32 replies to this topic

[RedKelly]

What made the producers/writers decide to have the pretitles in B&W? Was it because of the gunbarrel?Was it even in the script?Is that one to many questions?

[JCRendle]

It's not mentioned in the Dec draft, I suppose they were just going for something different, the scene was very film noir.

Also, it's one of several parts of the film that hints of another time period, in dress etc and set dressing. With references to 9/11 and the technology we know that the films in the 21st century, but its the different elements that also give the film a timeless quality.

[JimmyBond]

Also, it's one of several parts of the film that hints of another time period, in dress etc and set dressing. With references to 9/11 and the technology we know that the films in the 21st century, but its the different elements that also give the film a timeless quality.

It really is a timeless film isnt it? Not easily dated I imagine (though we'll have to wait ten years to see if that's the case). I hope they same care is put into the next film.

[sharpshooter]

Why in black and white you ask?

Several reasons I believe:

Show that this is his life before 007 - he is just James Bond.

It makes it stand out as significant and important as a scene.

Show people this isnt going to be the same ride as before.

The transition to the gunbarrel is easier.

When the blood drips down, marking the first use of colour in the film, the colourful title sequence of violence shows what Bond's life is going to be.

Edited by sharpshooter, 08 February 2007 - 03:10 AM.

[Publius]

Because it looks cool as hell.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Also, it's one of several parts of the film that hints of another time period, in dress etc and set dressing. With references to 9/11 and the technology we know that the films in the 21st century, but its the different elements that also give the film a timeless quality.

It really is a timeless film isnt it? Not easily dated I imagine (though we'll have to wait ten years to see if that's the case). I hope they same care is put into the next film.

It will become dated, like they all are. Doesn't hurt their entertainment value IMHO. In some ways, it helps and makes them interesting time capsules of the times they were maded. The question will be how soon the "dated" aspects will show up and how "dated" will they seem.

Why in black and white you ask?

Several reasons I believe:

Show that this is his life before 007 - he is just James Bond.

It makes it stand out as significant and important as a scene.

Show people this isnt going to be the same ride as before.

The transition to the gunbarrel is easier.

When the blood drips down, marking the first use of colour in the film, the colourful title sequence of violence shows what Bond's life is going to be.

Good points.

[Ernst Stavro Blofeld Jr.]

I heard someone say once that Campbell wanted it to look like file footage, which makes sense from a certain point of view.

[JackWade]

I always believed that the black-and-white was used primarily to show that the sequence took place before the events in the film.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

They were showing a darker side of Bond so they used black and white to amplify that. Also the first colour we see is red blood dripping down the screen. I think the film just goes the extra mile to reinforce Bond as an assassin and that his whole life isn't glitz and glam despite what previous Bond films may have portrayed.

That's what I got from the PTS anyway.

[bill007]

Because it looks cool as hell.

Agreed.

[ChronoBreak]

Because it looks cool as hell.

My sentiments exactly. I can't imagine the pretitles for CR any other way. Plus it makes the gunbarrel/color transition that much sweeter.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I always believed that the black-and-white was used primarily to show that the sequence took place before the events in the film.

I think along these lines too. Obvious, I would have thunk.

[sorking]

I always believed that the black-and-white was used primarily to show that the sequence took place before the events in the film.

I think along these lines too. Obvious, I would have thunk.

Well, surely the fact that it's the first scene in a movie told in chronological order is a giveaway? :-)

Joking a little, obviously - I take the point, because black and white has come to convey 'the past', but I agree with some of the other posts that it's about more than that. After all, these scenes only took place a short time before the main film, maybe only a matter of days or weeks. 'This happened first' is something we didn't need any help with.

The important thing for me is the arrival of colour. It says something significant - at that moment he goes from 'James Bond' to '007'. His 'real life' begins, at least for the audience. And it's a moment born in blood.

As with the very last line of the movie, significance of the on-screen event is conveyed to the audience by providing something that was previously withheld - colour, the full Bond theme.

I always fancied doing a more detailed study of the ways colour and black and white are used in movies. The red coat in Schlindler's List (identification, yes, but also something more emotive - danger, blood); A Matter of Life and Death, where the real world is colour, and the afterlife is monchrome; The Wizard of Oz, where the opposite is true, and its the fantasy land that's in colour...

And Pleasantville - which, while more literal, in a way has the closest use to Casino Royale - life begins with colour. With it you are reborn into a new life.

[RazorBlade]

Because it looks cool as hell.

Agreed.

I agree too. Sometimes just because it looks good is all the reason you need to do something in a film.

[Cabainus]

I agree that having the pre-titles in B&W is purely just a way of showing that these event are in the past.

It also negates the need for a subtitle saying "3 months earlier/later" etc etc

[Loomis]

It's so that fans who hate the reboot aspect can fanwank the idea that the PTS is set in the distant past and that Craig's Bond is therefore a seasoned agent during the bulk of CASINO ROYALE and the film is a sequel to DIE ANOTHER DAY. Admittedly, this still leaves the odd problematic thing like M's "I knew it was too early to promote you" line, but the viewer is nonetheless free to imagine the PTS as taking place many years prior to the main events of CR as opposed to just a few weeks or months beforehand.

[Rolex]

I cant see any hidden meanings at all it just refers to the past how bond got his 00 status.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]It

[plankattack]

Because it looks cool as hell.

Enuff said.

[00Twelve]

Right on, Publius. But yes, it's flashback, and it definitely adds to the atmosphere. You could also say that all the fighting in the PTS is stuff that happened over the course of Bond's career between that and CR, during which he got 00 status at some point. Based on the 00 status being granted visually at the end of the title sequence, it's logical to assume that CR is Bond's first *major* mission, in the film's continuity, anyway.

[Mamadou]

Because it looks cool as hell.

Enuff said.

Indeed.

[dodge]

All of the above. Plus: b&w provides a neat and highly creative solution to the age-old challenge of how best to introduce any new Bond. The basic rule has been to show new Bonds in action before we see their faces. (That's definitely so with Laz, Dalton and Brosnan. Can't remember Moore's first scene.) Here, we see Daniel seated--not looking like any other Bond--and, of course, a blonde. So, in addition to all of the other points made, b&w softens the impact of his startlingly different appearance and hair.

[Zorin Industries]

Black and white is the oldest device in the book to denote 'history', the 'past' and, in the context of BOND, film noir. CASINO ROYALE's pre-title sequence needed to be all of these.

Though I would like to add that it was lazy b&w cinematography on the part of Phil Meheux and even lazier acting by the Mi6 operative opposite Bond. The dialogue's too succcinct too. But that is my only problem with a film that then unfolds stunningly from then.

[JCRendle]

(Can't remember Moore's first scene.)

Pretty uneventful actually, he got out of bed with a chick and made a coffee for M.

[dodge]

(Can't remember Moore's first scene.)

Pretty uneventful actually, he got out of bed with a chick and made a coffee for M.

Thanks for jogging my memory there. Yes, I do remember now: The bedroom was relatively dark and Moore was fairly enshrouded in shadows at first. The film makers used the shadows, as CR used b&w, to ease us into a new face...and a new color of chair.

[JCRendle]

I also liked the scripts opening, which had Bond as a faceless person in the crowd at a cricket match following Fisher, then to the Prague office, interchanging as the final version.

We saw Bond following Fisher, but we only saw his face when the light was turned on in Dryden's office.

It was a good opening, but I can understand why the beginning was cut (but I would love to see the deleted scene)

[Blofeld's Cat]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='698899' date='9 February 2007 - 01:20'][mra]It

[00Twelve]

Who is Art?

[Thunderfinger]

There could be four reassonss:

a - It

[Flash1087]

Who is Art?

He's a lovely fellow, and he's responsible for quite a bit more than you might expect from one guy.