It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
SF opening if it had a gunbarrel start. Gunbarrel indicates Bond shot a bad guy. Bond walks into focus, continues down the corridor to find an associate. Obviously 007 didn't shoot fellow agent Ronson. So there's not an automatic conflict there.
The first gunbarrel for an actor can be ambiguous as mentioned earlier (Bob Simmons as Connery in DN, FRWL, GF) or clearly the actor Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig.
The Bond actor will be known at the time of the film's release, on posters and trailers. I'll be looking to recognize the actor in the Bond role at first opportunity on screen. And that moment will establish him to audiences, gunbarrel or otherwise. My thinking is for BOND 26 the gunbarrel demands a clear introduction of the new Bond, from there it will be film history regardless.
+1
The thrill of the music hitting as the dots move across the screen is unlike anything else in cinema. I would argue that Star Wars comes close with the "Galaxy far far away..." John Williams music hits.
Bring it back, respect it, update it if you want. But let have a bombastic start to the film and the GB gets us going.
I can also understand how it just feels ‘off’ having the gunbarrel at the start and then introducing Bond like that. What’s the point in introducing him twice? I think as fans we love the idea of the gunbarrel so much we wouldn’t always notice just how weird it’d feel to most viewers. And honestly, if that was a choice that was agreed upon by all the talented creatives who made this film, I’ll trust them. No, they made the right choice, and it actually works well having it at the end after showing us the traditional MI6 office and Bond returning (hell, I’d argue it lessens the impact of the ending not having it there!) I think it’d be equally as awful losing that wonderful feeling of the ending as well just because of ‘tradition’.
The producers didn't have a problem with introducing Bond twice in TWINE. Gun barrel and then film opens right on Bond.
You don't like radioactive lint?
Sorry couldn't resist.
I do think there was a way, not sure if it would have been better or taken away from what we got. I just didn't see the need for SF to have no gun barrel.
I blame Mendes.
I always thought a transition like that might've worked for SF as the initial image is out of focus.
Honestly, I never really cared for the opening shot of SF. It's okay, but I prefer the opening shots of all the other Craig films.
Hehe 😂
TWINE’s PTS isn’t exactly as cinematic as SF’s (a polite way of saying not as good). It’s also not really an introduction to Bond. He’s just walking across the street. SF’s opening is a full intro, him coming into focus, into the light etc. Different feel even though both open with a shot of Bond.
I think at the end of the day it just came down to impact. It lessens the impact of the opening shot seeing the gunbarrel beforehand, and instead of reshooting they realised putting it at the end heightened the finale. Pretty elegant solution I’d say that made an emotionally satisfying film.
Can't say the PTS of TWINE is a good introduction of Bond into the movie, in any case. I can't think of any worse ones, right off the bat.
I think TB started the dot landing on something of interest and then opening up on the scene. OHMSS opens up on Universal Exports sign with Peter Hunt strolling across. I love that Easter Egg.
I suppose the one thing you can say about it is it's such a bland shot that it doesn't even register as an introduction (it's also kind of voyeuristic but in a surveilance-like way. You're almost expecting a camera to click and a photo to be taken of Bond). Hence why the gunbarrel is absolutely fine coming before.
The NTTD one does look great though, and if they continued the way it transitions to the film in the next one I wouldn't be upset (I don't actually miss the blood all that much).
Brosnan still has the best Gunbarrel design, walk, and final pose of all the actors who’ve done the sequence but I do like the Bob Simmons version as well as Moore’s first version of the sequence as well.
For me Dalton was always tops, with Roger's second one coming just after (that guy did know how to strike a pose); but nowadays it's Craig's Spectre one.
I like Brosnan's stances. Very much a head shot, haha.
Craig's last two poses are very aesthetically pleasing.
The Brosnan one just oozes “professional killer” for me - like he was making that shot with minimal effort required on his part - the sharp way with which he turns and fires is just so smooth too - it felt like Brosnan wasn’t overthinking that sequence whereas the other sequences just don’t feel that effortless in the walk and final pose. To my eyes Brosnan’s sequence was the gunbarrel sequence perfected which is why I never got bothered with the CR gunbarrel when it was so radically different than what had come before. I actually think it would’ve been pretty cool if all of Craig’s Gunbarrels were like the CR one - granted you’d have to create some scenario that would call for Bond killing a thug like that in each film but it would’ve been stylistically nice having all of Craig’s Gunbarrel be similar to his first Gunbarrels sequence - and it’d fit in with his era already drastically shaking things up and being more down to earth.
He does! When he turns and fires the gun he’s accidentally aiming more towards the right of the camera set-up. It’s a goof admittedly but I still love that final pose - it’s a lot more confident and looks better than Connery’s pose during the sequence
To be fair I always question whether they froze the frame later on Connery's gun barrel compared to the others (he seems to wobble, and it's not an easy pose to keep leaning forward like that. No idea one way or the other though).
The older gun barrels are quite funny rewatching certain films. Obviously they didn't re-film them each time as they did with the Craig era, so you get Moore wearing flairs into the 80s, or Connery wearing a hat in '71.
Lazenby's is the weirdest one. A weird treadmill effect with the gun barrel not quite keeping up with his walk.
I guess we do all agree that, as great a Bond as he was, Connery's gunbarrel ranks towards the bottom end of the spectrum!
I'm going to guess because George walked too quickly. So in post the gun barrel had to stop at points creating the tread mill effect.
I'm not sure why they didn't just refilm it.
Because they probably didn’t realise until it got to post production much later on. I mean, it’s at the very least a money saving way of salvaging it. Not like anyone was going to rewatch the film multiple times at home and pick up on it!
It's my favorite gun barrel. The pose is perfect. He shoots like a cowboy.