Spectre Gunbarrel ***Spoilers***

1303133353653

Comments

  • gt007gt007 Station G
    Posts: 1,182
    SuitedBond wrote:
    Bond wrote:
    @SuitedBond

    ...and given the way Skyfall ends it seems quite likely that it will be back in the next film, to signify a return to traditional formula.

    Wasn't that what everyone was saying about this film?
    Indeed. I was saying it too. But for me the gunbarrel feels perfectly natural at the end of SKYFALL. Much more than QoS. And it's much more obvious that the Bond we know and love is back, with the introduction of M, Miss Moneypenny, the office, etc. So I'm confident the gunbarrel will be back at the start of BOND 24.

    Fitzochris wrote:
    gt007 wrote:
    Fitzochris wrote:
    gt007 wrote:
    I was worried for the gunbarrel being at the end of the film. But I watched it last night and it fits perfectly with the introduction of Miss Moneypenny, M and the new/old office, and the Bond theme climax. Amazing stuff, the whole cinema started applauding and cheering!
    i

    Really? The two times I've been, most the cinema was on its way out the door before Craig even started his walk. I know plenty of others who had the same experience. Just proves that it is completely redundant at the end and lacks all the punch it's very creation was intended to deliver.
    That's not even possible. There isn't enough time for someone to be on their way out before the gunbarrel starts. And if your cinema turns on the lights before the gunbarrel, tell them not to, the movie isn't over yet.

    It is possible because it happened. People were out of their seats as soon as the screen went black.
    Well that's their fault, not the film makers'.
  • SuitedBond wrote:
    Bond wrote:
    @SuitedBond

    ...and given the way Skyfall ends it seems quite likely that it will be back in the next film, to signify a return to traditional formula.

    Wasn't that what everyone was saying about this film?

    Yeah lol. Expecting it at the end of 24.

  • Well Sam has said he fully intended to put it at the beginning of Skyfall, but the way Roger had shot the opening was superb and he had tried to place the gunbarrel before it but it just didn't work the way he wanted it to so he placed it at the end. Now I've seen the film and completely understand his decision, and I fully expect it will be back at the beginning of Bond 24.
  • Well Sam has said he fully intended to put it at the beginning of Skyfall, but the way Roger had shot the opening was superb and he had tried to place the gunbarrel before it but it just didn't work the way he wanted it to so he placed it at the end. Now I've seen the film and completely understand his decision, and I fully expect it will be back at the beginning of Bond 24.

    I agree, especially because Sam is likely going to return for Bond 24 if Craig gets his way.
  • Posts: 278
    I'd love the Gunbarrel back at the beginning, but you know what, both QOS and SF have the most amazing opening shots (especially QOS with the music and the camera panning across the lake) that I think the both films would actually suffer (dont think QOS could afford any more suffering) with the GB where it is.
  • Posts: 3,333
    gt007 wrote:
    I was worried for the gunbarrel being at the end of the film. But I watched it last night and it fits perfectly with the introduction of Miss Moneypenny, M and the new/old office, and the Bond theme climax. Amazing stuff, the whole cinema started applauding and cheering!
    Sadly at my viewing of SF at the Odeon Leicester Sq everyone got up noisily and headed straight for the exits as soon as the GB started, which totally ruined it for me!!
  • gt007gt007 Station G
    Posts: 1,182
    bondsum wrote:
    gt007 wrote:
    I was worried for the gunbarrel being at the end of the film. But I watched it last night and it fits perfectly with the introduction of Miss Moneypenny, M and the new/old office, and the Bond theme climax. Amazing stuff, the whole cinema started applauding and cheering!
    Sadly at my viewing of SF at the Odeon Leicester Sq everyone got up noisily and headed straight for the exits as soon as the GB started, which totally ruined it for me!!
    People have said that before and I'm really surprised. I watched the film for the second time last night and again everyone started applauding and cheering when the gunbarrel appeared.

    On the other hand, in 2008 they turned the lights on as soon as the screen went black before the gunbarrel so everyone was getting up and ready to go. The pause before the gunbarrel in QoS was longer though.
  • Posts: 3,333
    I have to admit that no one applauded at my viewing or in fact cheered. There was quite a bit of laughter which was in all the right places but that was about all. I too was surprised when the audience leapt to their feet as soon as Craig had said his last line. Maybe everyone was in a rush to get out after the long screen time?
  • gt007gt007 Station G
    Posts: 1,182
    bondsum wrote:
    I have to admit that no one applauded at my viewing or in fact cheered. There was quite a bit of laughter which was in all the right places but that was about all. I too was surprised when the audience leapt to their feet as soon as Craig had said his last line. Maybe everyone was in a rush to get out after the long screen time?
    I guess I'm lucky in both the screenings I've attended, people applauded at the same two moments. The appearance of Bond's DB5 and the end of the film.

    And of course there was laughter at all the right places, as you said. Silva's unbuttoning Bond's shirt and that moment's dialogue got the most laughs.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,333
    It might of had something to do with the sombre tone of the movie in the final act as the audience did seem rather doleful until the final credits come up. Not that they expressed themselves in any great fashion afterwards other than to bolt for the exits whilst the GB was starting.

    I thought Craig was very good with the quips and they were far wittier than what Brosnan was given. I chuckled quite a lot, along with the crowd.
  • gt007 wrote:
    Well that's their fault, not the film makers'.

    Er no, it proves the gunbarrel lacks effect at the end of the film.
  • gt007gt007 Station G
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,182
    Fitzochris wrote:
    gt007 wrote:
    Well that's their fault, not the film makers'.

    Er no, it proves the gunbarrel lacks effect at the end of the film.
    Um, no it doesn't.

    If someone thinks the movie is over when it obviously isn't, it's their fault, not the film makers'.

    It's a couple of minutes packed with classic Bond stuff. Miss Moneypenny, M, their office, Bond accepting a top secret mission "with pleasure", the Bond theme and the gunbarrel. It fits. It works. Maybe not for everyone, but for the vast majority it does.
  • edited November 2020 Posts: 121
    1
  • gt007gt007 Station G
    Posts: 1,182
    JamesC wrote:
    You're fast, @JamesC, I was just about to post that.

    He does have a good point and after seeing the film myself I agree with him.
  • edited November 2020 Posts: 121
    1
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    gt007 wrote:
    JamesC wrote:
    You're fast, @JamesC, I was just about to post that.

    He does have a good point and after seeing the film myself I agree with him.

    Went to an IMAX screening yesterday and after my first viewing when I was too incadescent that there was no GB I hardly noticed the first 30 seconds of the film I thought I would concentrate on this stunning opening shot and see if I could rationalise Mendes reasoning for dropping the GB.

    Well for a start let me just say 'meh'. An out of focus Bond walking down a corridor until he comes into shot? Is that it. For all the Oscars between Mendes and Deakins they should look to Martin Campbells edge of the dam shot if they want something special to introduce Bond into the film.
    If preserving this is the only reason to ditch the GB then sorry I'm not having that at all.

    This is what he said in the link above: "I tried very hard to put the gunbarrel at the beginning and my intention was always to do that. If you see the film, the film starts with Bond walking down a corridor towards camera and lifting a gun. And of course the gunbarrel is him walking, stopping and lifting a gun. When I put the two together, it looked ridiculous!"

    Now thats all fair enough and I take his point and agree entirely but am I missing something here? Hes the director isnt he not the teaboy so why cant he change the opening shot so that the GB doesnt look ridiculous?
    An establishing shot of Istanbul domes, or just have the pan around the room to show the dead agents before Bond walks in instead.

    I take Mendes' comments on board but they are only valid if the opening shot was a seminal moment of cinema that could not be disrupted at any cost and IMO its far from that. I dont even think its as good as the QOS shot across the water and that could easily have worked with the GB.

    Just as a final point having read the comments on here over the last few days and as my other viewing was the premier where obviously people are better behaved I braced myself for some idiots to stand up and start leaving during the GB and true enough 3 or 4 heads popped into view as the dots went across the screen.

    Seems to me the GB might be precious to us on here but to the general public it carries all the importance of the MGM lion.
  • Posts: 278
    gt007 wrote:
    JamesC wrote:
    You're fast, @JamesC, I was just about to post that.

    He does have a good point and after seeing the film myself I agree with him.

    Went to an IMAX screening yesterday and after my first viewing when I was too incadescent that there was no GB I hardly noticed the first 30 seconds of the film I thought I would concentrate on this stunning opening shot and see if I could rationalise Mendes reasoning for dropping the GB.

    Well for a start let me just say 'meh'. An out of focus Bond walking down a corridor until he comes into shot? Is that it. For all the Oscars between Mendes and Deakins they should look to Martin Campbells edge of the dam shot if they want something special to introduce Bond into the film.
    If preserving this is the only reason to ditch the GB then sorry I'm not having that at all.

    This is what he said in the link above: "I tried very hard to put the gunbarrel at the beginning and my intention was always to do that. If you see the film, the film starts with Bond walking down a corridor towards camera and lifting a gun. And of course the gunbarrel is him walking, stopping and lifting a gun. When I put the two together, it looked ridiculous!"

    Now thats all fair enough and I take his point and agree entirely but am I missing something here? Hes the director isnt he not the teaboy so why cant he change the opening shot so that the GB doesnt look ridiculous?
    An establishing shot of Istanbul domes, or just have the pan around the room to show the dead agents before Bond walks in instead.

    I take Mendes' comments on board but they are only valid if the opening shot was a seminal moment of cinema that could not be disrupted at any cost and IMO its far from that. I dont even think its as good as the QOS shot across the water and that could easily have worked with the GB.

    Just as a final point having read the comments on here over the last few days and as my other viewing was the premier where obviously people are better behaved I braced myself for some idiots to stand up and start leaving during the GB and true enough 3 or 4 heads popped into view as the dots went across the screen.

    Seems to me the GB might be precious to us on here but to the general public it carries all the importance of the MGM lion.

    The opening is a nice shot, but its not exactly the same experience as a Star Destroyer coming into shot and taking over the whole screen.
    But what do I know, I'm not a director :)
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    gt007 wrote:
    JamesC wrote:
    You're fast, @JamesC, I was just about to post that.

    He does have a good point and after seeing the film myself I agree with him.

    Went to an IMAX screening yesterday and after my first viewing when I was too incadescent that there was no GB I hardly noticed the first 30 seconds of the film I thought I would concentrate on this stunning opening shot and see if I could rationalise Mendes reasoning for dropping the GB.

    Well for a start let me just say 'meh'. An out of focus Bond walking down a corridor until he comes into shot? Is that it. For all the Oscars between Mendes and Deakins they should look to Martin Campbells edge of the dam shot if they want something special.
    If preserving this is the only reason to ditch the GB then sorry I'm not having that at all.

    This is what he said: "I tried very hard to put the gunbarrel at the beginning and my intention was always to do that. If you see the film, the film starts with Bond walking down a corridor towards camera and lifting a gun. And of course the gunbarrel is him walking, stopping and lifting a gun. When I put the two together, it looked ridiculous!"

    Now thats all fair enough and I take his point and agree entirely but am I missing something here? Hes the director isnt he not the teaboy so why cant he change the opening shot so that the GB doesnt look ridiculous?
    An establishing shot of Istanbul domes, or just have the pan around the room to show the dead agents before Bond walks in instead.

    I take Mendes' comments on board but they are only valid if the opening shot was a seminal moment of cinema that could not be disrupted at any cost and IMO its far from that. I dont even think its as good as the QOS shot across the water and that could have worked with the GB.

    Just as a final point having read the comments on here over the last few days and as my other viewing was the premier where obviously people are better behaved I braced myself for people to stand up and start leaving during the GB and true enough 3 or 4 heads popped into view as the dots went across the screen.

    Seems to me the GB might be precious to us on here but to the general public it carries all the importance of the MGM lion.
    dchantry wrote:
    gt007 wrote:
    JamesC wrote:
    You're fast, @JamesC, I was just about to post that.

    He does have a good point and after seeing the film myself I agree with him.

    Went to an IMAX screening yesterday and after my first viewing when I was too incadescent that there was no GB I hardly noticed the first 30 seconds of the film I thought I would concentrate on this stunning opening shot and see if I could rationalise Mendes reasoning for dropping the GB.

    Well for a start let me just say 'meh'. An out of focus Bond walking down a corridor until he comes into shot? Is that it. For all the Oscars between Mendes and Deakins they should look to Martin Campbells edge of the dam shot if they want something special to introduce Bond into the film.
    If preserving this is the only reason to ditch the GB then sorry I'm not having that at all.

    This is what he said in the link above: "I tried very hard to put the gunbarrel at the beginning and my intention was always to do that. If you see the film, the film starts with Bond walking down a corridor towards camera and lifting a gun. And of course the gunbarrel is him walking, stopping and lifting a gun. When I put the two together, it looked ridiculous!"

    Now thats all fair enough and I take his point and agree entirely but am I missing something here? Hes the director isnt he not the teaboy so why cant he change the opening shot so that the GB doesnt look ridiculous?
    An establishing shot of Istanbul domes, or just have the pan around the room to show the dead agents before Bond walks in instead.

    I take Mendes' comments on board but they are only valid if the opening shot was a seminal moment of cinema that could not be disrupted at any cost and IMO its far from that. I dont even think its as good as the QOS shot across the water and that could easily have worked with the GB.

    Just as a final point having read the comments on here over the last few days and as my other viewing was the premier where obviously people are better behaved I braced myself for some idiots to stand up and start leaving during the GB and true enough 3 or 4 heads popped into view as the dots went across the screen.

    Seems to me the GB might be precious to us on here but to the general public it carries all the importance of the MGM lion.

    The opening is a nice shot, but its not exactly the same experience as a Star Destroyer coming into shot and taking over the whole screen.
    But what do I know, I'm not a director :)


    And that still worked with the Star Wars version of the GB up front not at the end:



    What is with this modern obsession of having the film just start immediately after the studio logo? Especially when you have classic openings such as Star Wars and Bond that other films could only dream of. Has no one heard of the concept of brand recognition?
    For Bond and Star Wars the trademark starts the film whereas for say Bourne the final shot and Moby kicking in is the trademark.

    If you had the Star Wars scroll at the end it would lose all impact as you have the silence of 'A long time ago...etc' and then wallop John Williams slaps you in the face.

    Thats what I want with Bond - the dots and the John Barry orchestra at full blast. Especially for the sodding 50th.

  • My biggest problem with the GB at the end is that people seem to think the film is over and start to move and I get heads in the way of my Bond film.
    How dare they move?!

    I was pretty much creating a fire hazard at the weekend because I refused to move until the theme tune died down

  • I don't know if anyone has seen this yet (apologies if its already been posted). Sam Mendes explains his reasons for not putting the Gun Barrel at the beginning of SKYFALL during an Apple Store Q&A with Empire Magazine's Chris Hewitt.

    Just to confirm- Mendes WANTED the GB at the beginning of the movie!

    http://bcove.me/3wjb3gzg
  • gt007 wrote:
    JamesC wrote:
    You're fast, @JamesC, I was just about to post that.

    He does have a good point and after seeing the film myself I agree with him.

    Went to an IMAX screening yesterday and after my first viewing when I was too incadescent that there was no GB I hardly noticed the first 30 seconds of the film I thought I would concentrate on this stunning opening shot and see if I could rationalise Mendes reasoning for dropping the GB.

    Well for a start let me just say 'meh'. An out of focus Bond walking down a corridor until he comes into shot? Is that it. For all the Oscars between Mendes and Deakins they should look to Martin Campbells edge of the dam shot if they want something special to introduce Bond into the film.
    If preserving this is the only reason to ditch the GB then sorry I'm not having that at all.

    This is what he said in the link above: "I tried very hard to put the gunbarrel at the beginning and my intention was always to do that. If you see the film, the film starts with Bond walking down a corridor towards camera and lifting a gun. And of course the gunbarrel is him walking, stopping and lifting a gun. When I put the two together, it looked ridiculous!"

    Now thats all fair enough and I take his point and agree entirely but am I missing something here? Hes the director isnt he not the teaboy so why cant he change the opening shot so that the GB doesnt look ridiculous?
    An establishing shot of Istanbul domes, or just have the pan around the room to show the dead agents before Bond walks in instead.

    I take Mendes' comments on board but they are only valid if the opening shot was a seminal moment of cinema that could not be disrupted at any cost and IMO its far from that. I dont even think its as good as the QOS shot across the water and that could easily have worked with the GB.

    Just as a final point having read the comments on here over the last few days and as my other viewing was the premier where obviously people are better behaved I braced myself for some idiots to stand up and start leaving during the GB and true enough 3 or 4 heads popped into view as the dots went across the screen.

    Seems to me the GB might be precious to us on here but to the general public it carries all the importance of the MGM lion.

    LoL! I just posted this video thinking no-one had seen it yet! Apologies everyone!!
  • I don't know if anyone has seen this yet (apologies if its already been posted). Sam Mendes explains his reasons for not putting the Gun Barrel at the beginning of SKYFALL during an Apple Store Q&A with Empire Magazine's Chris Hewitt.

    Just to confirm- Mendes WANTED the GB at the beginning of the movie!

    http://bcove.me/3wjb3gzg

    Just seen tht @JamesC already posted it.....My apologies everyone!
  • edited November 2020 Posts: 121
    1
  • Posts: 176
    dchantry wrote:
    gt007 wrote:
    JamesC wrote:
    You're fast, @JamesC, I was just about to post that.

    He does have a good point and after seeing the film myself I agree with him.

    Went to an IMAX screening yesterday and after my first viewing when I was too incadescent that there was no GB I hardly noticed the first 30 seconds of the film I thought I would concentrate on this stunning opening shot and see if I could rationalise Mendes reasoning for dropping the GB.

    Well for a start let me just say 'meh'. An out of focus Bond walking down a corridor until he comes into shot? Is that it. For all the Oscars between Mendes and Deakins they should look to Martin Campbells edge of the dam shot if they want something special to introduce Bond into the film.
    If preserving this is the only reason to ditch the GB then sorry I'm not having that at all.

    This is what he said in the link above: "I tried very hard to put the gunbarrel at the beginning and my intention was always to do that. If you see the film, the film starts with Bond walking down a corridor towards camera and lifting a gun. And of course the gunbarrel is him walking, stopping and lifting a gun. When I put the two together, it looked ridiculous!"

    Now thats all fair enough and I take his point and agree entirely but am I missing something here? Hes the director isnt he not the teaboy so why cant he change the opening shot so that the GB doesnt look ridiculous?
    An establishing shot of Istanbul domes, or just have the pan around the room to show the dead agents before Bond walks in instead.

    I take Mendes' comments on board but they are only valid if the opening shot was a seminal moment of cinema that could not be disrupted at any cost and IMO its far from that. I dont even think its as good as the QOS shot across the water and that could easily have worked with the GB.

    Just as a final point having read the comments on here over the last few days and as my other viewing was the premier where obviously people are better behaved I braced myself for some idiots to stand up and start leaving during the GB and true enough 3 or 4 heads popped into view as the dots went across the screen.

    Seems to me the GB might be precious to us on here but to the general public it carries all the importance of the MGM lion.

    The opening is a nice shot, but its not exactly the same experience as a Star Destroyer coming into shot and taking over the whole screen.
    But what do I know, I'm not a director :)
    gt007 wrote:
    JamesC wrote:
    You're fast, @JamesC, I was just about to post that.

    He does have a good point and after seeing the film myself I agree with him.

    Went to an IMAX screening yesterday and after my first viewing when I was too incadescent that there was no GB I hardly noticed the first 30 seconds of the film I thought I would concentrate on this stunning opening shot and see if I could rationalise Mendes reasoning for dropping the GB.

    Well for a start let me just say 'meh'. An out of focus Bond walking down a corridor until he comes into shot? Is that it. For all the Oscars between Mendes and Deakins they should look to Martin Campbells edge of the dam shot if they want something special.
    If preserving this is the only reason to ditch the GB then sorry I'm not having that at all.

    This is what he said: "I tried very hard to put the gunbarrel at the beginning and my intention was always to do that. If you see the film, the film starts with Bond walking down a corridor towards camera and lifting a gun. And of course the gunbarrel is him walking, stopping and lifting a gun. When I put the two together, it looked ridiculous!"

    Now thats all fair enough and I take his point and agree entirely but am I missing something here? Hes the director isnt he not the teaboy so why cant he change the opening shot so that the GB doesnt look ridiculous?
    An establishing shot of Istanbul domes, or just have the pan around the room to show the dead agents before Bond walks in instead.

    I take Mendes' comments on board but they are only valid if the opening shot was a seminal moment of cinema that could not be disrupted at any cost and IMO its far from that. I dont even think its as good as the QOS shot across the water and that could have worked with the GB.

    Just as a final point having read the comments on here over the last few days and as my other viewing was the premier where obviously people are better behaved I braced myself for people to stand up and start leaving during the GB and true enough 3 or 4 heads popped into view as the dots went across the screen.

    Seems to me the GB might be precious to us on here but to the general public it carries all the importance of the MGM lion.
    dchantry wrote:
    gt007 wrote:
    JamesC wrote:
    You're fast, @JamesC, I was just about to post that.

    He does have a good point and after seeing the film myself I agree with him.

    Went to an IMAX screening yesterday and after my first viewing when I was too incadescent that there was no GB I hardly noticed the first 30 seconds of the film I thought I would concentrate on this stunning opening shot and see if I could rationalise Mendes reasoning for dropping the GB.

    Well for a start let me just say 'meh'. An out of focus Bond walking down a corridor until he comes into shot? Is that it. For all the Oscars between Mendes and Deakins they should look to Martin Campbells edge of the dam shot if they want something special to introduce Bond into the film.
    If preserving this is the only reason to ditch the GB then sorry I'm not having that at all.

    This is what he said in the link above: "I tried very hard to put the gunbarrel at the beginning and my intention was always to do that. If you see the film, the film starts with Bond walking down a corridor towards camera and lifting a gun. And of course the gunbarrel is him walking, stopping and lifting a gun. When I put the two together, it looked ridiculous!"

    Now thats all fair enough and I take his point and agree entirely but am I missing something here? Hes the director isnt he not the teaboy so why cant he change the opening shot so that the GB doesnt look ridiculous?
    An establishing shot of Istanbul domes, or just have the pan around the room to show the dead agents before Bond walks in instead.

    I take Mendes' comments on board but they are only valid if the opening shot was a seminal moment of cinema that could not be disrupted at any cost and IMO its far from that. I dont even think its as good as the QOS shot across the water and that could easily have worked with the GB.

    Just as a final point having read the comments on here over the last few days and as my other viewing was the premier where obviously people are better behaved I braced myself for some idiots to stand up and start leaving during the GB and true enough 3 or 4 heads popped into view as the dots went across the screen.

    Seems to me the GB might be precious to us on here but to the general public it carries all the importance of the MGM lion.

    The opening is a nice shot, but its not exactly the same experience as a Star Destroyer coming into shot and taking over the whole screen.
    But what do I know, I'm not a director :)


    And that still worked with the Star Wars version of the GB up front not at the end:



    What is with this modern obsession of having the film just start immediately after the studio logo? Especially when you have classic openings such as Star Wars and Bond that other films could only dream of. Has no one heard of the concept of brand recognition?
    For Bond and Star Wars the trademark starts the film whereas for say Bourne the final shot and Moby kicking in is the trademark.

    If you had the Star Wars scroll at the end it would lose all impact as you have the silence of 'A long time ago...etc' and then wallop John Williams slaps you in the face.
    Thats what I want with Bond - the dots and the John Barry orchestra at full blast. Especially for the sodding 50th.

    That's not a fair comparison though. The Star Wars scroll has a purpose--it's to give you background so you can understand the story. The gunbarrell doesn't do that.
  • If the Gun-barrel at the beginning of a Bond is your bench mark if this is going to be a good bond film or not...then please dont go to the movies or just go home and watch 24 or The Bourne Legacy. I once believed it was important, but SKYFALL is a great movie and a great Bond Movie to boot. Hey it may be in the beginning of the next one...however what follows may suck...would it still be Bond.
  • Posts: 278
    I don't know if anyone has seen this yet (apologies if its already been posted). Sam Mendes explains his reasons for not putting the Gun Barrel at the beginning of SKYFALL during an Apple Store Q&A with Empire Magazine's Chris Hewitt.

    Just to confirm- Mendes WANTED the GB at the beginning of the movie!

    http://bcove.me/3wjb3gzg

    Yes and I want to make love to my wife every day, but unfortunately, sometimes we dont get everything we want.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    I can surive with the GB not being at the start of Skyfall, but it has to be at the start of Bond 24, and with a decent design PLEASE. The one in SF sucked, not exactly close to the original design as the filmmakers claimed it would be.
  • Posts: 1,964
    I just saw Skyfall fuckin awesome movie and it made perfect sense why the gunbarrel was at the end this time.
  • Posts: 1,964
    gt007 wrote:
    I was worried for the gunbarrel being at the end of the film. But I watched it last night and it fits perfectly with the introduction of Miss Moneypenny, M and the new/old office, and the Bond theme climax. Amazing stuff, the whole cinema started applauding and cheering!

    This ^^^^^
    It was truly the beginning of Bonds new legacy and I truly believe that Bond 24 will have the gunbarrel in the beginning

  • As great as Skyfall was the one apsect of the movie I was disappointed in was that they retained the gunbarrel scene at the end just like in Quantum of Solace :/
Sign In or Register to comment.