No Gunbarrel Walk? Shocking!
bigzilcho
Toronto, ONPosts: 245MI6 Agent
As much as I enjoyed CR and thought Craig was terrific I have to tell you I was disappointed at the lack of white dots and gunbarrel stroll.
Oh sure, one can argue that the end of the PTS is now the official "first" gunbarrel but that is just a gimmick. (The PTS is sensational, by the way, and the image of Bond turning and firing into the gunbarrel as the blood drips is beautifully done). But.....
What I am talking about is tradition. Let me tell you, the absolute first pleasure when a new Bond film comes out is sitting back and seeing Maurice Binder's iconic gunbarrel as the Bond theme blasts away. That, fellow Bondians, is a sublime moment of joy for any Bond fan. (anyone who disagrees on this is really an undercover SPECTRE agent).
You know the code, you know what it means and the excitement it promises. For 20 films THAT is the true Bond signature. Bond MUST open like this...everytime...and without question or deliberation! Let it be written...let it be done.
I can understand the filmmakers fiddling with the formula and all power to them, but , as a life-long Bond fan, I expect a couple of things...not much. One is the white dot opening....it is absolutely verboten to mess around with this...VERBOTEN!
To wait four years for a new Bond to make a appearence in the gunbarrel, only to see a shot of Prague, is ,to say the least...disappointing. Lets hope we are back to basics for the next one.
"World domination. Same old dream."
Oh sure, one can argue that the end of the PTS is now the official "first" gunbarrel but that is just a gimmick. (The PTS is sensational, by the way, and the image of Bond turning and firing into the gunbarrel as the blood drips is beautifully done). But.....
What I am talking about is tradition. Let me tell you, the absolute first pleasure when a new Bond film comes out is sitting back and seeing Maurice Binder's iconic gunbarrel as the Bond theme blasts away. That, fellow Bondians, is a sublime moment of joy for any Bond fan. (anyone who disagrees on this is really an undercover SPECTRE agent).
You know the code, you know what it means and the excitement it promises. For 20 films THAT is the true Bond signature. Bond MUST open like this...everytime...and without question or deliberation! Let it be written...let it be done.
I can understand the filmmakers fiddling with the formula and all power to them, but , as a life-long Bond fan, I expect a couple of things...not much. One is the white dot opening....it is absolutely verboten to mess around with this...VERBOTEN!
To wait four years for a new Bond to make a appearence in the gunbarrel, only to see a shot of Prague, is ,to say the least...disappointing. Lets hope we are back to basics for the next one.
"World domination. Same old dream."
Comments
I think you can absolutely count on it...plus Q, Moneypenny, etc...though hopefully they'll retain the overall 'tone' of CR, and complete a story arc with Craig's Bond...this way, they can carry some of the 'newness' over into the next film B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
~Pen -{
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
About the design, if it still looks like a gun cannon, it makes its effect, but yeah, sure, hope than they get the previous one.
But please, don't put again the bullet of DAD... I knew that CGI will ruin the movie since that point-
Count on it? -- God I hope not.
OK -- I'm hip to the gun barrel. But is there really a need for Q unless we're going back to the silly a-gadget-for-every-situation movie? Or Moneypenney? More forced double-entendres. It's that kind of talk that scares the hell out of me. It's backsliding into the formula. We'll have to waste precious movie time on the same two obligatory scenes: the Q-can't-stand-007 scene, and the Moneypenney-loves-him scenes. You'll be able to set your watch by them.
Why not some new characters? How about May, Bond's housekeeper, as we've talked about on another thread. Or at least a change in the dynamic between the characters? If we liked CR, and I believe we did, why not trust the filmmakers to come up with something new? Are we so devoid of imagination? Are we merely tolerating CR because we're confident that now that Eon has had a chance to get kinky we can all go back to the missionary position for every film?
Just asking
I think they're going to bring it all back---right or wrong---but I expect it to be very gradual...and the dynamics of the character relationships should definitely be tweaked. I think Bond and Moneypenny can have a casual (if quietly smouldering) flirtation without the awful double-entendres...
But I wouldn't mind a Loelia Posonby as a substitute... B-) and I definitely want May, and a bit of Bond at home.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
One thing I noticed in CR and wondering what you all think about it: Notice the young guy who was with M most of the time (at the office, coming out of the committee room)? Could he be the Chief of Staff who is Bond's best friend in the service in the books? That might be a character to bring in, somehow. I guess my feeling is that with Bond finally freed from the shackles of the formula, I'd really hesitate to bring back the historical stock characters. Sure, you could have Q in one movie -- if the story required it (and I can see a situation where it would). Same thing with Moneypenney. If another character is needed, then use them. I'm just concerned about the PTS-Credits-M's office-Moneypenney flirtation-Q's lab-Bond flies to this or that place - by the numbers scriptwriting. It's the tail wagging the dog.
The reason there wasn't a Moneypenny in CR - from my point of view- is because it is risky to bring a new Moneypenny when Bond hasn't been established (a la Dalton - Bliss) in the book she appear and even had maybe one line. But not precisely the flirting stuff, something more professional (with the young fellow you call Tanner)
Q could give him his weapon... but perhaps you're right, it will became the same stuff (it isn't that wrong, just predictable)
But i sustain my point in the gunbarrel, i like more the one before (with the walk)
OK -- I'm hip to the gun barrel. But is there really a need for Q unless we're going back to the silly a-gadget-for-every-situation movie? Or Moneypenney? More forced double-entendres. It's that kind of talk that scares the hell out of me. It's backsliding into the formula. We'll have to waste precious movie time on the same two obligatory scenes: the Q-can't-stand-007 scene, and the Moneypenney-loves-him scenes. You'll be able to set your watch by them.
Why not some new characters? How about May, Bond's housekeeper, as we've talked about on another thread. Or at least a change in the dynamic between the characters? If we liked CR, and I believe we did, why not trust the filmmakers to come up with something new? Are we so devoid of imagination? Are we merely tolerating CR because we're confident that now that Eon has had a chance to get kinky we can all go back to the missionary position for every film?
Just asking
Well put! I am completely in agreement with you. CR really reminded me that the template for the James Bond character and supporting characters is NOT the cinematic Bond. The template is the Bond of the books. I don't find CR offensive for its new gunbarrell. The gunbarrel was really very ingenious, if you ask me. To omit the gunbarrel would have been bordering on blasphemous, but to change the format of the opening gunbarrel a la CR was refreshing and cleverly done. It is indicative of the kinds of "changes" one hopes the EON production team will be brave enough to employ on Bonds 22, 23 and beyond.
The supporting characters in the Bond books are really worthy of some screen time as well, if you ask me. I might be mistaken, but I think that young fellow with M was "Villiers." I didn't think that this guy was Tanner, Chief of Staff, but I could be wrong there. Anyway, regardless of that, the introduction of other characters from the Fleming universe would be most welcome.
CR has convinced me that a Bond film--a good one--need not necessarily have Q, Moneypenny, gadgets, an overthetop villain, etc. What a good film needs is a great story with character development. With some exceptions, you can generally rely on Fleming to give you great story with character development. Let's hope the big brass at EON is brave enough to carry the series forward in this manner.
I am glad that I have the old films on disc. So that if I ever feel the need to watch a MOORE film or a traditional gun barrel done well, I can always do so. However, I also feel like what's been done has been done, so it's time to move on and put Fleming's stories and Daniel Craig's Bond together on screen--absolutely volatile!!!
I like that the gun barrel represents his first kill ever. The titles (and song) are also especially powerful. Making a prequel-type #1, after 20 movies makes it more moving because there's so much history at stake.
BUT a Bond film without the traditional gunbarrel doesn't feel like a Bond film. I hope it's restored next time!
I missed having the opening gun barrel too. It's one tradition that I enjoyed in every Bond movie (except DAD with the completely unnecessary CGI bullet... ugh). However, I agree that if you do all the traditional things (Q's lab, M's office, Moneypenny) in every movie, it's a slippery slope to the poor storylines of films past.
I hope that they bring the opening gun barrel back in Bond 22 as Daniel Craig has firmly established himself in the role (and his Bond has establshed his confidence in completing the mission).
I would love to hear the traditional John Barry arrangement too.. not the Arnold style from TND and TWINE.... AND WITH A GUITAR!!!
In a way, though, the PTS really serves to bookend the film very well...the movie starts in the toilet and ends in the toilet. {:)
As far as tradition goes...I'll let them slide once. There was a bun barrel sequence, just a little different, is all. That's acceptable to me. There's no reason though you can't include scenes with Q or Moneypenny. They can be tweaked a bit so they're not so much the caricatures they have been.
Agreed that May would be a nice thing to see, but only once. The last thing I would want to see is twenty years from now her character being stuffed into movies because people are demanding the obligatory "Bond/May" scene in 007's flat. 8-)
Ha cha cha, someone else didn't like the movie!
And yeah, May would be a nice addition to the movie, but yeah, she should only be in there a few times so it won't become cliched and a war won't be started over a "No May" scene. Same how LALD only showed Bond's house once and we never saw hide nor hair again of it.
Maybe I need to watch it again, but I thought that she got into his hotel, not his home.?:)
As for the gunbarrel, I hope they got back to the original, before DAD. And for Moneypenny and Q...Moneypenny I would not miss so much, but Q is part of the 007 way of life IMO.
I for one, love change. I was thrilled with the fact that traditions had been broken in this movie. Traditions lend themselves to predictability. If Craig tried to play his Bond to the "cookie cutter formula" of the previous movies I dont think he would have experienced the success has already has.
Craig made Bond his own. A new style (original style actually) Bond needs a new style movie.