royale and Bond was not Bond as we always knew him before Craig, because he needed to get over his emotional issues and attachement to Vesper before he could really be Bond. So, at the end of Quantum of Solace, once he had closure and was now the cold, calculating agent we were waiting for, the gun barrel introduces him.

For SkyFall, cast changeovers were due to set up the MI6 cast and to make SkyFall a more classically inspired Bond film for itself and those after to follow. Because of this, the film payed tribute to the gun barrel sequence using clever light and the hallway at the opening of SkyFall, but they didn't feel until the end of the film with the whole new team set up that they had the absolute, classic Bond to introduce for the Craig era.

So, while SkyFall was in itself guided by the classic standalone Bond films, it isn't until the end that it feels it has led you to a new Bond order with an MI6 they want you to remember.

Logical...

Sir Miles

davidelliott101 wrote:

I'm a long time Bond fan... I have enjoyed the Craig films, but wondering about the logic behind sticking the ganbarrel sequence before the closing credits?

I could see the reasoning in CR and QoS, but in Skyfall, why is it again tacked onto the end of the film? Have the producers addressed this?

Are you sure you have seen the film ?:)

If you have...then its obvious why its at the end... 8-)

ChromeJob

I think these three DC films are all a reboot trilogy. Interesting idea ... and definitely keeping me intrigued. Now I'm nervous about the next one.... I agree, when SF opened in the theater when I saw it 2 weeks ago, I gasped and thought, "Ooh, nice touch sort of reinventing the PTS trademark, and also a nice intro a la the GE teaser trailer" ("You were expecting someone else?"). I thought putting it at the end was a little obvious, like putting Grand Moff Tarkin and the original Death Star taking shape at the end of Star Wars Epiflop III. But it seemed like the ba-dum-bump crescendo to the whole journey.

It's a little too pat for me, actually, but I've only seen it once. I like how SF is off-kilter, a little gloomy and sad, a bit like Bond might've felt after the main credits. But hey ... I have to credit Mendes and Broccoli and Wilson for taking chances and forging ahead in a new vein. If the next film is formulaic and unoriginal, I'll be happy to have had a couple of good flicks out of the DC era (CR and SF).

DEFIANT 74205

Sir Miles wrote:

If you have...then its obvious why its at the end... 8-)

It may obvious why it's at the end, but that doesn't mean it should be there.

Sir Miles

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

Sir Miles wrote:

If you have...then its obvious why its at the end... 8-)

It may obvious why it's at the end, but that doesn't mean it should be there.

Not this old chestnut again of one or two people not understanding why the gunbarrel is at the end... 8-)

It IS obvious why its at the end...and it SHOULD be there in this instance...its to do with 'story-telling'....I'm sorry you can't understand this.

As there is already a thread going that discusses this...

Topic Closed.