or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Celebrating 50 Years of James Bond on Blu-ray
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Celebrating 50 Years of James Bond on Blu-ray - Page 2

post #31 of 686
Yes I also hope it's 22 keep cases.
Or perhaps 4 Aliens/ Star Wars boxes???
post #32 of 686
Thread Starter 
For people asking about extras, the PR does say there are all new extras so there is hope for a Quantum re-do
post #33 of 686
I would imagine that the US and UK discs will be identical as with the recent Alien and Star Wars box sets. Fox seems to enjoy using pressing/encoding if possible and that is fine by me.
post #34 of 686
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patsfan123 View Post

I would imagine that the US and UK discs will be identical as with the recent Alien and Star Wars box sets. Fox seems to enjoy using pressing/encoding if possible and that is fine by me.

The last Bond discs were not tho
post #35 of 686
The question is whether or not the duplicated titles in this set are the exact same encodes as before. If they aren't... are they superior or inferior? And did Fox slather on some crappy DNR to the old masters for good measure like with the infamous Predator "restoration??"

Since the DTS/Lowry restorations were kind of held hostage by MGM/UA's financial distress at the time, some of these unreleased titles may not have the same level of attention paid to them.

Some were 4k frame-by-frame restorations while others got dumbed down to 2k. All I know is that Mi Casa did get a chance to remix all of the classic Bonds to 5.1 .

I have two of the poor boxed sets from before and would love to get them in individual cases.
post #36 of 686
I only have the last Craig movies on Blu, and I never bought any in DVD, so this works for me.......My favorite is probably Gold Finger.
post #37 of 686
The 5.1 remix of Dr. No had some weird issues.
post #38 of 686
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

The question is whether or not the duplicated titles in this set are the exact same encodes as before. If they aren't... are they superior or inferior? And did Fox slather on some crappy DNR to the old masters for good measure like with the infamous Predator "restoration??"

Since the DTS/Lowry restorations were kind of held hostage by MGM/UA's financial distress at the time, some of these unreleased titles may not have the same level of attention paid to them.

Some were 4k frame-by-frame restorations while others got dumbed down to 2k. All I know is that Mi Casa did get a chance to remix all of the classic Bonds to 5.1 .

I have two of the poor boxed sets from before and would love to get them in individual cases.

They already had dnr of differing levels
post #39 of 686
Something about DTS/Lowry that AVS seems to collectively detest.
Tell me now, what is wrong on Aliens and the Star Wars Trilogy on a video quality level?
What fault do you find. To be fair the Bonds, Aliens, and Star Wars films were all done by them around 2004-2005, aside from that what did they actually do wrong?
post #40 of 686
All I want is Goldeneye.
post #41 of 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

They already had dnr of differing levels

True. I was happy with Dr No, but the rest of the Connery ones had over filtering issues with Thunderball being the worst. I suspect the transfers will be the same ones however.
post #42 of 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post

Something about DTS/Lowry that AVS seems to collectively detest.

Their whole process with the detail-enhancing interpolation, degraining and then regraining is objectionable, and is not necessary.
post #43 of 686
I sold off my set of thirteen Bond Blu-rays for five bucks each. Apply that to my Amazon preorder, and you are left with $135. I would have been more than happy to buy the nine unreleased titles for $15 each as standalone releases--which would have cost me exactly $135. So it looks like my out of pocket expense would be the same whether they released individual titles or a boxed set. Going with the boxed set won't cost more than I was going to pay for individuals, and now they will all share the same packaging. So I'm satisfied with how it all turned out.
post #44 of 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post

Something about DTS/Lowry that AVS seems to collectively detest.
Tell me now, what is wrong on Aliens and the Star Wars Trilogy on a video quality level?
What fault do you find. To be fair the Bonds, Aliens, and Star Wars films were all done by them around 2004-2005, aside from that what did they actually do wrong?

I have no problem with Lowry's intentions. But they really should've had a handle on their trademark 'floating grain' artefact, and what makes the 4K Bonds so frustrating is that Dr. No looks FABULOUS (to my eyes) but the PQ gets worse as the series goes on.

Star Wars is another that has that ****ing grain artefact all over it. Classic Lowry work from about 10 years ago. BUT Alien and Aliens look great to me because those transfers were done for the 2010 Blu-ray, not back in 2002 or whenever, so there's no sign of grain freezing up and pooling in giant patches on the screen etc.
post #45 of 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by paku View Post

Their whole process with the detail-enhancing interpolation, degraining and then regraining is objectionable, and is not necessary.

Unless you've seen what their source material looked like before their processing, you can't say definitively whether it's "necessary" or not.
post #46 of 686
Seems like a no-brainer for a set like this would be to include empty slots (depending on what kind of packaging is used) so that future films could be added to the box. They know that we know that James Bond Will Return, after all...
post #47 of 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by withnail View Post

Seems like a no-brainer for a set like this would be to include empty slots (depending on what kind of packaging is used) so that future films could be added to the box.

Yeah, but how many?
post #48 of 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Unless you've seen what their source material looked like before their processing, you can't say definitively whether it's "necessary" or not.

Since I have never read of people walking out on the early Bond films to protest the film quality when originally released. I would take the flawed original look over Lowrys smeared, grain hanging version any day. You can still see the print damage in the Thunderball BD making the Lowry smudging pointless. Sure a by hand full restoration would be best but Lowry's improvements' are not the next best thing even if it's the assumed home video preferred look, I like the film look better.
post #49 of 686
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post


Since I have never read of people walking out on the early Bond films to protest the film quality when originally released. I would take the flawed original look over Lowrys smeared, grain hanging version any day. You can still see the print damage in the Thunderball BD making the Lowry smudging pointless. Sure a by hand full restoration would be best but Lowry's improvements' are not the next best thing even if it's the assumed home video preferred look, I like the film look better.

I like the cut of your jib
post #50 of 686
Quote:


And did Fox slather on some crappy DNR to the old masters for good measure like with the infamous Predator "restoration??"

Jeez, hope you're not losing sleep over that.
post #51 of 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchu18 View Post

this is the only way to get you only live twice?

Great question! Why hasn't You Only Live Twice, the only one I really want that I don't have, not been released individually on BD? I bought the rest of the Connery's (save the abominable Never Say Never Again, which I pretend never happened) on BD for 10 clams each. Anyone know what's holding this one up?
post #52 of 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

For people asking about extras, the PR does say there are all new extras so there is hope for a Quantum re-do

QOS needs to be re-edited badly! The ADD editing of 5 cuts within a second are nausea inducing. If I had a licence to kill the editor and director as Marc Foster pushed the editor to speed up the flashcutting would have both been dead 4 years ago upon the film's release.

Their are far better action sequences here than showed up in the final print of the film.
post #53 of 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Great question! Why hasn't You Only Live Twice, the only one I really want that I don't have, not been released individually on BD? I bought the rest of the Connery's (save the abominable Never Say Never Again, which I pretend never happened) on BD for 10 clams each. Anyone know what's holding this one up?

MGM's bankruptcy troubles put the remainder of the series on hold. That's what is annoying some people (like me) about this release. The only way to get the previously unreleased Blu-rays is by buying this boxed set, thereby re-buying the ones we already have.

I will wait for the inevitable release of the individual films I want. Since the DVD days, the Bond films are usually released as boxed sets before the single releases come out. I have never bought Bond in sets (save for laserdisc) because there are some films (ALL of Moore's, all but one of Brosnan's) that I do not wish to buy.
post #54 of 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18 Brumaire View Post

MGM's bankruptcy troubles put the remainder of the series on hold. That's what is annoying some people (like me) about this release. The only way to get the previously unreleased Blu-rays is by buying this boxed set, thereby re-buying the ones we already have.

It's odd that they released Thunderball which came just before, but Diamonds Are Forever and this one are not out in BD yet, with no release date even scheduled that I can find. The only other one I want is On Her Majesty's Secret Service and that's another one without an individual BD release. I can sort of understand that one; it was a different Bond. But I don't understand why they would release some of the Connery's but not those two. Is it because the others were released before this MGM bankruptcy situation and the pipeline was simply interrupted?

They've got 'em in this box set, so they exist. That's what puzzles me.
post #55 of 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

They've got 'em in this box set, so they exist. That's what puzzles me.

^yeah me also... I have not purchased a single JB BD because I wanted you only live twice as my first best bond purchase... still waiting MGM
post #56 of 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Since I have never read of people walking out on the early Bond films to protest the film quality when originally released.

And you assume that the film elements are in the exact same condition today as they were 50 years ago?

Quote:


I would take the flawed original look over Lowrys smeared, grain hanging version any day. You can still see the print damage in the Thunderball BD making the Lowry smudging pointless. Sure a by hand full restoration would be best but Lowry's improvements' are not the next best thing even if it's the assumed home video preferred look, I like the film look better.

I was extremely critical of the Thunderball Blu-ray when it was released. Mine was one of the few negative reviews of that disc on the net at the time. So don't think I'm giving Lowry a free pass here.

However, your blanket condemnation of everything they do is misguided at best. You can't claim that these movies would be better without Lowry processing without seeing what the source looked like prior to the processing.

Despite their flaws, most of the Bond Blu-rays look far, far better than any previous video editions of the films.
post #57 of 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

It's odd that they released Thunderball which came just before, but Diamonds Are Forever and this one are not out in BD yet, with no release date even scheduled that I can find. The only other one I want is On Her Majesty's Secret Service and that's another one without an individual BD release. I can sort of understand that one; it was a different Bond. But I don't understand why they would release some of the Connery's but not those two. Is it because the others were released before this MGM bankruptcy situation and the pipeline was simply interrupted?

Seems to me that you've answered your own question.

MGM did not release these movies in chronological order. They mixed and matched films from different periods. The intention was to have them all out a couple years ago, but that process was stalled when MGM ran out of money.
post #58 of 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Seems to me that you've answered your own question.

MGM did not release these movies in chronological order. They mixed and matched films from different periods. The intention was to have them all out a couple years ago, but that process was stalled when MGM ran out of money.

Not really. My point/question is, since they've apparently already spent the money to create the BD versions, releasing them individually would not seem to be something that would require an additional large expenditure. Especially considering doing so would make them money. I have no interest in buying the whole set, but I'd buy these 2 films I want but don't have today if they were available.
post #59 of 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Not really. My point/question is, since they've apparently already spent the money to create the BD versions, releasing them individually would not seem to be something that would require an additional large expenditure. Especially considering doing so would make them money. I have no interest in buying the whole set, but I'd buy these 2 films I want but don't have today if they were available.

They like to release them as sets first to get the most bucks. They did it that way with the DVDs and then the Blus before they issued the singles. That way, they can sell the ones you or I might not buy along with the ones we want. After they have exhausted sales of the set, they will almost certainly offer them singly. They are, after all, in this to make money. I wish the singles were coming out as well, and do not plan to get the set. But it's what it is. It's not number one on my list of Blu-ray gripes by a long shot.
post #60 of 686
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

And you assume that the film elements are in the exact same condition today as they were 50 years ago?



I was extremely critical of the Thunderball Blu-ray when it was released. Mine was one of the few negative reviews of that disc on the net at the time. So don't think I'm giving Lowry a free pass here.

However, your blanket condemnation of everything they do is misguided at best. You can't claim that these movies would be better without Lowry processing without seeing what the source looked like prior to the processing.

Despite their flaws, most of the Bond Blu-rays look far, far better than any previous video editions of the films.

Some of them looked good, I saw Goldfinger at 4k (or so I was told) and it looked better than the BD.
But in saying that I would rather watch a chemically restored 35mm print than anything digital warts and all
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Celebrating 50 Years of James Bond on Blu-ray