39 replies to this topic

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Thoughts about the

Spoiler

big

location subtitles

Spoiler

in the middle of the screen...

End of transmission.

And everyone else?

[Jim]

They're magnificent and original, at least for a Bond film.

Not sure they deserve their own thread, but hey ho.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Sorry, forgot to post them in the spoiler section (thanks Jim).

I found them rare for a Bond film. Too comic-book like

[PPK_19]

I found them rare for a Bond film. Too comic-book like

But then again once could say bond is a comic book-type character anyway. I mean seeing a Bond film is not the same as seeing any other thriller is it? i for one was surprised, but quite liked them.

[Vauxhall]

I absolutely loved them. I would welcome them in BOND 23 and perhaps in every future Bond movie. It could arguably become a new, iconic feature of Bond movies in the same way as we have come to expect a gunbarrel and distinctive title sequences.

[dee-bee-five]

They're magnificent and original, at least for a Bond film.

Agreed. Just one aspect of a film bursting with magnificence and originality; qualities some fans, alas, seem not to want.

[Marquis]

I loved them aswell. Not sure if I'd like to see them return or not as they do contribute to Solace having it's own unique feel. That said, if EON can tempt Forster back for Bond 23, then what the heck......let him bring his snazzy titles back too.

[Icarus]

Props for trying something different, but I wasn't too keen on them, sorry. I kinda prefer the more simplistic style, like those of Casino Roayle's.

Edited by Icarus, 06 November 2008 - 09:23 PM.

[The ides of Mark]

Loved them! For this particular film at least. It contributed to the fantasy.

[Captain Tightpants]

I liked the concept; loved it when I saw how it was done in a YouTube video. They actually reminded me of Final Fantasy IX and Final Fantasy XII; every time you entered a new location - particularly in XII; IX only did it for storyline locations - there would be an establishing shot with a title card. In XII, they were pretty basic and all the same, but in IX they always used a different font in keeping with the locations.

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing them appear in future Bond films.

[Pierce - Daniel]

They felt very Marc Forster, they should return if he does. The film aside from feeling like a Bond film through-and-through, really did keep that spirit that makes Forster one of the best filmmakers working today. Loved it, helped improve the whole visual tone of the moive, my fav has to be either Siena or London.

[gt007]

That was perhaps the only bit I didn't like in the whole film.

Generally speaking, they look good. But they're not for Bond films. The CR ones were much better.

[Ravenstone]

I liked them a lot. I thought them very stylish. They added to the impression of Bond jetting around the globe, and Quantum being very much a global organisation rather than affiliated to one country or continent.

[Sir James Moloney]

Love them . Keep´em

[quantumofsolace]

Great. Such style. Wouldn't want them back unless Forster returns

[MkB]

At first I was surprised by them, and not sure to like it. But finally, I found they gave the film a nice 60s touch.

[sharpshooter]

I absolutely loved them. I would welcome them in BOND 23 and perhaps in every future Bond movie. It could arguably become a new, iconic feature of Bond movies in the same way as we have come to expect a gunbarrel and distinctive title sequences.

Yep. I've seen the London and Port Au Prince titles, and they're magnificent.

[Blonde Bond]

I loved everything MK12 had done for this film. It was all quite stylistic. Didn't really miss Danny Kleinman, since they managed to do such a original job with all the 'Quantum' stuff.

[tim partridge]

Awful. Blake Edwards without the irony. I could imagine Guy Hamilton at his campiest doing them. They were like something from a 1990s Renault Car commercial.

The worst part about the location titles, other than that they ruined some truy gorgeous location establishing shots, was that their "graffitti" nature actually messes with the geography of a scene. We've got al of that horrible editing to contend with as it is, but then additionally, especially whenever they labelled a hotel, they were "cleverly" rendered to appear as part of the building decor, only to fade off a split second before we cut to another shot!

I was wondering whether these gratuitous and tasteless titles were Forster's reaction to the horrid DVD-generated titles we have seen on recent Bond DVD releases. Will be interesting to see what they look like on home presentation!

[Harmsway]

I could imagine Guy Hamilton at his campiest doing them.

Hamilton was never that inventive.

[double o ego]

They weren't an issue.

[tim partridge]

I could imagine Guy Hamilton at his campiest doing them.

Hamilton was never that inventive.

You mean "destructive" The titles are on par with a Sammy Davis Jnr cameo. And at least the latter got cut from that movie.

[Zorin Industries]

Awful. Blake Edwards without the irony. I could imagine Guy Hamilton at his campiest doing them. They were like something from a 1990s Renault Car commercial.

The worst part about the location titles, other than that they ruined some truy gorgeous location establishing shots, was that their "graffitti" nature actually messes with the geography of a scene.

Good. This is not The Alan Whicker Show. This is not Bond as travelogue tour meister. This is a story. On film. And stories on film can do whatever they want to further their narrative - in this case, punctuating each new location so that the audience notices. One factor of ROYALE is a lot of the locations (Miami, the Bahamas, Montenegro) were all lit the same and featured non-descript times of day (no fault by the way) so the locations could sometimes meld into one. The titles were then generic, uniform and didn't 'tell' you where we were. There was no chance of that with these comic book title cards.

But is it really worth worrying about?

Can we stop giving the people who are still in nervous shock as they didn't like the film something to hang their hats on? Let them stick with "editing", "too much action" and "Bourne" as their way of damning QUANTUM OF SOLACE. The peasants have been given rare cognac and they think it tastes like bad cider. Let them find their cider and we'll sip the cognac in the private members bar.

[tim partridge]

Good. This is not The Alan Whicker Show. This is not Bond as travelogue tour meister.

Then how come he has themed, graffitti location titles that are straight out of a budget flights video? The locations should speak for themselves. I feel sorry for Dennis Gassner, Roberto Schaefer, the production managers and their respective crews who have selected and secured these amazing locations, waited for the perfect light and composed these gorgeous establishing shots, only to have them graffittied over with these tasteless 2D titles that dominate the images, before the editors drop us into endless mediums/close ups. With that attitude, why not just stay on the backlot?

As for all of that dismissive Cognac talk, there is no need to insult people who don't share your opinion. I myself actually loved a good 80% of QOS, but I am not blind to the faults I find with it. Last I looked this is a film franchise, not a church. Nobody unconnected to QOS is obliged to love this film 100%.

Edited by tim partridge, 07 November 2008 - 02:49 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Good. This is not The Alan Whicker Show. This is not Bond as travelogue tour meister.

Then how come he has themed, graffitti location titles that are straight out of a budget flights video? The locations should speak for themselves. I feel sorry for Dennis Gassner, Roberto Schaefer, the production managers and their respective crews who have selected and secured these amazing locations, waited for the perfect light and composed these gorgeous establishing shots, only to have them graffittied over with these tasteless 2D titles that dominate the images, before the editors drop us into endless mediums/close ups. With that attitude, why not just stay on the backlot?

There is more to filming something on location than endless establishing vistas straight out of a 1980's mini-series. Location is about texture, tone, attitude and style. If every new location is filmed from the same angles and labelled with the same fonts the locales of the story start to look the...same.

I really can't believe I'm defending an astute, clever and economic director's work on a Bond film....

[tim partridge]

There is more to filming something on location than endless establishing vistas straight out of a 1980's mini-series.

Yeah, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, RYAN'S DAUGHTER, or for Bond FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, MOONRAKER- ALL "straight out of a 1980s mini-series", of course.

I really can't believe I'm defending an astute, clever and economic director's work on a Bond film....

What's economic about spending millions of dollars shooting on real locations, only to cover up your wide shots with 2D graffitti and then cut to close ups that could have been shot on a backlot?

[Zorin Industries]

There is more to filming something on location than endless establishing vistas straight out of a 1980's mini-series.

Yeah, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, RYAN'S DAUGHTER, or for Bond FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, MOONRAKER- ALL "straight out of a 1980s mini-series", of course.

I really can't believe I'm defending an astute, clever and economic director's work on a Bond film....

What's economic about spending millions of dollars shooting on real locations, only to cover up your wide shots with 2D graffitti and then cut to close ups that could have been shot on a backlot?

I was not using "economic" in that context.

And it's all about style and visual panache. Bond wrote the book on it nearly fifty years ago which means that the audience have been there, done that.

All the films you mention in relation to shooting on location were made more than 30 years ago. Times have moved on - as have the reasons, practicalities and creative ethics of shooting abroad. You name one film in the last year that has filmed abroad in that style.

[tim partridge]

All the films you mention in relation to shooting on location were made more than 30 years ago. Times have moved on - as have the reasons, practicalities and creative ethics of shooting abroad. You name one film in the last year that has filmed abroad in that style.

Er, didn't the Kite Runner?

You say all of this as though "it's the current way, therefore it's the best way", like if something hasn't been made in the standard, conventional way of doing things within the last year then it is wrong. Can you honestly tell me that Indiana Jones IV is vastly superior to Raiders of the Lost Ark? In my opinion the standard of location shooting is David Lean, and everyone else is well, well, well below par. That kind of craftsmanship does not exist anymore, but the best of the bunch are always aiming to reach that standard. Name me a filmmaker from Spielberg to Roland Emmerich who doesn't rate Lean as a grandfather of the epic. I think if most filmmakers had the chance to do a Lean then they would. Forster and Scahefer's location photography on QOS was very Lean influenced, only inherently because they are making films in a post-Lean world. The only difference is that these are eclipsed by goofy, graffitti titles that signpost what we can already clearly see by the imagery. Why spoonfeed us what we can already see (and hear in the sound design and Arnold's score)? It just seemed like Forster's desperate attempt to tell everyone "Hey! I am not being diluted and opressed by this corporate franchise style! Look at me, I am so different, I am an auteur and so much better than the typical hack Bond director!" IMO without realising he's doing it all at the film's expense (same mistake Hamilton often made).

Edited by tim partridge, 07 November 2008 - 03:34 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

All the films you mention in relation to shooting on location were made more than 30 years ago. Times have moved on - as have the reasons, practicalities and creative ethics of shooting abroad. You name one film in the last year that has filmed abroad in that style.

Er, didn't the Kite Runner?

You say all of this as though "it's the current way, therefore it's the best way",

Yep. That is exactly what I'm saying in relation to the ever evolving nature of the James Bond 007 franchise. DR NO was not shot like LIVE AND LET DIE and LIVE AND LET DIE was not shot like TOMORROW NEVER DIES. Why? Because they were not shot in the same week as each other and trends, habits, technologies and budgets have also evolved.

...like if something hasn't been made in the standard, conventional way of doing things within the last year then it is wrong. Can you honestly tell me that Indiana Jones IV is vastly superior to Raiders of the Lost Ark?

That comparison has nothing to do with my or indeed your point here. The INDIANA JONES films are period adventure films who have to convey the tone and timbre of their cinematic inspirations. If anything, CRYSTAL SKULL was not shot nearly enough like a 1950's B-movie in the way the earlier films were shot very much in that 1930's cliffhanger style. But James Bond films are not period epics. They are set in a metaphorical "five minutes in the future" (Eon's sentiment for years).

In my opinion the standard of location shooting is David Lean, and everyone else is well, well, well below par. That kind of craftsmanship does not exist anymore, but the best of the bunch are always aiming to reach that standard.

Lean was indeed the master of wide shots and location grabbing imagery. But he didn't lense his films himself - the likes of Freddie Young did. And when Young shot YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE he focused as much on metallic corridors, hotel bedrooms and the visual tempo of the story as he did his lush Japan moments.

Because that is the world of Bond - Bond is about glamour granted. But that glamour is there in the tailoring, the choice of drinks, the technology surrounding the character, the eye candy (and not just the women), the cars, set dressing and hotel rooms more than it is in what beach we are on or how wide we can go with the lens.

Bond films are not and never have been WISH YOU WERE HERE fantasies for the people whose perceptions of glamourous locations is predicated on 1950's ads for Pan-Am.


Name me a filmmaker from Spielberg to Roland Emmerich who doesn't rate Lean as a grandfather of the epic. I think if most filmmakers had the chance to do a Lean then they would. Forster and Scahefer's location photography on QOS was very Lean influenced, only inherently because they are making films in a post-Lean world.

How do you know there work is "Lean influenced" when you complain that they didn't shoot it in that style?

The only difference is that these are eclipsed by goofy, graffitti titles that signpost what we can already clearly see by the imagery. Why spoonfeed us what we can already see (and hear in the sound design and Arnold's score)?

Film and cinema is an art form. It is about making creative decisions not pandering to the narrow views of people who are not film-makers. There is nothing goofy about the title cards in SOLACE. Far from it. I got from them a very contemporary design ethic heavily influenced by current visual presences such as Banksy.

[tim partridge]

Lean was indeed the master of wide shots and location grabbing imagery. But he didn't lense his films himself - the likes of Freddie Young did. And when Young shot YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE he focused as much on metallic corridors, hotel bedrooms and the visual tempo of the story as he did his lush Japan moments.

I think you undercredit Lean here too much, and Lewis Gilbert. Lean is widely regarded in the industry as an author of his images, who taught Young more than a thing or two about location photography. Lean would have the whole unit wait around for the perfect light (remember the stories about the 4 O'clock mark) when no other director (let alone DP) would dare impose such a perfectionist attention to detail. The same epic compositional style, blocking/camera movement and even lens selection as YOLT are used on both SWLM and MR too. Both Gibert and Lean were composing for the widescreen format, be that 65mm or anamorphic, and they were part of that generation of craftsmen (you can even see that eye for detail in the works of their "lesser" contemporaries also, such as John Guillerman). This isn't to sell Young short at all, he was a master of light and camera, but I think you will find certainly on those movies that what you got on screen was a collaboration.

Hey, Gilbert even directly references LAWRENCE, even down to quoting the score in SWLM, as we all know. Great minds.

How do you know there work is "Lean influenced" when you complain that they didn't shoot it in that style?

No, I said they DID shoot in that lush style, lovingly I might add, just that they pointlessly eclipsed the gorgeous footage with those goofy graffitti titles over the top (and then hacked the rest of it to pieces with needless Bourne editing). As far as the actual footage is concerned, especially the magic hour desert sequences (which Lean more or less authored himself), Schaefer and Forster were lovingly adhering to the classic model (and I hope Scahefer gets an Oscar nom at least).

Edited by tim partridge, 07 November 2008 - 04:01 PM.