Spectre Gunbarrel ***Spoilers***

1454648505153

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,655
    vasilismf wrote: »
    vasilismf wrote: »
    none of you mentioned the thing that the gun barrel just fades out after the blood runs down, and it does not open for the pts! This happend for the first time!

    Actually, the last time this happened was in FRWL. The dots get smaller and it cuts to black before fading into the training exercise.

    the last time was in GF not in FRWL
    Actually GF cuts straight to the facility, not to black.
  • Posts: 7,023
    I am one of those Bond fans who never was that fascinated with the gun barrel, and who didn't mind it being absent from the opening of QS and SF. Still... when it popped up on the cinema screen last saturday... I almost wet my pants with joy and excitement! :D It is such a warm welcome after waiting three years for the film.
  • JohnHammond73JohnHammond73 Lancashire, UK
    Posts: 4,151
    I was very chuffed to see it back at the start of the movie. Kind of signified that, here you go, here's a classic Bond movie for you to enjoy.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Kingdumb of Norway
    Posts: 41,526
    The gunbarrel was fine. Best since the 80s.(Not counting CR here, which was inspired.)

    It bumped my goose.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Bond wrote: »
    Nice to see it back where it belongs, but you can tell it almost pained them to do it. Almost like they just knew they HAD to do it or fans would freak out. You can tell by the way they don't even follow through with the part where it "dances around" and then shows the pre-titles sequence and opens up... it just fades to black. And the music is so damn generic and bland. Oh well, baby steps. Definitely Craig's best GB (other than Casino Royale, which I thought was a nice unique departure from formula), but not any better than any of the pre-2006 gunbarrels.

    Agree with you entirely. The GB used to be part of the film as it opened up on some exotic location and you were into a new Bond film.

    Here it feels as if Mendes has said I'm starting the film with 'the dead are alive' caption and its non negotiable like his 'I couldnt use the GB because it wouldve messed up my opening shot' bullshit from SF. But at least this time Babs and MGW have had the bottle to say 'no its going at the front'. But as you say baby steps. Maybe in another 10 films they will finally get it bang on.

    Poor old Dan could well go down as the best Bond of all time but will he ever have an absolute classic GB? (although CR is fantastic its not actually 'classic' in the true sense)
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    Bond wrote: »
    Nice to see it back where it belongs, but you can tell it almost pained them to do it. Almost like they just knew they HAD to do it or fans would freak out. You can tell by the way they don't even follow through with the part where it "dances around" and then shows the pre-titles sequence and opens up... it just fades to black. And the music is so damn generic and bland. Oh well, baby steps. Definitely Craig's best GB (other than Casino Royale, which I thought was a nice unique departure from formula), but not any better than any of the pre-2006 gunbarrels.

    Agree with you entirely. The GB used to be part of the film as it opened up on some exotic location and you were into a new Bond film.

    Here it feels as if Mendes has said I'm starting the film with 'the dead are alive' caption and its non negotiable like his 'I couldnt use the GB because it wouldve messed up my opening shot' bullshit from SF. But at least this time Babs and MGW have had the bottle to say 'no its going at the front'. But as you say baby steps. Maybe in another 10 films they will finally get it bang on.

    Poor old Dan could well go down as the best Bond of all time but will he ever have an absolute classic GB? (although CR is fantastic its not actually 'classic' in the true sense)

    It's a creative decision from the director that you either love or hate. For me personally, I heard similar complaints when the gunbarrel wasn't at the start of "Casino Royale" and "Quantum Of Solace". And those movies were directed by Marc Forster and Martin Campbell.

    I think Sam Mendes wanted to bring in some continuity when compared to "Skyfall". Those gunbarrel 'exits' from "QOS" and "CR" never 'zoomed out normally'. So you can say that also with "SP" Mendes wanted to introduce the viewers more fiercefully to a few credits. With "Skyfall" those credits were "50 years of James Bond". With "SPECTRE" those credits were "The dead are alive". And in both films those credits refer to the plot/story.

    So I like it.

    By the way, if you want it or not, it's Sam Mendes that gave us with "SPECTRE" the best gunbarrel sequence in the entire Craig-era.

    Also, need I remind you that with "Doctor No" the gunbarrel didn't zoom out either? It was entirely part of the main title sequence. And there are so many other 'small' exceptions/differences. For instance including the producer credits in the gunbarrels from "DN" and "OHMSS". Or what about the "LTK" gunbarrel sequence, that didn't even move to the right-bottom corner, before it 'zoomed out'. Then there's a CGI-bullet in the "DAD"-gunbarrel. Shiny light flickering in the "DAF" and "OHMSS" gunbarrel sequence.

    So here you go...so many 'small' differences. Fact is, I am entirely glad that Daniel Kleinman basically opted for the old Binder-design. Thus for me the "SPECTRE"-gunbarrel sequence is the best gunbarrel sequence since "The Living Daylights".

    I also prefer this "SPECTRE"-gunbarrel, because I really like Daniel Craig's pose in this one. He doesn't stand up so straight/stiff as compared to the Brosnan poses and his own pose in "QOS". Craig's pose to me looks like the perfect mix of Connery's pose and Dalton's pose. Especially how he swings his left arm to the back. Lovely. Elegant. Suave.

    PZOWV73.jpg
  • Also its the FYEO gunbarel that does not zoom, but it goes from white to full picture!
  • Definitely the best gunbarrel since the Binder era.
  • I have to agree that this is the best gunbarrel since pre- brosnan
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    vasilismf wrote: »
    vasilismf wrote: »
    none of you mentioned the thing that the gun barrel just fades out after the blood runs down, and it does not open for the pts! This happend for the first time!

    Actually, the last time this happened was in FRWL. The dots get smaller and it cuts to black before fading into the training exercise.

    the last time was in GF not in FRWL
    Actually GF cuts straight to the facility, not to black.

    Are you sure? I though TB was the first gb to open up to a scene.

  • Posts: 250
    Here it feels as if Mendes has said I'm starting the film with 'the dead are alive' caption and its non negotiable like his 'I couldnt use the GB because it wouldve messed up my opening shot' bullshit from SF. But at least this time Babs and MGW have had the bottle to say 'no its going at the front'. But as you say baby steps. Maybe in another 10 films they will finally get it bang on.

    I'm not a fan of "The dead are alive" - it's extraneous and genuinely QoS-level pretentious and does nothing that a traditional wobble-then-iris-into-shot setup wouldn't do.

    But I still don't get the dismissal of the "showing of work" with SF. If you had a stop-gap establishing shot of Istanbul you would totally kill the effect that Mendes achieves in those earlier scenes, i.e. you get a visual expression of what Bond thematically is in this incarnation, i.e. "in the shadows" and there's a disorientating sense of not having any idea where he is in the world - he's even having his actions dictated to him by M. He's become a tired, semi-effective drone rather than the in-control Bond we are used to. If you give the game away and say "Oh, he's in Istanbul and this building is located here in Istanbul" you totally lose that effect. It's justified, the work is good and the GB at the start would've hurt it.

    What I would've liked as compromise is the "beeping" and xylophone from DN to have played over SF's opening logos.
  • Posts: 1,068
    In SF why couldn't the dropping dot of the gunbarrel darken under the blood (wobbly gunbarrel at the same time maybe) and as the whole screen darkens fade in a glimpse of darkened floor that see's Bond's shadow enter the shot of the walkway and camera iris open into a full screen as the circle rises and focuses on Bond's face/gun.

    I see this could've worked for SP too with a dropping darkening dot opening to a DotD skull face in shadow with the dead are alive in white contrasted on ot and brightening i/ fading nto whiteout of the skull that pans out onto the first street view. The disorientating skull face and wording would send more of a chill than the opening scene we did get.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    FourDot wrote: »
    Here it feels as if Mendes has said I'm starting the film with 'the dead are alive' caption and its non negotiable like his 'I couldnt use the GB because it wouldve messed up my opening shot' bullshit from SF. But at least this time Babs and MGW have had the bottle to say 'no its going at the front'. But as you say baby steps. Maybe in another 10 films they will finally get it bang on.

    I'm not a fan of "The dead are alive" - it's extraneous and genuinely QoS-level pretentious and does nothing that a traditional wobble-then-iris-into-shot setup wouldn't do.

    But I still don't get the dismissal of the "showing of work" with SF. If you had a stop-gap establishing shot of Istanbul you would totally kill the effect that Mendes achieves in those earlier scenes, i.e. you get a visual expression of what Bond thematically is in this incarnation, i.e. "in the shadows" and there's a disorientating sense of not having any idea where he is in the world - he's even having his actions dictated to him by M. He's become a tired, semi-effective drone rather than the in-control Bond we are used to. If you give the game away and say "Oh, he's in Istanbul and this building is located here in Istanbul" you totally lose that effect. It's justified, the work is good and the GB at the start would've hurt it.

    What I would've liked as compromise is the "beeping" and xylophone from DN to have played over SF's opening logos.

    Sorry I'm not having this. Some arty shot of Bond in the shadows then walking into focus is not worth binning the GB for me. And the mystery of wondering 'where on earth are we?' lasts about 1 minute until he walks out into the Istanbul sun - hardly Agatha Christie is it?

    You undermine your own argument because on the one hand you dont like the 'dead are alive' caption because it is pretentious but you are quite happy to indulge Mendes' pretentiousness in SF? Which is it?

    If your opening shot doesnt work with the GB then I'm sorry but its your shot that needs to change not the GB, no matter how good it is.

    Look at GE: classic zoom in from the GB - establishing shots and then killer shot of Bond on top of the dam. Textbook. Thats how you do it Sam. I couldnt care less about your Orson Welles fantasies; you can go and get those out of your system on some independent art house film if you must.

    Must I really turn to the sanity of Partridge to point you in the right direction? - 'Stop getting Bond wrong!'
  • Posts: 250
    I'd point out that you still don't know it's Istanbul until you get the shot of the Hagia Sophia. And I've pointed out that there's a difference between the two - "The dead are alive" is a tenuous allusion to M, Oberhauser and the festival itself but is thematically limp - the SF example, like most action and choices in that film actually, tell us something about the characters and where they're at.

    I'll gladly sacrifice a cosmetic hallmark if we get a Bond film that actually has something to say as is the case with SF, as long as it remains entertaining. If you refuse to be entertained because there's no gunbarrel, so be it, but it doesn't mean the reasoning behind it is tosh. To say that a Bond film shouldn't aspire to anything is to mire it in Spottiswoode-ville. There's ~15 Bond films that are bereft of ambition outside of stuntwork that people can surely content themselves with if that's what they, erm, need. But I'd argue that challenging the character himself and challenging the formula of delivery is indeed getting Bond "right" - Fleming did it constantly.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,655
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    vasilismf wrote: »
    vasilismf wrote: »
    none of you mentioned the thing that the gun barrel just fades out after the blood runs down, and it does not open for the pts! This happend for the first time!

    Actually, the last time this happened was in FRWL. The dots get smaller and it cuts to black before fading into the training exercise.

    the last time was in GF not in FRWL
    Actually GF cuts straight to the facility, not to black.

    Are you sure? I though TB was the first gb to open up to a scene.

    To lay it all out...

    FRWL: GB directly lifted from the DN title sequence, cuts to black before the white dots change color. Movie fades in on the training sequence.

    GF: Same GB as before, only this time it hard cuts straight from the white dot to the facility.

    TB: New GB with Connery that now ends with a white dot opening up to the scenery. Gun barrels more or less follow this pattern with a few tweaks.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 887
    I will be watching it at IMAX this Thursday. Seeing the gunbarrel open the movie at the IMAX screen would be awesome.... I can already feel the goosebumps coming!
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2015 Posts: 9,117
    FourDot wrote: »
    I'd point out that you still don't know it's Istanbul until you get the shot of the Hagia Sophia. And I've pointed out that there's a difference between the two - "The dead are alive" is a tenuous allusion to M, Oberhauser and the festival itself but is thematically limp - the SF example, like most action and choices in that film actually, tell us something about the characters and where they're at.

    I'll gladly sacrifice a cosmetic hallmark if we get a Bond film that actually has something to say as is the case with SF, as long as it remains entertaining. If you refuse to be entertained because there's no gunbarrel, so be it, but it doesn't mean the reasoning behind it is tosh. To say that a Bond film shouldn't aspire to anything is to mire it in Spottiswoode-ville. There's ~15 Bond films that are bereft of ambition outside of stuntwork that people can surely content themselves with if that's what they, erm, need. But I'd argue that challenging the character himself and challenging the formula of delivery is indeed getting Bond "right" - Fleming did it constantly.

    To quote the great Arnold Judas Rimmer: What on earth are you drivelling on about?

    How does the SF opening shot have 'something to say' and 'challenge the character himself and challenge the formula of delivery'?

    It's Bond walking down a corridor FFS?

    Just because it's done with a nifty bit of camerawork doesn't make it any different to something he has done hundreds of times before. You're making out it's the fulcrum on which the whole film hinges.

    And why is keeping the audience in the dark over the location such a stunning piece of filmmaking (especially given that 90% of people who had read anything about the film would know the PTS was filmed in Istanbul anyway) that adds depth to the character?

    Yes I'll grant you the reveal of Hagia Sophia is a nice shot (coupled with a nice musical flourish from Newman - see I'm not beyond giving Thomas credit where it's due; it's just he isn't due any for SP's reheated leftovers from SF) which is rather more classy than Glen's laughable Taj Mahal (have you any idea how far Agra is from Udaipur? Why would Bond make a detour from Delhi just to circle the Taj?) and the Eiffel Tower. And even your all hallowed messiah of film Sam Mendes has Bond just driving past the Colosseum in a shot that Glen would have been proud of. What does this tell us about the character at all? So please lets not kid ourselves that Mendes thinks hes making great art here.

    But @Imranbecks says it perfectly above. The GB is not about furthering the plot or being a piece of nuanced cinema.
    It is a visceral thrill that tells us 'after waiting so many years Bond is back so strap yourself in'.
    With SF we were denied that and on the 50th anniversary that's just not on.

    If it's fine to ignore the GB then why is it back at the start of SP? Mendes clearly just tagged it on anywhere again as he would have rather started with his 'dead are alive' caption. But it seems EON who know the formula should only be tweaked not monumentally buggered up put their foot down this time.

    Do you for one second think JJ Abrams will get away with not putting the opening crawl for episode 7 on the justification 'it didn't really work with my opening shot'.

    The GB and the Star Wars crawl are the opening shots. As a director when you come on board you should know that. You are free to do what you want after that but that is how your film has to open.
  • FourDot wrote: »
    I'd point out that you still don't know it's Istanbul until you get the shot of the Hagia Sophia. And I've pointed out that there's a difference between the two - "The dead are alive" is a tenuous allusion to M, Oberhauser and the festival itself but is thematically limp - the SF example, like most action and choices in that film actually, tell us something about the characters and where they're at.

    I'll gladly sacrifice a cosmetic hallmark if we get a Bond film that actually has something to say as is the case with SF, as long as it remains entertaining. If you refuse to be entertained because there's no gunbarrel, so be it, but it doesn't mean the reasoning behind it is tosh. To say that a Bond film shouldn't aspire to anything is to mire it in Spottiswoode-ville. There's ~15 Bond films that are bereft of ambition outside of stuntwork that people can surely content themselves with if that's what they, erm, need. But I'd argue that challenging the character himself and challenging the formula of delivery is indeed getting Bond "right" - Fleming did it constantly.

    To quote the great Arnold Judas Rimmer: What on earth are you drivelling on about?

    How does the SF opening shot have 'something to say' and 'challenge the character himself and challenge the formula of delivery'?

    It's Bond walking down a corridor FFS?

    Just because it's done with a nifty bit of camerawork doesn't make it any different to something he has done hundreds of times before. You're making out it's the fulcrum on which the whole film hinges.

    And why is keeping the audience in the dark over the location such a stunning piece of filmmaking (especially given that 90% of people who had read anything about the film would know the PTS was filmed in Istanbul anyway) that adds depth to the character?

    Yes I'll grant you the reveal of Hagia Sophia is a nice shot (coupled with a nice musical flourish from Newman - see I'm not beyond giving Thomas credit where it's due; it's just he isn't due any for SP's reheated leftovers from SF) which is rather more classy than Glen's laughable Taj Mahal (have you any idea how far Agra is from Udaipur? Why would Bond make a detour from Delhi just to circle the Taj?) and the Eiffel Tower. And even your all hallowed messiah of film Sam Mendes has Bond just driving past the Colosseum in a shot that Glen would have been proud of. What does this tell us about the character at all? So please lets not kid ourselves that Mendes thinks hes making great art here.

    But @Imranbecks says it perfectly above. The GB is not about furthering the plot or being a piece of nuanced cinema.
    It is a visceral thrill that tells us 'after waiting so many years Bond is back so strap yourself in'.
    With SF we were denied that and on the 50th anniversary that's just not on.

    If it's fine to ignore the GB then why is it back at the start of SP? Mendes clearly just tagged it on anywhere again as he would have rather started with his 'dead are alive' caption. But it seems EON who know the formula should only be tweaked not monumentally buggered up put their foot down this time.

    Do you for one second think JJ Abrams will get away with not putting the opening crawl for episode 7 on the justification 'it didn't really work with my opening shot'.

    The GB and the Star Wars crawl are the opening shots. As a director when you come on board you should know that. You are free to do what you want after that but that is how your film has to open.

    While I don't agree about sacrificing the gun barrel for and opening shot FourDot makes perfect sense in saying that not establishing where Bond us in the world means we the audience are thrown in at the deep end with Bond, mid mission gone wrong. So the opening shadowy shot of Bond makes sense thematically.

    However having the GB preceded this wouldn't of changed its effect one bit. Yes we are showing Bond twice but the GB in essence is an ident so should not effect any opening shot because it's not part of a story it's just what it is.

    QOS should've started with it too as its placement at the end DOES ruin the ends soft peaceful ending.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    00Dalton wrote: »

    However having the GB preceded this wouldn't of changed its effect one bit. Yes we are showing Bond twice but the GB in essence is an ident so should not effect any opening shot because it's not part of a story it's just what it is.

    Quite. I dont remember anybody saying that in addition to the GB coming at the beginning the next shot has to be an establishing shot of where we are showing a local landmark. That is taking us back to the John Glen era of pedestrian direction. Once the GB opens up into the film proper you can have a shot of whatever you want Sam.
  • FourDot wrote: »
    I'd point out that you still don't know it's Istanbul until you get the shot of the Hagia Sophia. And I've pointed out that there's a difference between the two - "The dead are alive" is a tenuous allusion to M, Oberhauser and the festival itself but is thematically limp - the SF example, like most action and choices in that film actually, tell us something about the characters and where they're at.

    I'll gladly sacrifice a cosmetic hallmark if we get a Bond film that actually has something to say as is the case with SF, as long as it remains entertaining. If you refuse to be entertained because there's no gunbarrel, so be it, but it doesn't mean the reasoning behind it is tosh. To say that a Bond film shouldn't aspire to anything is to mire it in Spottiswoode-ville. There's ~15 Bond films that are bereft of ambition outside of stuntwork that people can surely content themselves with if that's what they, erm, need. But I'd argue that challenging the character himself and challenging the formula of delivery is indeed getting Bond "right" - Fleming did it constantly.

    To quote the great Arnold Judas Rimmer: What on earth are you drivelling on about?

    How does the SF opening shot have 'something to say' and 'challenge the character himself and challenge the formula of delivery'?

    It's Bond walking down a corridor FFS?

    Just because it's done with a nifty bit of camerawork doesn't make it any different to something he has done hundreds of times before. You're making out it's the fulcrum on which the whole film hinges.

    And why is keeping the audience in the dark over the location such a stunning piece of filmmaking (especially given that 90% of people who had read anything about the film would know the PTS was filmed in Istanbul anyway) that adds depth to the character?

    Yes I'll grant you the reveal of Hagia Sophia is a nice shot (coupled with a nice musical flourish from Newman - see I'm not beyond giving Thomas credit where it's due; it's just he isn't due any for SP's reheated leftovers from SF) which is rather more classy than Glen's laughable Taj Mahal (have you any idea how far Agra is from Udaipur? Why would Bond make a detour from Delhi just to circle the Taj?) and the Eiffel Tower. And even your all hallowed messiah of film Sam Mendes has Bond just driving past the Colosseum in a shot that Glen would have been proud of. What does this tell us about the character at all? So please lets not kid ourselves that Mendes thinks hes making great art here.

    But @Imranbecks says it perfectly above. The GB is not about furthering the plot or being a piece of nuanced cinema.
    It is a visceral thrill that tells us 'after waiting so many years Bond is back so strap yourself in'.
    With SF we were denied that and on the 50th anniversary that's just not on.

    If it's fine to ignore the GB then why is it back at the start of SP? Mendes clearly just tagged it on anywhere again as he would have rather started with his 'dead are alive' caption. But it seems EON who know the formula should only be tweaked not monumentally buggered up put their foot down this time.

    Do you for one second think JJ Abrams will get away with not putting the opening crawl for episode 7 on the justification 'it didn't really work with my opening shot'.

    The GB and the Star Wars crawl are the opening shots. As a director when you come on board you should know that. You are free to do what you want after that but that is how your film has to open.

    I don't need to add anything else to this thread. You've nailed it.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 887
    Still bugs me that Barbara and Michael approved the idea of Sam Mendes to not include the gunbarrel at the start of Skyfall.. To me, the only thing imperfect with Skyfall is the missing gunbarrel at the beginning.
  • Posts: 12,241
    I was just very happy to see it was back where it belongs!!! :-bd
  • TreefingersTreefingers Isthmus City, Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 191
    The gunbarrel is just that, an ongoing traditional visual element associated with the franchise. You'd never hear the end of it if Star Wars dumped the crawling prologue. These auteurs should just stop playing around with it, they have the rest of the damn film to experiment with shots and angles.

    If in QOS they came to the point where they knew they'd be scrapping the coda where Bond wacks Mr. White, they should have just left it out completely. I'd rather not have had it at all instead of having it in the end with that shitty title card, as if we needed to be reminded of what we're watching.

    And I don't care for Forster's opening shot, it's not that great. Picture this instead: The GB starts the film and after the blood drips and the dot moves from side to side, the iris opens into a steady shot of the Aston's wheel spinning thousands of rpm's as the roar of the engine floods the soundscape, As we hear from the right side some machine gun fire, the car overtakes the steady shot and we get the rest of the chase sequence.
  • Posts: 250
    How does the SF opening shot have 'something to say' and 'challenge the character himself and challenge the formula of delivery'?

    It's Bond walking down a corridor FFS?

    Just because it's done with a nifty bit of camerawork doesn't make it any different to something he has done hundreds of times before. You're making out it's the fulcrum on which the whole film hinges.

    And why is keeping the audience in the dark over the location such a stunning piece of filmmaking (especially given that 90% of people who had read anything about the film would know the PTS was filmed in Istanbul anyway) that adds depth to the character?

    Yes I'll grant you the reveal of Hagia Sophia is a nice shot (coupled with a nice musical flourish from Newman - see I'm not beyond giving Thomas credit where it's due; it's just he isn't due any for SP's reheated leftovers from SF) which is rather more classy than Glen's laughable Taj Mahal (have you any idea how far Agra is from Udaipur? Why would Bond make a detour from Delhi just to circle the Taj?) and the Eiffel Tower. And even your all hallowed messiah of film Sam Mendes has Bond just driving past the Colosseum in a shot that Glen would have been proud of. What does this tell us about the character at all? So please lets not kid ourselves that Mendes thinks hes making great art here.

    But @Imranbecks says it perfectly above. The GB is not about furthering the plot or being a piece of nuanced cinema.
    It is a visceral thrill that tells us 'after waiting so many years Bond is back so strap yourself in'.
    With SF we were denied that and on the 50th anniversary that's just not on.

    If it's fine to ignore the GB then why is it back at the start of SP? Mendes clearly just tagged it on anywhere again as he would have rather started with his 'dead are alive' caption. But it seems EON who know the formula should only be tweaked not monumentally buggered up put their foot down this time.

    Do you for one second think JJ Abrams will get away with not putting the opening crawl for episode 7 on the justification 'it didn't really work with my opening shot'.

    The GB and the Star Wars crawl are the opening shots. As a director when you come on board you should know that. You are free to do what you want after that but that is how your film has to open.

    It's not just the shot, it's the sequence - the idea of Bond of all people entering a film out of focus, in an unknown location is unheard of previously, and the novelty of Skyfall is that yeah, it does actually have ideas, and it expresses them visually, i.e. it's a film. The visuals suggest from the first instance that Bond's "sharpness" as an agent, and his usual power is in question for a change, he doesn't dominate the frame as he does in a gunbarrel, he's obscured and misplaced - the only film that did this habitually previously was another film that was about Bond being off his game and perhaps being knackered and that was NSNA.

    You've countered my argument again by citing Spectre - to use examples from that film to demonstrate that Mendes wasn't really attempting anything in Skyfall would be a bit like saying that Wes Craven never understood horror because you weren't scared during Music of the Heart - it's not the same film and the filmmaker in this instance has actually flagged his interest in making the two films very much distinct from one another.

    I'm sorry that someone moving the furniture might cause you to miss watching Wapner; all I'm saying is that Mendes' reasoning behind that choice has always been sound, and because the trend had already been broken by the previous film for no reason whatsoever (surprise!) it's more palatable.

    As for Star Wars, there's a tight episodic saga of the one story. Consistency across those installments is a hell of a lot more vital than for the Bond films. Otherwise FRWL just screwed up everything by having the temerity, shock horror, to introduce a pre-title sequence.

    If, as is the case with Casino Royale, the idea is richer and more progressive than the tradition, you have to take those punts when you're 50 years and 23 films into a franchise. It's a big part of why SF is a watershed moment for the series, and why DAD isn't.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    FourDot wrote: »

    the idea of Bond of all people entering a film out of focus, in an unknown location is unheard of previously, and the novelty of Skyfall is that yeah, it does actually have ideas, and it expresses them visually, i.e. it's a film. The visuals suggest from the first instance that Bond's "sharpness" as an agent, and his usual power is in question for a change, he doesn't dominate the frame as he does in a gunbarrel, he's obscured and misplaced

    You get all that from Bond walking down a corridor out of focus? I take it all back Mendes is a genius.

    #pretentioustwaddle
  • MyNameIsMyBondRnMyNameIsMyBondRn WhereYouLeastExpectMeToBe
    Posts: 221
    FourDot wrote: »

    the idea of Bond of all people entering a film out of focus, in an unknown location is unheard of previously, and the novelty of Skyfall is that yeah, it does actually have ideas, and it expresses them visually, i.e. it's a film. The visuals suggest from the first instance that Bond's "sharpness" as an agent, and his usual power is in question for a change, he doesn't dominate the frame as he does in a gunbarrel, he's obscured and misplaced

    You get all that from Bond walking down a corridor out of focus? I take it all back Mendes is a genius.

    #pretentioustwaddle

    I presume Norman Mailer's 1970 Maidstone..!

  • A weird personal opinion based on the difference between a Bond film and a highly regarded film film (ala Tribeca or Sundance, etc)... the second that GB kicks off a movie, you're out of the running for best picture.

    Second personal opinion. I LOVE the GB at the start.
  • DariusDarius UK
    Posts: 354
    I think a lot of people, including me, like the gun-barrel at the beginning of a Bond movie because it acts a trade mark -- a stamp of the genuine article, if you will. Once the music strikes up and the circles march across the screen, you know that God's in His heaven, all's well with the world and there's something special to coming right up.

    Another reason is that it is an analogue of the standard introduction to a story we all heard as children: "Are you sitting comfortably? Now we'll begin...", or "Once upon a time..." It's a way of preparing us for what's to come by evoking a simple childhood message.

    Which is why I'm pleased that it's back in its rightful place and, frankly, I don't care how it's designed, or how the spirals are positioned or placed, or what pose Bond strikes, or the particular arrangement of the "James Bond Theme"... the fact is that it's there... and that's enough for me.
  • Posts: 1,494
    Just watched SP for the 1st time. A little bit of wee came out when i saw those white dots appear.... :>

    Thank goodness our GB is back. The planets are finally aligned again.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,041
    I'm glad it's back and forgive me if I don't get all pissy about it's design or the fact it doesn't open up into the film.

    We've have plenty of entries like this but for me they certainly all haven't opened up into a film as gloriously entertaining as SPECTRE.
Sign In or Register to comment.