I know United States Of Tara and True Blood is the top contender and Fringe’s title can’t beat them. But I think it looks better than Taking Chance’s title.

Is this another one of those “anything SciFi don’t get nominated for awards” thing again? I hope not. Yeah, it’s very brief and cartoony, and the words get repeated, but something about it makes me want to watch it over and over, some time more than ten times, consecutively. I hope I’m not the only one.

i’m not sure there were any major “incidents” that created the discord between my friend and his coworkers. he’s definitely his own personality, and maybe some thing it can be polarizing. i like him a lot, and think he’s very talented. he’s a hard worker, and stays up all hours of the night to get a job done, and his contributions to this job was no exception.

i think it was just a personality conflict more than anything. he didn’t sabotage any jobs, didn’t sleep with the creative director’s girlfriend (i don’t think!), so yeah, i think just different people not jiving.

still doesn’t excuse the omission in my opinion. i think it’s just an ego thing, and using this as a way to “get even” perhaps? not sure, again, you have to ask the ones responsible.

another (dk) friend DID inform me that the Emmy’s used to have a four credit limit, and that in large part thanks to dk, they increased the number to six. that would explain the non-crediting i guess, but still doesn’t excuse not letting my friend show the project on his own site, assuming the proper credits are given.

…ryan

The Company’s title sequence was definitely well executed with great transition, while Mad Men’s, from technical stand point, look very unpolished and more lazy than minimalistic. However I think the concept is where it was decided.

Just look at the use of symbolism: The Company’s title’s symbolism is way too literal and blatant compared to those found in Mad Men’s title, which are more subtle and leaves room to many interpretation.

The stylized homage to hitchcock could have just been random imagery but because of the nature of the show, there’s a feeling by everyone that there’s more to it than that.

It’s like a very well written beautiful verse fighting against a mediocre Poem. Of course the Poem is still going to win.

After reading it quite thoroughly several times (I wanted to make sure there is no misunderstanding on my part) I feel that your main point is: Digital Kitchen treated your friend differently than they did with the guy who worked on the main title for “The Company”. And you don’t know WHY.

Well the answer to that WHY is most likely this BEEF your friend had with the staffers. At least that’s what I gathered from your message. So I am asking now, what were they arguing about?

“It’s private” is not acceptable because this whole “not crediting your friend” thing is also a private matter, which was brought up anyway and, whether intentionally or not, put Digital Kitchen in a very bad light. It makes no sense to respect your friend’s privacy but violate Digital Kitchen’s.

You can claim that it doesn’t matter. The guy could have been a serial killer, a credit should goes to whoever it is due. Not necessary. Especially since this beef could have been work related. And it did occurred at around the time True Blood title sequence was in production right? Until we know what it was.. which could have been argument over a parking space… we can’t be hundred percent sure.

I am not taking side with Digital Kitchen, it’s just that I learned pretty early in life not to jump on a bandwagon to bring down a heroic figure within an industry.

Your friend did contribute a lot to the work as far as I’m concern. He set up the concept and mood and tone. So much so that it would appear no matter how bad this BEEF was, not crediting him was ever going to be justified.

Still, it is a missing part of the story.

My opinion is that Digital Kitchen did not handled this very well. As the party that decided to keep things under wrap, they are more likely to look guilty. But then without knowing the whole story, they could have been trying to protect your friend as much as they were trying to protect themselves.

I once worked on a project with a person that slack off, lied about being sick, and in the end even tried to sabotage our works. Despite finding out about this person’s true nature, due to time limit, his very small contribution still made it onto the final rendering. I credited this person anyway, even though this person betrayed us and only drew the head of a main character (not torso, not even the eyes), and I did the concept, the art direction, character designs, and me and two other guys did background and other character animation. But I credit this person because just because I don’t want there to be any problem… problem like this. But I didn’t feel like I had to do it. And I definitely would not feel like a bad person if I want to take this person’s name off the project, even though his design of main character’s head pretty much float around throughout the entire music video.

This, I think, plays a bigger role than the Emmys are probably willing to admit.

Unfortunately it looks like the people at DK got a biiiiiiit too inspired.

Having watched the documentary a few times, there are scenes in the True Blood open that are lifted directly from Searching For The Wrong Eyed Jesus.

If they win this or any award…i could care less. But something i do care about is the lack of ethics that most studios show. ..

That being said, I must counter your assessment of the boarding artist’s contribution to the COMPANY titles. As someone who worked on the project and was among the nominees, I believe that his boards define the very look, feel and style of the piece. The artist’s inclusion in the nominee list was consulted with other artists involved. The fact that he was no longer at DK at the time only validates the worth of his contribution as companies will rarely go to such lengths to give credit where credit is due.

- Igor