Gunbarrel Opening Sequences

I DO SO HOPE BOND 24 IS AS GREAT AS "SKYFALL" WAS BUT I ALSO DO HOPE IT'S A GREAT TITLE SONG TO MATCH HOPEFULLY THE NEW GREAT TITLE, HOWEVER THOUGH WHAT WOULD REALLY REALLY REALLY MAKE IT GREAT AGAIN IS, IS IF THEY WOULD KINDLY BRING BACK THE GUNBARREL OPENING SEQUENCE AGAIN LIKE ALL THE OTHER 20 BOND FILMS BEFORE THESE "CRAIG" BOND FILMS, WELL THE BEFORE GUNBARREL OPENING SEQUENCES FROM "THUNDERBALL 1965-THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH 1999",..... NOW THAT ALL 3 ARE BACK, A "MALE "M" AGAIN", "Q" BRANCH QUARTERMASTER & THE NEW "EVE MONEYPENNY", & THE TITLE SONGS AGAIN TO MATCH THE MOVIE TITLE, LIKE SKYFALL ALL ARE BACK, SO I THINK THE VERY BEGINNING GUNBARREL OPENING SEQUENCE WOULD BE THE BEST, THE VERY BEST,..... :D :D :D :D

I agree, but chillax with the all-caps.

I'm going to offer up an opposing opinion here: I think the gunbarrel should stay at the end of the film.

The reason for this is because I think putting it at the start robs the opening of the film of any chance to build up a bit of tension or momentum. If you put the gunbarrel at the start of CASINO ROYALE, QUANTUM OF SOLACE or SKYFALL, it would really hurt the first few moments:

- In CASINO ROAYLE, we see the car pull up in Prague. Dryden gets out, and we spend several moments following him through the MI6 building. He opens the door to his office and we get our first reveal of the new Bond.
- In QUANTUM OF SOLACE, we get these wide, sweeping shots of the lakeside, intercut with artistic close-ups of Bond, the Aston and pursuing Alfas, a gun being prepared, and then the music cuts out for a moment as an engine note rips through the silence and the chanse begins.
- In SKYFALL, we start with blaring note that punctuates an almost alien figure stepping out into a corridor, and approaching the camera before finally coming into focus to reveal that it is Bond.

All three films - even QOS - have a strong opening in the first few moments, one that wouldn't be possible with the gunbarrel at the start as it would interrupt the tension that they build.

But by putting the gunbarrel at the end of the film, not only do you allow it to build its own momentum to start with, but you also punctuate the film quite well.

You could easily make the case that stopping the story for five minutes to have a song and some naked broads is jarring. So maybe we ought to ditch the titles sequences too.

Or we could just leave Bond's unique touches as they were. If it's a choice between the established, iconic gunbarrel opening and the sort of shyte that opened QOS - i.e. modern cinema's need to cater to Ritalin-munching kids who need to be hurled straight into the middle of an action sequence as soon as their behemothic arses hit the seats - I'll choose the gunbarrel.

Mendes apparently gave where to put the gunbarrel a fair bit of consideration before deciding on the end, because ultimately he felt it and Skyfall's opening shot of Bond in the corridor were 'too alike' to happen one after the other. Or so I read, anyway.

Mendes is an idiot!

The gun barrel sequence should had been at the beginning of the movie with the white dot fading into the shot of Bond silhouette standing at the end of the hallway.

How many times have we seen the gun barrel sequence fade into the first frame of the movie's pre-title sequence?

17 times!

It worked before so why shouldn't it work now?

Did Mendes not watch any of the previous pre-Craig Bond films?

Furthermore, Bond didn't have his gun drawn so Mendes' argument doesn't hold water.

I can understand if Bond was standing at the end of the hallway with his gun drawn and he was in a shooting stance;

then Mendes can say that's too similar to the gun barrel sequence.

Moron!

I hope they will never hire him to direct another Bond film ever again.

Instead of making a Bond masterpiece, Mendes made a blasphemous sacrilegious turd which even makes Quantum of Solace looks good.

Largo's Shark wrote:

j7wild wrote:

Furthermore, Bond didn't have his gun drawn so Mendes' argument doesn't hold water.

That is not the first frame.

This is the first frame.



The gun barrel sequence with the white dot fading and segueing into that first frame would still had worked.

Now if it segued directly into the image you posted, then that's a different story.

j7wild wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

j7wild wrote:

Furthermore, Bond didn't have his gun drawn so Mendes' argument doesn't hold water.

That is not the first frame.

This is the first frame.



The gun barrel sequence with the white dot fading and segueing into that first frame would still had worked.

Now if it segued directly into the image you posted, then that's a different story.

The gunbarrel walk and shot and Bond walking down that corridor in shallow depth of field, then raising his gun, are too similar. It would be iconography overkill.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I'm going to offer up an opposing opinion here: I think the gunbarrel should stay at the end of the film.

The reason for this is because I think putting it at the start robs the opening of the film of any chance to build up a bit of tension or momentum. If you put the gunbarrel at the start of CASINO ROYALE, QUANTUM OF SOLACE or SKYFALL, it would really hurt the first few moments:

I'd agree with that. While I wasn't entirely keen on the idea, I have to say I think it works in terms of keeping the suspense and tension.

What I do wish they'd bring back is the "James Bond will return in ...." and name the next film.

How can a gunbarrel sequence interrupt something that has yet to begin? People are overanalyzing this. Putting the gunbarrel in its usual place has virtually no effect on what follows. And for that reason, there has never been a strong argument to move it. This was all done to give the appearance of shaking things up, being innovative and "edgy." In reality, it was being silly.

Thank you Khan!

I don't mind the gunbarrel shuffling during Craig's "Origins" trilogy, however it should stay in those three films instead of becoming a new tradition. The ending of SKYFALL implied that the series was done experimenting and placing the gunbarrel in it's proper opening is a part of that.

That being said, I liked the gunbarrel before the title sequence setup that CR had. I would have preferred that being used instead of tacking it on before the end credits for QOS and SKYFALL.

Haven't you joined my couse? https://www.facebook.com/pages/Say-NEVER-AGAIN-to-the-GUNBARREL-at-the-END/556725624353960?ref=ts&fref=ts

;) ;) ;)

Perilagu Khan wrote:

How can a gunbarrel sequence interrupt something that has yet to begin? People are overanalyzing this. Putting the gunbarrel in its usual place has virtually no effect on what follows. And for that reason, there has never been a strong argument to move it. This was all done to give the appearance of shaking things up, being innovative and "edgy." In reality, it was being silly.

WHAT HE SAYS! People who followed Bond for 50 years(and even people who know something of Bond) know the barrel has NO relation with the actual film, so (exept in CR), the film can start anywhere yet have the gunbarrel at the beginning.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

How can a gunbarrel sequence interrupt something that has yet to begin?

Because it spoils any chance to build tension.

At the risk of sounding crude, it's basically premature ejaculation.

That's rubbish. It has no more effect on tension build-up than the MGM lion.

I agree, CJB. Tension can always be built following a gunshot. From Russia With Love proved this.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

How can a gunbarrel sequence interrupt something that has yet to begin? People are overanalyzing this. Putting the gunbarrel in its usual place has virtually no effect on what follows. And for that reason, there has never been a strong argument to move it. This was all done to give the appearance of shaking things up, being innovative and "edgy." In reality, it was being silly.

I agree. Even Casino Royale should have had the gunbarrel at the start in my opinion. I agree with Laz and others that the reboot elements were not only too insubstantial to justify, but also completely unecessary. Craig's Bond introduction would have worked just as well without any references to promotion, and instead simply serve the purpose of introducing a harder-edged Bond in the same way Dalton was introduced after Moore. It's not the "new 00" elements which make the PTS work, it's the harder-edged cutting and brutality. Those elements were enough. I don't think the gunbarrel should ever be moved from the start of a Bond film, it's a legendary signature moment which works potently in every single film as a striking and dynamic introduction. As Khan said, the removal of the gunbarrel comes across as mostly just another "look, we're moving out of the past, the gunbarrel is so 60s, aren't we all down with the kids now and more like Bourne?" moment.

And, in light of Dench's fate in Skyfall and the re-introduction of the DB5, the reboot seems even more pointless, as these moments would be even stronger if given coherent links to the distant past of the franchise, as Bond would be losing his boss of 18 years and be re-acquainted with a car he last used a very long time ago.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

How can a gunbarrel sequence interrupt something that has yet to begin?

Because it spoils any chance to build tension.

At the risk of sounding crude, it's basically premature ejaculation.

If the ruddy gunbarrel is your idea of a Bondgasm...

After Skyfall i don't know it any more. Only thing is that if it stay at the end i like so some simalar as with QOS with title.

The biggest reasen why i like to see it back at the beginning: TV, The gunbarrel and MGM and Sony logo are not showed any more because the Gunbarrel is now part of the end credits. Also i whant feel how it feel to watch a DC Bond movie with the studio logo's and gunbarrel at the beginning and mabey have some hope to get some feel back i watching a Bond movie. Also with Skyfall you are so bissy with giving the end a place that more then when it be in the beginng it is over before you notice it. My bad experience with CR i also blame because of missing Gunbarrel.

If at the end again, MGM/Sony/Fox should warning them there only can buy the movie for the tv channel if there showing it with the gunbarrel.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

The reason for this is because I think putting it at the start robs the opening of the film of any chance to build up a bit of tension or momentum.

Was there any loss of tension in the openings of FRWL, TND, GE, OP, TLD, TWINE, GF, [enter any other Bond film that has had the gun barrel sequence]?

Personally, I'd like to see the gunbarrel at the start again...

...and a smashing good action-packed finale. Haven't really enjoyed once since LTK.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

...and a smashing good action-packed finale. Haven't really enjoyed once since LTK.

Interesting you mention LTK. Every Bond finale since has been either close quarters combat or Bond running around with a machine gun. It'd be good to see Craig's Bond pilot something big, and do serious damage to the villains with it. The Fiat bulldozer in CR, DC3 in QOS and CAT excavator in SF were steps in the right direction, but they were too harmless and susceptible to gunfire.

Something like an amphibious craft, Boeing Chinook, ground effect vehicle, Airbus A400M Atlas, Boeing C-17 Globemaster III or Raytheon Sentinel could work..

When I saw the helicopter in the Skyfall trailer, I was kinda hoping to see Bond piloting one in a chopper v chopper finale. Wonder if you can do something like that these days without copious amounts of CGI.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN!!!!, TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO WANT THE GUNBARREL OPENING SEQUENCE BACK LIKE ME, LIKE I DO, & TO THE OTHERS WHO WANT IT BACK AT THE VERY VERY END!!!, WELL I GOT NEWS FOR YOU ALL, & THIS IS A GREAT FANTASTIC IDEA, WHY NOT BOTH!!!, THE GUNBARREL SEQUENCE AT THE VERY VERY BEGINNING TO OPEN THE FILM, & THE GUNBARREL SEQUENCE TO CLOSE THE FILM, LIKE ALL or MOSTLY ALL MOVIES HAVE OPENING & CLOSING CREDITS, WELL WHY NOT 2 GUNBARRELS SEQUENCES IN THE "NEXT" & "NEW" JAMES BOND MOVIE BOND 24, SEE HOW THAT SOUNDS, WHO EVER SAYS "JAMES BOND" HIMSELF CAN'T SHOOT "TWICE",..... LET'S SEE HOW THAT WOULD WORK OUT/, BECAUSE NOW YOU GOTTA WAIT ALL THE WAY UNTIL THE END OF THE MOVIE TO SEE IT HAPPEN AGAIN, AT LEAST BOTH TIMES, IT CAN OPEN THE MOVIE & IT CAN ALSO CLOSE THE MOVIE AS WELL, I HOPE YOU ALL LIKE THAT IDEA, SINCERELY STEVE,.....