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 3

post #61 of 690
1/13/12 at 6:25pm
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?

The often made claim that original negatives of popular films are in worse (or far worse) shape is a myth. They are rarley used and as a result in overall same shape as back years ago.

The same nonsense statements were made repeatly, including by many 'experts', about Stars Wars and Star Trek TOS on being heavily deteriorated due to 'over use'. One only has to look at the SW & ST Bds to see this was patently false, any issues they is a result of the 'improvements' for 'home video tastes' not the original source 'gone bad'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

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

Using the home video is the standard to go by excuse, thanks for proving my point. My standard is film and a superior standard it is even compared to 1080p.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

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

Yep warts and all is what I want but the home video standard back when Lowry was doing the Bond films sadly was too often remove the warts through automatic filtering no matter what the cost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18 Brumaire View Post

MGM's bankruptcy troubles put the remainder of the series on hold.

MGM's bankruptcy troubles are supposedly over (unless I missed new problems) and has not stopped MGM from releasing quite a few catalog titles since the Bond films.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #62 of 690
1/14/12 at 9:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

The often made claim that original negatives of popular films are in worse (or far worse) shape is a myth. They are rarley used and as a result in overall same shape as back years ago.

The same nonsense statements were made repeatly, including by many 'experts', about Stars Wars and Star Trek TOS on being heavily deteriorated due to 'over use'. One only has to look at the SW & ST Bds to see this was patently false, any issues they is a result of the 'improvements' for 'home video tastes' not the original source 'gone bad'.

You're just an armchair quarterback who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. The Star Wars negatives had actually turned to pink and had to be extensively restored at great expense. Those movies didn't just magically look OK when they were released on video.

The Bond films have a long history of being mistreated. The amount of film damage that's still visible in the Thunderball Blu-ray shows you what they were up against. You didn't think Lowry added the film damage, did you?

I happen to agree with you that Thunderball and a couple of the other Blu-rays look too "processed." But that processing may have been a necessary evil to fix something that would have been even worse.

Quote:
Using the home video is the standard to go by excuse, thanks for proving my point. My standard is film and a superior standard it is even compared to 1080p.

You haven't seen the film elements. Therefore, you have no such standard to judge against. You're talking out of your butt, as is an unfortunate habit of those who post under anonymous screen names on internet forums.

Quote:
Yep warts and all is what I want but the home video standard back when Lowry was doing the Bond films sadly was too often remove the warts through automatic filtering no matter what the cost.

People who say they want "warts and all" are typically those who have never seen the warts.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 690
1/14/12 at 10:41am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

You're just an armchair quarterback who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. The Star Wars negatives had actually turned to pink and had to be extensively restored at great expense. Those movies didn't just magically look OK when they were released on video.

The Bond films have a long history of being mistreated. The amount of film damage that's still visible in the Thunderball Blu-ray shows you what they were up against. You didn't think Lowry added the film damage, did you?

I happen to agree with you that Thunderball and a couple of the other Blu-rays look too "processed." But that processing may have been a necessary evil to fix something that would have been even worse.


.
You haven't seen the film elements. Therefore, you have no such standard to judge against. You're talking out of your butt, as is an unfortunate habit of those who post under anonymous screen names on internet forums.



People who say they want "warts and all" are typically those who have never seen the warts.


Burns, scratches, color fades are fine with me.
Look at Hardware its a great looking transfer with some issues including those posted but it looks like film, I like the look.
restorations are fine and dandy but digital additions and subtractions are a bad thing in my view.
But that is a personal view, and I know people wont all like the same.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 690
1/14/12 at 6:04pm
Sorry to others for this long post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The Bond films have a long history of being mistreated. The amount of film damage that's still visible in the Thunderball Blu-ray shows you what they were up against.

Ha. Lowry states themself in License to Restore that with new scans of the negatives they got what the audiences saw originally and then go on to start how they improved (their word) it by removing hairs (ok), evening out the film grain (bad), fix strobing (ok), scrubbing optical (thank goodness Lowry did not get it hands on the old stop motion effect films on BD), etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

You didn't think Lowry added the film damage, did you?

????? You mean when I said I would take the flawed original look over Lowrys smeared, grain hanging version? You are going in circles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

You haven't seen the film elements. Therefore, you have no such standard to judge against. You're talking out of your butt, as is an unfortunate habit of those who post under anonymous screen names on internet forums.

What crybaby talk. You are now resorting to personal insults because you painted yourself into a corner? Lowry gives the 'before' shots again in License to Restore. Is someone forcing you to read posts here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

People who say they want "warts and all" are typically those who have never seen the warts.

I have been going to theathers to watch film since the 70's. The movies had warts back then straight to the earliy 90's, I know this because I saw with my own eyes on the big srceen and not by watching home videos, certainly not by assuming revisionist home videos is how films have always looked like.

Simply going to theaters projecting old film today confrims the warts and yet still nobody grumbles in the audience and nobody walks out dispite your claims otherwise. The automatic warts removing that you think is ok is what makes it no longer looking like film, instead it is turned into the video look.

Anyway I am done with this circular argument that home video is best because its home video nonsense.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 690
1/16/12 at 9:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

I have been going to theathers to watch film since the 70's. The movies had warts back then straight to the earliy 90's, I know this because I saw with my own eyes on the big srceen and not by watching home videos, certainly not by assuming revisionist home videos is how films have always looked like.

Do you think that what you saw in theaters 40 years ago was the original negative???

You don't know what condition the negative is currently in, because you have not seen it.

Quote:
Lowry states themself in License to Restore that with new scans of the negatives they got what the audiences saw

This is obviously marketing talk, enormously simplified to explain the process to average viewers who won't understand the technical details.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 690
1/16/12 at 10:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

I have been going to theathers to watch film since the 70's. The movies had warts back then straight to the earliy 90's, I know this because I saw with my own eyes on the big srceen and not by watching home videos, certainly not by assuming revisionist home videos is how films have always looked like.

Simply going to theaters projecting old film today confrims the warts and yet still nobody grumbles in the audience and nobody walks out dispite your claims otherwise. The automatic warts removing that you think is ok is what makes it no longer looking like film, instead it is turned into the video look.

Anyway I am done with this circular argument that home video is best because its home video nonsense.

What Josh said!

I can't count the number of times in the 70's and 80's that I saw film splices (or even missing frames) during screenings in local theaters. The film broke and they spliced it back together. Using your logic, that's the way the studio intended it to look.

You weren't watching the original, you were watching a copy. The original intent of the director & cinematographer is what home video should try to emulate. Usually, that means removing warts. There's nothing "nostalgic" about warts as far as film preservation goes. The only nostalgia associated with film warts was our experience in the theater. But, in most cases, those warts aren't supposed to be there.

Mark
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 690
1/16/12 at 1:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Burns, scratches, color fades are fine with me.
Look at Hardware its a great looking transfer with some issues including those posted but it looks like film, I like the look.
restorations are fine and dandy but digital additions and subtractions are a bad thing in my view.
But that is a personal view, and I know people wont all like the same.

Acknowledging you qualified your comments, I think the implication that any digital modification being bad is misplaced. Neither you nor I know what the elements of Dr No looked like when Lowry went to work on it. While it may look filtered, other than that it is very impressive. Digital manipulation is an art. Correcting faded color, removing scratches and so on can make the result closer to the original film image. This can and does have a positive result as long as it is done with care.

Some efforts overdo noise reduction. Then they compound it by trying to restore what they erased. Warner used too much DNR on Casablanca, but their effort on TOTSM and The Maltese Falcon clearly indicate a positive way to use digital correction and not destroy the film like image.

Just because a heavy handed approach is common, think Universal, doesn't mean you always have to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 690
1/16/12 at 1:53pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by egrady View Post

Acknowledging you qualified your comments, I think the implication that any digital modification being bad is misplaced. Neither you nor I know what the elements of Dr No looked like when Lowry went to work on it. While it may look filtered, other than that it is very impressive. Digital manipulation is an art. Correcting faded color, removing scratches and so on can make the result closer to the original film image. This can and does have a positive result as long as it is done with care.

Some efforts overdo noise reduction. Then they compound it by trying to restore what they erased. Warner used too much DNR on Casablanca, but their effort on TOTSM and The Maltese Falcon clearly indicate a positive way to use digital correction and not destroy the film like image.

Just because a heavy handed approach is common, think Universal, doesn't mean you always have to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Its a preference, I prefer no DNR and no digital manipulation.
Its the same with effects work and, just because there is a digital way for doing thing does not mean the old way is no longer valid.
I know that some films are in worse shape than others, but there is something way more natural and filmic to my eyes in analogue processes.
The Bond movies mostly look good,very good in places but the work they did, its unfortunately visible same with Aliens (this is their best motion picture work in my eyes).
This is the way of the digital world we live in, and yes I am stuck living in this world, so while Lowry are not on my good list and beat the DNR of Universal et al but its still DNR.
If Universal added fake grin would some circles be signing different tunes?
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 690
1/16/12 at 2:23pm
FYI John D. Lowry and his team recently won scientific award on oscar...
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 690
1/16/12 at 2:35pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinsert View Post

FYI John D. Lowry and his team recently won scientific award on oscar...

Yep they are unfailable



Also a PREFERENCE....
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 690
1/16/12 at 4:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post

What Josh said!

I can't count the number of times in the 70's and 80's that I saw film splices (or even missing frames) during screenings in local theaters. The film broke and they spliced it back together. Using your logic, that's the way the studio intended it to look.

You weren't watching the original, you were watching a copy. The original intent of the director & cinematographer is what home video should try to emulate. Usually, that means removing warts. There's nothing "nostalgic" about warts as far as film preservation goes. The only nostalgia associated with film warts was our experience in the theater. But, in most cases, those warts aren't supposed to be there.

Mark

What about titles, crossfades, etc that were completed photochemically via optical printing? Those cause a noticeable drop in quality but are part of the final cut of a film, thus have been part of the film since day 1. Is it incumbent upon studios to remove those anomolies?
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 690
1/16/12 at 8:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

What about titles, crossfades, etc that were completed photochemically via optical printing? Those cause a noticeable drop in quality but are part of the final cut of a film, thus have been part of the film since day 1. Is it incumbent upon studios to remove those anomolies?

Those anomalies weren't part of the intended look and feel of the story, they were limitations in the technology. Technology marches on.

Mark
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 690
1/17/12 at 12:43pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post


Those anomalies weren't part of the intended look and feel of the story, they were limitations in the technology. Technology marches on.

Mark

Does not mean you have to automatically retrofit
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 690
1/17/12 at 1:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post

Those anomalies weren't part of the intended look and feel of the story, they were limitations in the technology. Technology marches on.

Mark

Intentions don't matter. What matters is the final product and that product should be preserved for better or worse.

IMO.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 690
1/17/12 at 1:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post

Those anomalies weren't part of the intended look and feel of the story, they were limitations in the technology. Technology marches on.

So... re-mix everything into 7.1, colorize the black-and-white and convert them all to 3D?
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 690
1/17/12 at 3:02pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post


So... re-mix everything into 7.1, colorize the black-and-white and convert them all to 3D?

And spy kids smell o vision
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 690
1/18/12 at 10:37am
Anyone who is a fan of the Bond music may want to check their local orchestras to see if they will be playing the tunes locally.

http://www.seattlesymphony.org/symph....aspx?id=10627

http://www.indianapolissymphony.org/...e.aspx?id=4372
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 690
1/18/12 at 4:56pm
Any news about individual disc releases? I haven't heard any, so I assume that those of us who have bought the Bond BDs up to this point are screwed into double dipping if we want to own the remaining ones.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 690
3/19/12 at 8:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gorthocar View Post

Any news about individual disc releases? I haven't heard any, so I assume that those of us who have bought the Bond BDs up to this point are screwed into double dipping if we want to own the remaining ones.

I'm guessing they will have individual releases of the Bond films later on down the road. Probably in 6 month to a year maybe?

It is a bit strange to only offer the box set as MGM has in years past been very good about doing box sets and having the films available individually.

I for one am very excited about the box set. I actually just sold all of my Bond blu rays as well to prepare for the new set.

My biggest questions are what the specs will be for the films and extras in the new set.
I also am hoping that the Casino Royale Collector's Edition is included along with hopefully the Quantum of Solace Collector's Edition. The work on Quantum CE was done a long time ago, but the release was held up by MGM's financial woes.

Lastly hoping that more trailers, tv spots and radio spots are included in the set. The current Moonraker blu ray and Ultimate Edition DVD for example only has 1 trailer, no radio spots or tv spots.

It will be great to finally have all of the Bond films on blu ray. The last 9 films have been a long wait!! Crazy stuff considering the mastering work for these films was completed in 2005!!!
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 690
5/20/12 at 4:30pm
A bit OT ... but the first trailer for Skyfall will be online tomorrow.

"The first trailer for SKYFALL will be released here on 007.com on Monday 21st May at 8.30am BST."

http://www.007.com/skyfall/
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 690
5/20/12 at 5:35pm
Is James Bond in Skyfall? He was missing from the last two films...
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 690
5/20/12 at 8:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDad View Post

A bit OT ... but the first trailer for Skyfall will be online tomorrow.

"The first trailer for SKYFALL will be released here on 007.com on Monday 21st May at 8.30am BST."

http://www.007.com/skyfall/

Yes!! I am very excited about the first teaser trailer!

Looking forward to more information on the Bond 50 blu ray set too.

OHMSS and Diamonds are both being screened digitally at Cannes this week. Would like to hear reviews of both as they have both not previously been issued on blu ray.

Also.. the 007 Bond Legends video game is posting some game video on Monday too!
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 690
5/20/12 at 10:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJPete View Post

Is James Bond in Skyfall? He was missing from the last two films...

Well, the guy who replaced him was awesome, so it's all good.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 690
5/21/12 at 11:18am
September 25th street date.

Quote:
Special Features:

· DISC TWENTY THREE - Bonus Material

o NEW - The World of Bond - the 007 films have a look, style and attitude that is signature Bond. From the cars, to the women, to the villains and even the music, Bond films stand apart. The World of Bond takes the viewer through the best of five decades worth of classic James Bond in one thrilling montage. The World of Bond showcases the fascinating and entertaining interplay among unforgettable moments of danger, seduction, adventure and a dash of that distinguished humor that fans have cherished from the beginning up until now. To add to the experience, The World of Bond featurette will also offer a Pop-Up Trivia option to challenge even the sharpest of fans with little known facts and interesting trivia from the Bond Universe.

o NEW - Being Bond - there's only one James Bond - but he's proven too much for only one actor to play the role. In the franchise's 50-year run, six distinguished actors have taken on the part and secured a spot in cinematic history. Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig each reflect on the impact and importance of taking on such a famous role. With this piece, gain insight into what each actor brought to the character and discover how they shaped the world's most timeless secret agent.

o SKYFALL Videoblogs - behind-the-scenes look at the making of SKYFALL from the cast and crew

· DISC ONE Dr. No (Over 3 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director Terence Young and cast and crew

o 6 Featurettes

o Original Theatrical Trailer, TV and radio spots

o Photo Galleries

· DISC TWO From Russia With Love (Over 3 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director Terence Young and cast and crew

o 2 Featurettes

o Animated Storyboard Sequence

o Original Theatrical Trailer, TV and radio spots

o Photo Galleries

· DISC THREEGoldfinger (Over 5 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director Guy Hamilton

o Commentary with the cast and crew

o 3 Featurettes

o Original Screen Tests with Theodore Bikel and Tito Vandis

o Original Theatrical Trailer, TV and radio spots

o Original Publicity Featurette

o Original Radio Interviews With Sean Connery

o Photo Galleries

· DISC FOURThunderball (Over 6 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director Terence Young

o Commentary with Editor Peter Hunt and Screenwriter John Hopkins

o 4 Featurettes

o Original Theatrical Trailer, TV and radio spots

o Photo Galleries

· DISC FIVEYou Only Live Twice (Over 4 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director Lewis Gilbert and cast and crew

o 4 Featurettes

o Animated Storyboard Sequence

o Original Theatrical Trailer, TV and radio spots

o Photo Galleries

· DISC SIXOn Her Majesty's Secret Service (Over 4 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director Peter Hunt and cast and crew

o 4 Featurettes

o Original Theatrical Trailer, TV and radio spots

o Photo Galleries

· DISC SEVENDiamonds Are Forever (Over 4 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director Guy Hamilton and cast and crew

o 3 Featurettes

o Deleted Scenes

o Original Theatrical Trailer, TV and radio spots

· DISC EIGHTLive and Let Die (Over 7 hours of content)

o Commentaries with Director Guy Hamilton, Roger Moore and Tom Mankiewicz

o 3 Featurettes

o Original Theatrical Trailer, TV and radio spots

o Photo Galleries

· DISC NINEThe Man with the Golden Gun (Over 5 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director Guy Hamilton and the cast and crew

o Commentary with Roger Moore

o 2 Featurettes

o Original Theatrical Trailer, TV and radio spots

o Photo Galleries

· DISC TENThe Spy Who Loved Me (Over 5 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director Lewis Gilbert and cast and crew

o Commentary with Roger Moore

o 3 Featurettes

o Original Theatrical Trailer, TV and radio spots

· DISC ELEVENMoonraker (Over 5 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director Lewis Gilbert and cast and crew

o Commentary with Roger Moore

o 4 Featurettes

o Original Theatrical Trailer

o Photo Gallery

· DISC TWELVEFor Your Eyes Only (Over 7 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director John Glen and the cast and crew

o Commentary with Roger Moore

o Commentary with Producer Michael G. Wilson and crew

o 4 Featurettes

o Animated Storyboard Sequences for Snowmobile Chase & Underwater

o Music Video performed by Sheena Easton

o Deleted Scenes and Expanded Angles

o Original Theatrical Trailer, TV and radio spots

o Photo Galleries

· DISC THIRTEENOctopussy (Over 6 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director John Glen

o Commentary with Roger Moore

o 4 Featurettes

o Original Screen Tests with James Brolin

o "All Time High" Music Video

o Original Theatrical Trailers

· DISC FOURTEENA View to a Kill (Over 6 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director John Glen and the cast and crew

o Commentary with Roger Moore

o 4 Featurettes

o A View to a Kill Music Video performed by Duran Duran

o Original Theatrical Trailers and TV spots

· DISC FIFTEENThe Living Daylights (Over 5 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director John Glen and cast and crew

o 3 Featurettes

o Deleted scenes with introductions from Director John Glen

o The Living Daylights Music Video performed by A-Ha

o Original Theatrical Trailers

· DISC SIXTEENLicence to Kill (Over 6 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director John Glen and cast

o Commentary with Producer Michael G. Wilson and crew

o 3 Featurettes

o Licence to Kill Music Video performed by Gladys Knight

o If You Asked Me To Music Video Performed by Patti LaBelle

o Opening Titles Sequence

o Original Theatrical Trailers

o Photo Galleries

· DISC SEVENTEENGoldenEye (Over 5 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director Martin Campbell and Producer Michael G. Wilson

o 8 Featurettes

o Deleted scenes

o GoldenEye Music Video performed by Tina Turner

· DISC EIGHTEENTomorrow Never Dies (Over 9 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director Roger Spottiswoode and Dan Petrie, Jr.

o Commentary with Vic Armstrong and Producer Michael G. Wilson

o 2 Featurettes

o Interview with Composer David Arnold

o Deleted and Extended Scenes with introduction from Director Roger Spottiswoode

o Tomorrow Never Dies Music Video performed by Sheryl Crow

o The James Bond Theme (Moby's Re-Version)

· DISC NINETEENThe World Is Not Enough (Over 6 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director Michael Apted

o Commentary with Peter Lamont, David Arnold and Vic Armstrong

o 4 Featurettes

o Opening Titles Sequence

o The World Is Not Enough Music Video performed by Garbage

o Deleted, Extended and Alternate Scene

o Original Theatrical Trailer

o Photo Galleries

· DISC TWENTYDie Another Day (Over 8 hours of content)

o Commentary with Director Lee Tamahori and Producer Michael G. Wilson

o Commentary with Pierce Brosnan and Rosamund Pike

o 5 Featurettes

o MI6 Datastream Trivia Track with Branching Video

o Opening Titles Sequence

o Photo Galleries

· DISC TWENTY ONECasino Royale (Over 1 hour of content)

o Becoming Bond

o James Bond: For Real

o Chris Cornell Music Video

· DISC TWENTY TWOQuantum of Solace (Over 1 hour of content)

o 2 Featurettes

o "Another Way to Die" Music Video

o Original Theatrical Trailers
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 690
5/21/12 at 11:36am
Daniel Craig's Bond is, unfortunately, like almost any other modern action hero. Fill in the blank.

Bond is no longer Bond. My goodness... for one thing: where are the nifty high tech gadgets that assist him on his missions?

The classic Bonds had a unique sophistication, style, and flare that are completely missing now. You knew you were watching a Bond film... even with the Roger Moore titles.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 690
5/21/12 at 11:36am
Thanks for posting the extras and specs. I'm excited to have all films in HD, but a bit disappointed with new extras on the individual films. Most of the extras on the set are from the 2006 UE DVD set. It would've been nice to see each film have some additional expanded extras, even if it's just additional trailers, Tv spots and radio spots. Moonraker for example only has 1 trailer. Most of the other Bond films have multiple trailers, tv spots and radio spots.

They also did not include Casino Royale CE. In addition the CE of Quantum of Solace remains unreleased as well.

I'm guessing that the individual Bond blu rays will be issued in the Spring when Skyfall comes to blu ray. CE of Quantum of Solace (completed in 2009, but unreleased due to MGM issues) also at that time?

The Bond 50 bonus disc should be pretty cool. It should be as it's the only new extras included in this box set!!!

Excited overall for Bond 50, but a bit disappointed as well.

Kicking myself for selling my CE of Casino Royale. I sold it and my other Bond blu rays when I heard about the Bond 50 box coming.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 690
5/21/12 at 11:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Daniel Craig's Bond is, unfortunately, like almost any other modern action hero. Fill in the blank.

Bond is no longer Bond. My goodness... for one thing: where are the nifty high tech gadgets that assist him on his missions?

The classic Bonds had a unique sophistication, style, and flare that are completely missing now. You knew you were watching a Bond film... even with the Roger Moore titles.

I've enjoyed the Daniel Craig Bond films, but I see what you are saying too.

I'm a huge fan of all of the Roger Moore Bond films. Can't wait for the Bond 50 set. The final 9 not previously issued on blu ray contain many of my favorite Bond films.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 690
5/21/12 at 12:03pm
Awesome, I'm very excited for GoldenEye. I've sort of lost track, but have only the Craig, Moore, and Craig films been released so far? All of them? Just not Dalton or Brosnan, right? So many damn movies!

If all these films are the same (or better) technically than the current Blu-rays, I'll buy this set. I've been putting off buying the packs in anticipation of this day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Daniel Craig's Bond is, unfortunately, like almost any other modern action hero. Fill in the blank.

I agree. As generic action films, Craig's Bond films are a decent ride. As Bond films, not so much.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 690
5/21/12 at 12:22pm
The boxed set packaging will include a space for Skyfall when it comes out on Blu-ray. Nice!
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 690
5/21/12 at 12:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by THSS View Post

Kicking myself for selling my CE of Casino Royale. I sold it and my other Bond blu rays when I heard about the Bond 50 box coming.

I did the same thing, and now I'm kind of wishing that I had held on to that one.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Celebrating 50 Years of James Bond on Blu-ray