62 replies to this topic

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Kleinman is an Artist! MK12 were just "second level programmers... working on the guidance system."

[Vauxhall]

Nice. I had no major issues with MK12, but I think Sam Mendes will have a particular vision of what he'd like for the SKYFALL titles and Daniel Kleinman is probably the best man to realise that vision.

[glidrose]

Hopefully Kleinman can return to his GoldenEye form. I thought those titles were excellent, but the titles for TND-CR didn't quite measure up to that standard.

Agreed. The TND-CR titles suffer (like much of Maurice Binder's later work) from being over-cluttered.

Really? I thought the DAD titles were one of the best of the series. I'd agree about TND though, a little unimaginative.

Strongly disagree. The TND credits remind me of Raymond Hawkey's jackets on the original Len Deighton novels. Shame the names go by so fast. Still don't understand why that was/is.

[The Shark]

Hopefully Kleinman can return to his GoldenEye form. I thought those titles were excellent, but the titles for TND-CR didn't quite measure up to that standard.

Agreed. The TND-CR titles suffer (like much of Maurice Binder's later work) from being over-cluttered.

Really? I thought the DAD titles were one of the best of the series. I'd agree about TND though, a little unimaginative.

I thought showing Bond's torture was a brave idea, but it gets lost in the crap song, ice/fire/electric girls doing cheesy poses (those go all the way back to Kleinman's music video for LICENCE TO KILL), scorpions, and so on.

Look to Robert Brownjohn's titles. Less is more. No need to throw in hundreds of guns, girls and fx when one or two will do the job.

[S K Y F A L L]

Good news for sure. On the gunbarrel note, I think it would be perfect to shoot a real gun barrel with a pinhole camera again. With today's cameras you could get an awesome look. Also, put the morse codey bleeps from the very start of Dr No right before the white dots and Bond theme punch in!

The bleeps would be to good to be true.

[Simon]

This is good news - genuinely look forward to seeing his work again on Bond.

[JB007YH]

Im pumped, hopefully they bring back the silhouetted girls. That would be a nice 50th anniversary nod. Its a way of being nostalgic but not affecting the actual plot just to force something

[talos7]

I am a big fan of the effects company Framestore cfc. They worked with Klienman on Casino Royale. I hope they also return. Here is an article about that title sequence.
http://www.digitalar...ws/?NewsID=6611

[The Shark]

I am a big fan of the effects company Framestore cfc. They worked with Klienman on Casino Royale. I hope they also return. Here is an article about that title sequence.
http://www.digitalar...ws/?NewsID=6611

The title sequence was good, but the digital grading job they did on CASINO ROYALE was horrible.

[talos7]

I am a big fan of the effects company Framestore cfc. They worked with Klienman on Casino Royale. I hope they also return. Here is an article about that title sequence.
http://www.digitalar...ws/?NewsID=6611

The title sequence was good, but the digital grading job they did on CASINO ROYALE was horrible.

Hmmm, how so? In the theater and on Blu-ray,Casino Royale was the best looking Bond film since the Connery era. It is often sited as on of the top Blu-rays when it comes to picture quality.

[Double-0-Seven]

I am a big fan of the effects company Framestore cfc. They worked with Klienman on Casino Royale. I hope they also return. Here is an article about that title sequence.
http://www.digitalar...ws/?NewsID=6611

The title sequence was good, but the digital grading job they did on CASINO ROYALE was horrible.

Hmmm, how so? In the theater and on Blu-ray,Casino Royale was the best looking Bond film since the Connery era. It is often sited as on of the top Blu-rays when it comes to picture quality.

I couldn't agree more. The quality is outstanding. It's even nicer than Quantum of Solace.

I'm very glad that Kleinman is back. His work is excellent. Aside from the font, I was not a fan of Quantum's titles. Very bland.

Presuming a proper gun barrel will be in place, I wonder if Kleinman will update it for the Craig era or just use the Brosnan one. I wouldn't mind an update but part of me hopes for the Brosnan one. It still looks good.

[The Shark]

I am a big fan of the effects company Framestore cfc. They worked with Klienman on Casino Royale. I hope they also return. Here is an article about that title sequence.
http://www.digitalar...ws/?NewsID=6611

The title sequence was good, but the digital grading job they did on CASINO ROYALE was horrible.

Hmmm, how so? In the theater and on Blu-ray,Casino Royale was the best looking Bond film since the Connery era.

No way. Jean Tournier's stunning work on MOONRAKER and and what Phil Meheux did earlier on GOLDENEYE tower above CASINO ROYALE oversaturated, digitalised look . Hell, even David Tattersall's lensing for DIE ANTOHER DAY's Cuban scenes was more appealing.

[00Twelve]

I am a big fan of the effects company Framestore cfc. They worked with Klienman on Casino Royale. I hope they also return. Here is an article about that title sequence.
http://www.digitalar...ws/?NewsID=6611

The title sequence was good, but the digital grading job they did on CASINO ROYALE was horrible.

Hmmm, how so? In the theater and on Blu-ray,Casino Royale was the best looking Bond film since the Connery era.

No way. Jean Tournier's stunning work on MOONRAKER and and what Phil Meheux did earlier on GOLDENEYE tower above CASINO ROYALE oversaturated, digitalised look . Hell, even David Tattersall's lensing for DIE ANTOHER DAY's Cuban scenes was more appealing.

MOONRAKER was absolutely my top priority for starting my Bond Blu-ray collection (it's still the only one I have).

While I love CR's title sequence and have nothing bad to say about it, I'd be floored if they went back to something as simple as Brownjohn's FRWL titles. That's one of the best title sequences in the series IMO.

[Dustin]

I am a big fan of the effects company Framestore cfc. They worked with Klienman on Casino Royale. I hope they also return. Here is an article about that title sequence.
http://www.digitalar...ws/?NewsID=6611

The title sequence was good, but the digital grading job they did on CASINO ROYALE was horrible.

Hmmm, how so? In the theater and on Blu-ray,Casino Royale was the best looking Bond film since the Connery era.

No way. Jean Tournier's stunning work on MOONRAKER and and what Phil Meheux did earlier on GOLDENEYE tower above CASINO ROYALE oversaturated, digitalised look . Hell, even David Tattersall's lensing for DIE ANTOHER DAY's Cuban scenes was more appealing.

Actually I haven't heard much complaints about CR's look in general. Why do you think that should be? I haven't seen it in some time now, but I wouldn't say I'm entirely beyond recognising a faulty, botched job myself. Is this some fashion-thingy perhaps? A fad that just doesn't appeal to you?

[The Shark]

A fad that just doesn't appeal to you?

Digital grading.

[talos7]

Digital grading is a very useful tool. It can't replace the basics but is a wonderful way for a director to work with an image. Here is a short feature on digital grading.

[Dustin]

Oh, thank you, I've seen that (back when I actually watched DVD bonus features). I just don't get why anybody should feel it's a bad thing. It's a tool of the trade, experts use it. You either like it, or not.

But it's probably as good a thing to pick on as any other thing, isn't it? At a rough guess I'd say 90 per cent of any given audience would not be able to put a finger on it - if they aren't told about it.

Edited by Dustin, 04 July 2012 - 02:58 PM.

[Royal Dalton]

The problem was how they used it. Not the tool itself.

[Dustin]

The problem was how they used it. Not the tool itself.

I get that. I just can't see CR had an oversaturated look. Or worse perhaps, a LOTR look. If it had I would immediately get the complaints.

[Shrublands]

And films have always been graded; this is just a (comparatively) new way of doing it.

[Harmsway]

CASINO ROYALE *does* have an unnaturally over-saturated look. But personally, I kinda dig it.

[Dustin]

CASINO ROYALE *does* have an unnaturally over-saturated look. But personally, I kinda dig it.

Not on my telly it doesn't. Could be I need a new telly then...

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

That is exciting news to me, correct me if I'm wrong but Daniel Kleinman did the title sequence from GE to CR , right?

Yes. And He also directed the music video for Licence To Kill title song. That's where all started.

Personally, I don't care much about his work on the Brosnan era; but I think his work in the main titles sequence for CR it's the best from the whole Bond series.

[The Shark]

And films have always been graded; this is just a (comparatively) new way of doing it.

And considerably uglier.

[Major Tallon]

I wouldn't know digital grading from finger painting, but I find the "Casino Royale" titles imaginitive and well-executed, with considerable visual appeal.

[marktmurphy]

Look to Robert Brownjohn's titles. Less is more. No need to throw in hundreds of guns, girls and fx when one or two will do the job.

Goldfinger's design (titles and poster) are the classiest the series has ever had (and look: a photographic poster! Shock!); Brownjohn did know what he was doing.

But I don't think it has to be simple to look great.

[The Shark]

Look to Robert Brownjohn's titles. Less is more. No need to throw in hundreds of guns, girls and fx when one or two will do the job.

Goldfinger's design (titles and poster) are the classiest the series has ever had (and look: a photographic poster! Shock!); Brownjohn did know what he was doing.

But I don't think it has to be simple to look great.

True. Simple can also be pretty dull (i.e. the QOS teaser poster, CR theatrical etc.). It's more about the striking imagery (the hand) and contrast of the black and gold, in combination with the simplicity that makes the GF poster/title sequence so bloody amazing.

[Shrublands]

And films have always been graded; this is just a (comparatively) new way of doing it.

And considerably uglier.

Many films were badly graded using the old photo-chemical procedure, many films have been beautifully graded using a digital intermediate and, obviously, vice versa. The very same saturated look, seen in CR, could well have been achieved using traditional photo-chemical methods, had someone chosen to do so.

[Dustin]

And films have always been graded; this is just a (comparatively) new way of doing it.

And considerably uglier.

Many films were badly graded using the old photo-chemical procedure, many films have been beautifully graded using a digital intermediate and, obviously, vice versa. The very same saturated look, seen in CR, could well have been achieved using traditional photo-chemical methods, had someone chosen to do so.

Well, it's obviously eye-of-the-beholder-territory. The Shark wouldn't like CR's look one bit better if it had been done conventionally; Harmsway wouldn't like it less, and I don't care either way because I don't regard myself an authority on such matters; I merely enjoy a film and that's it for me.

[Shrublands]

And films have always been graded; this is just a (comparatively) new way of doing it.

And considerably uglier.

Many films were badly graded using the old photo-chemical procedure, many films have been beautifully graded using a digital intermediate and, obviously, vice versa. The very same saturated look, seen in CR, could well have been achieved using traditional photo-chemical methods, had someone chosen to do so.

Well, it's obviously eye-of-the-beholder-territory. The Shark wouldn't like CR's look one bit better if it had been done conventionally; Harmsway wouldn't like it less, and I don't care either way because I don't regard myself an authority on such matters; I merely enjoy a film and that's it for me.

I like it too. I’m just stressing that how it was achieved is not particularly important - that its look is not some sort of ‘casualty’ of the dreaded digital.

Having said that, I do love reading statements like this from Mr Deakins.

Let's get real here. The supposedly 'new way' of saying you will create the look you want in post is absolutely bull! And I do mean absolute bull! It's just an excuse used by people who have no idea what they want. Just stop and think for a moment. In a digital medium, just as with film, it is a fact that the closer your original is to the 'look' you are after the more flexibility you will have in post and the less 'processed' that image will look. Some might say that that's OK, they say they don't mind the processed look, in fact that's what they were after. Well that's bull as well.