Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Skyfall - Gun barrel at the start (HD)
For best picture quality change to 720p setting:
^ 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
Cool! :)
I'm interested - does anyone think that that opening shot was so mind blowingly staggering that they wouldn't prefer a GB which reveals a shot of the Istanbul skyline before cutting to the corridor?
Not so arty maybe but it makes you feel like you're watching a Bond film from the first minute which for me takes precedence. You've got 2 hours to put whatever arty shots you want in but you've only got 10 seconds to get this right or not as the case may be.
It would be nice to see the full length and correct 'theme': "da da daa... da da daa..." gun barrel returned to the start of Bond 24! Based on the huge success of Skyfall I doubt most people care where it's put, but it would be nice to see the gun barrel back where it's intended. Eon may continue leaving it at the end, though.
There does seem to be a slight conflict between some fans not wanting massive change to the franchise and other fans wanting the franchise to move on, to adapt to the times but personally speaking I feel the moving of the gun barrel was a backward, illogical move and a tad disrespectful to what has come in the past. But it's been like that for three films (let's not forget CR's gun barrel wasn't at the start!) so I've had seven years to accept it.
You see that's what I don't get.
The brand logo which EON exploit for the 50th publicity is the classic GB. I find it nonsensical why for the film you then suddenly not only totally redesign your logo but then also shunt it from view.
If Maccy Ds decided to change the font for the golden arches would they then globally publicise the old logo in posters and advertising materials? At best it shows muddled thinking from EONs marketing dept but then this is hardly a shock given the 007 Legends debacle and the underwhelming bluray box set.
It should be the old design from the Brozza years and stuck up top as a seal of quality as it has been for 50 years - well 40 as we are talking DAD for the last proper GB and even that wasn't great. You're going back to TWINE 13 years ago (so actually for 26% of the series existence the GB has been messed around with now) as the last 'pure' GB that opens with a nice simple establishing shot of the location - but of course that's not poncey enough for Mendes.
Well it did for 40 years. I'm sure there would be a few pissed off Star Wars fans if EP: VII doesn't feature the opening crawl. If it ain't broke?
If it's not a big deal 'not having' it, then surely it's not a big deal 'having' it. Like the Wizard says, gunbarrel, establishing shot, groundbreaking hallway shot. Done.
Personally, it doesn't bother me as much as some, but when Maurice Binder created the gunbarrel, he established one of the most iconic images in pop culture. It deserves respect. It's not about moving on, blah, blah, blah. It's part of Bond, they should slap it back at the beginning so when 24 hits, I grin from ear to ear when the lights go down.
Quite. I actually think it smacks of arrogance to a degree. 'I'm the great Sam Mendes and nothing can get in the way of my great vision. I'm not a journeyman like Glen or Spotiswoode that has up stick to the conventions of the genre.'
People debate the merits of a Tarantino Bond film and I would be one of them but QT however much he might push the formula in other ways would understand that this is an integral moment of creating the Bond atmos.
If the GB is not important then why bother with a PTS and title sequence at all? Just have the titles come on over the opening few shots a la NSNA and stick the song over the end credits.
Anyway, this video. The music is better but I still don't like the whole design and blood effect of the SF one. The Brosnan one was the perfect update of the Binder one so God knows why EON thought the QOS/SF design looked better.
@fanbond123 It's a new generation of fans, that's the thing. Some members on here who are saying "it doesn't matter" have never actually experienced a gunbarrel in the cinema, so we can't blame them.
As for everyone else, fair enough if you don't mind because of the opening shot but I think lots of the people that are saying "I don't care, the gunbarrel doesn't matter, too predictable, etc" are just being apologists and those same people will be celebrating if it's back at the start of Bond 24 because they want to love the new film.
I would've also preferred a proper old school gunbarrel for the first time in 13 years (even DAD had the CGI bullet shoved in), a shot of Istanbul, then the opening shot.
Since they treated the gunbarrel with no respect whatsoever they may as well have not bothered with it at all.
See that's fair enough, because it worked well in CR and you might prefer the opening shot in SF.
It's people saying it's gotten too predictable at the start and that it doesn't matter if it's at the end of Bond 24 that I don't understand.
I get where you're coming from, but I hate the fact the topic of the gunbarrel has all of a sudden become about semantics. The CR placement, I can live with. It's a logical move. The QoS placement is Forster tampering for pseudo-intellectual reasons, and Mendes' was a selfish creative decision, somehow given credence because of the 'reboot' logic. They just need to stop pissing about and stick it at the bloody start.
Also I don't buy Mendes' reason - just change the opening shot.
Seems funny that both Mendes and Forster would change it, especially when Sam Mendes displayed such respect for other parts of Bond's history. I think the producers have insisted on the change, for some reason.
You contradict yourself. Either it doesn't bother you or it does. If it doesn't why do you want it at the start of QOS? What's wrong with the end or randomly in the middle when he shoots Mitchell say?
I get a sense there's some snobishness and some people here who just want to refuse criticising SF and Mendes full stop. If a Spottiswoode or Glen had shunted the GB to the end because of some artistic pretensions over their opening shot people would've been up in arms but because he's an Oscar winner he gets carte blanche.
Well I admire everything Mendes did with the film but he dropped the ball with the GB. His opening shot is not a patch on Campbell's tilt above Bond looking over the dam. If Martin had stamped his feet and said 'I'm not having the GB or the establishing shot of the plane ruining my shot' would EON have put up with that? Don't think so.
I'm all for them hiring auteurs and giving over more control than in Cubbys day but it ought to be spelled out that the director has to work within certain parameters which are fixed.
So why would you prefer it at the start of QOS but not SF?
And incidentally, saying 'I would prefer it at the start' and then in the next breath saying 'I don't mind' is pretty much the definition of contradiction in my book so no, call me thick if you like, but its not clear enough.
Because at the start of SF he is in a sort of a "barrel", dark on the outside, light in the middle, walking, gun in hand. After I saw the video above it became even clearer to me that putting the GB before that scene would be like having two GB one after the other. There is no such thing in QoS, therefore I don't think the GB at the start would have done any harm.
But this is assuming the initial shot of the hallway must be kept at ALL costs. As has been said, establishing shot of Istanbul, then hallway. Not difficult. I don't imagine many people came out referencing the opening shot as the stand out moment of the film. As the Wiz says, I think a lot of people feel SF can not he criticised.
Having seen the video I think the Gb opening could have definitely worked. However, I do understand Mendes's issue with its placement. I think Mendes wanted to avoid the typical establishing shot of a picturesque location as its a little typical. Personally I think the opening shot of Bond walking down the stairs into a busy Turkish street is a much better way to introduce the city then having a simple establishing shot, the silhouette Bond creates as he goes down those stairs and the way he reloads the gun is a great image, perfect piece of iconography and a great way to bring the character back after 4 years.
If I was sitting in on editing meetings for SF I wouldn't be fussed if they put the GB in the beginning, but I would certainly give the opinion that the opening that we got was a *little* better.
Now we get into the minutia of scripting and film-making. I think that losing the Ronson bit would have been detrimental to the character development and overall "mood" of SF. If Bond is the only agent expendable in the beginning, then maybe the issue is just with him. But by also sacrificing Ronson it shows M's desperation to get the drive more clearly (it also removes the idea that the strained relationship with Bond or her being angry with him made her willing to sacrifice him). Although the issue is brought up later in the film with her sacrificing Silva, it doesn't carry the weight that Ronson's death does because Silva is the villain (and deserved to be sacrificed). Also, neither Bond nor Silva really died so Ronson dying brings more weight to the situation. The MI6 agents who died in the explosion were never seen, so even Ronson's brief screentime makes the idea of his death resonate more with the audience.
Ronson's death also gives Bond more reason to be angry with M when he confronts her in her flat. Now, instead of just being angry about what was done to him, he can also have "righteous anger" about her decisions in general. So it doesn't devolve into a personal spat; it's about M's style of leadership (this also plays into there being a new M at the end as well; one who is very different from Dench's M). It also gives more weight to M's decision to allow herself to be used as bait at Skyfall.
So while the inclusion of the Ronson character may seem like a small thing, it does have a lot of importance to the film and I'd be loathe to lose him.
How about after the GB just a shot of the outside of the building giving us a hint of where we are before the camera goes through the window then pans around the room to show us Ronson then cut to the corridor? Or is the corridor shot really so sublime that it has to be the first thing we see?
Please do elaborate, what exactly in the opening felt cheesy to you?