UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Sean Connery - 6-Film Collection -- in 4k UHD (2 Viewers)

[Osato]

Anyone get the Connery 4K Digital versions yet with the Digital code ? ...... I have Not. ...I'm tired of calling Fandango.

I haven’t heard anything.

I’m comment to wait as there hasn’t been any change in the Apple versions of the Connery 4k 007 films.

It would be nice to know when this will happen.

Did Fandango CS give you any information?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Anyone get the Connery 4K Digital versions yet with the Digital code ? ...... I have Not. ...I'm tired of calling Fandango.

None of the streaming services have upgraded their digitals to 4K/HDR/Dolby Vision.

 

[Mikey1969]

I spoke with @Sultanofcinema the other day about this too - Guy Hamilton really injected some silliness that began here and plagued the remainder of the series. I was struck by how Goldfinger really hits a brick wall during the golfing scene, which at times feels a lot like watching a live golf match. What's interesting to me is how anytime the Bond series visits the United States (both Goldfinger & Diamonds in this case), the films become a bit "blah" for lack of a better word. Having said that, I'd watch any Connery film over anything post-Goldeneye, anyday.

I think the inclusion of comedy actually helped Goldfinger more than it hurt it. It really wasn't until the campy Diamonds Are Forever that it became too much. Fortunately it was diminished for Live and let Die, which felt at times more like a Terrence Young film. Unfortunately it returned with a vengence for The Man with The Golden Gun.

The pacing of Goldfinger is another issue. Here and in Diamonds, Guy Hamilton had a tendency to let scenes run on (do we really need to spend several minutes watching a car being crushed?) and I wish they had tightened the film up a bit. The oil rig finale in Diamonds also goes on far too long with the very weak climax of Bond swinging Blofeld around in a bathosub.

I also agree that the American location seem pretty blah, espcially in Diamonds and Goldfinger. It didn't help that Guy Hamilton wasn't especially skilled at establishing locations or making the best cinematic use of them (something John Glen was much better at in his films.)

 

[JoshZ]

From what I remember, the producers had, in the days before computers, listed every scene in every 007 novel on index cards. Each card gave the scene location, action etc. So for each new film, they would use any idea left not included before in a previous film. What happened is over the years, the reserve cards grew bare, I remember MGW saying there was only a few scraps left of the skeletons of the novels, about 10 years back.

Although none of them were adapted to film officially, and I haven't read them in ages, I believe a similar practice continued through the licensed sequel novels written by John Gardner in the 1980s and '90s. I recall feeling that parts of A View to a Kill (including the blimp set-piece) had been borrowed from some of Gardner's early Bond stories.

 

[sbjork]

Although none of them were adapted to film officially, and I haven't read them in ages, I believe a similar practice continued through the licensed sequel novels written by John Gardner in the 1980s and '90s. I recall feeling that parts of A View to a Kill (including the blimp set-piece) had been borrowed from some of Gardner's early Bond stories.

But never the tricked-out Saab 900 turbo, sadly. That's one of the aspects from the books that never made it into any of the movies: the fact that Bond worked on his own cars on the side, like his Bentleys in the Fleming novels and the Saab in the Gardner books. He wasn't just a driver, but a tinkerer. He wasn't really a gourmand, either. That's Young again more than Fleming. I'd be all over a more accurate version of the Fleming character minus some of the bad parts like the racism, and I'd be all over him pontificating about mechanics, too. It'll never happen, though. If you tried doing something like that, most fans of the movies would complain that it wasn't Fleming's Bond, without a trace of irony.

 

[Jack P]

But never the tricked-out Saab 900 turbo, sadly. That's one of the aspects from the books that never made it into any of the movies: the fact that Bond worked on his own cars on the side, like his Bentleys in the Fleming novels and the Saab in the Gardner books. He wasn't just a driver, but a tinkerer.

But remember in the books, the character of "Q" is a non-entity. In fact, I don't think he's ever called "Q" in any of his appearances, and it was the films that built up the matter of Bond's disdain for gadgetry in his sparring with Q. You'd be damaging the template of the character established by the films to suddenly show him mechanically minded and then you'd really have no room for Q at all to be a character.

Since the 80s when I became a Bond movie fan, I've felt that Fleming purists tend to go too overboard in how obsessively nitpicky they'll get if something isn't done the way Fleming did it. Case in point is how Raymond Benson, in his 80s book "The James Bond Bedside Companion" ridiculously harps on Felix Leiter not being shown with a steel hook and wooden leg in any of his appearances, and then as part of the hate-fest on Roger Moore he's upbraided for not reading Fleming books for preparing for the part. "Licence To Kill" was the culmination of doing things the way the purists wanted it, and the end result was the most unpleasant viewing experience I ever had with a Bond movie (pre-Craig) that IMO nearly scuttled the franchise.

 

[RetroGuy]

Incidentally, I’m starting to regret not getting the steelbook set. While I thought the cover art left something to be desired in the preorder pictures, now that I’ve seen more photos online I get what they were going for and it seems pretty neat.

Hey Josh - If you're unable to snag a set through Amazon, the 007 Store does still have them in stock. It is a bit more expensive than Amazon at $166, but at least it's an option and certainly cheaper than eBay. I, too, was less than thrilled with the artwork on the steelbooks when they were announced, and I almost bought the regular set instead. But now that I have the steelbooks in hand I'm very happy with the set and so glad I bought them!

https://007store.com/en-us/products...y-collection-steelbook?variant=54253126320513

 

[RetroGuy]

It was a limited run but not sure what the total number is.

It's a limited edition of 15,300. Seems kind of odd that they went with that number and not something like 15,007 instead.

 

[Robert Harris]

So we’ve finally achieved lift off.

Collectors are willing to pay $10 per Steelbook, before they go OOS and show up on eBay for thousands.

Far different than an NFT, but with all dark humour aside, it appears that what is inside the Steelbooks has finally become almost secondary to a purchase.

At least on the secondary market for 991v2s, you end up with quality footwear.

What will the Connery/Bond Steelbook sets be worth on the secondary market?

 

[sbjork]

But remember in the books, the character of "Q" is a non-entity. In fact, I don't think he's ever called "Q" in any of his appearances, and it was the films that built up the matter of Bond's disdain for gadgetry in his sparring with Q. You'd be damaging the template of the character established by the films to suddenly show him mechanically minded and then you'd really have no room for Q at all to be a character.

Since the 80s when I became a Bond movie fan, I've felt that Fleming purists tend to go too overboard in how obsessively nitpicky they'll get if something isn't done the way Fleming did it. Case in point is how Raymond Benson, in his 80s book "The James Bond Bedside Companion" ridiculously harps on Felix Leiter not being shown with a steel hook and wooden leg in any of his appearances, and then as part of the hate-fest on Roger Moore he's upbraided for not reading Fleming books for preparing for the part. "Licence To Kill" was the culmination of doing things the way the purists wanted it, and the end result was the most unpleasant viewing experience I ever had with a Bond movie (pre-Craig) that IMO nearly scuttled the franchise.

The existence of Q Branch and Bond being a car nut aren't mutually exclusive. That's a weird blanket statement to make. The gadget cars in the films are hardly the only gadgets that Q Branch supplied. There's no reason that Bond has to be a mechanical idiot.

And as for "damaging the template," there's never been a set template, just an evolving one. Like the books, there was no character called Q in the film versions of either Dr. No or From Russia with Love. Desmond Llewelyn is in the latter, but as Major Boothroyd, the armorer. (And Anya calls him that in The Spy Who Loved Me, too.) Yet those two films are still considered purely canonical. There have been multiple soft resets throughout the series, too. There's just not one set template for how things have to work.

And no, Licence to Kill is hardly a film that makes real Fleming purists happy. It gets as much wrong as it gets right. There's never been a "pure" Fleming Bond onscreen -- and as some of us have been pointing out, that's not entirely a bad thing.

 

[Robert Harris]

For those who missed the original:

 

[Sultanofcinema]

The existence of Q Branch and Bond being a car nut aren't mutually exclusive. That's a weird blanket statement to make. The gadget cars in the films are hardly the only gadgets that Q Branch supplied. There's no reason that Bond has to be a mechanical idiot.

And as for "damaging the template," there's never been a set template, just an evolving one. Like the books, there was no character called Q in the film versions of either Dr. No or From Russia with Love. Desmond Llewelyn is in the latter, but as Major Boothroyd, the armorer. (And Anya calls him that in The Spy Who Loved Me, too.) Yet those two films are still considered purely canonical. There have been multiple soft resets throughout the series, too. There's just not one set template for how things have to work.

And no, Licence to Kill is hardly a film that makes real Fleming purists happy. It gets as much wrong as it gets right. There's never been a "pure" Fleming Bond onscreen -- and as some of us have been pointing out, that's not entirely a bad thing.

The closest we will ever had on screen as Fleming's character is Mr. Connery in From Russia With Love.

 

[David_B_K]

Case in point is how Raymond Benson, in his 80s book "The James Bond Bedside Companion" ridiculously harps on Felix Leiter not being shown with a steel hook and wooden leg in any of his appearances

For that matter, Bond is never shown with the scar on his face either. I remember in one of the books Bond hated getting suntanned or sunburned because the whiteness of the scar stood out more.

 

[Osato]

The closest we will ever had on screen as Fleming's character is Mr. Connery in From Russia With Love.

View attachment 254645

Learned this last night:

Virna Lisi - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Though she turned down the Tatiana Romanova role in From Russia with Love(1963),[3

 

[Osato]

The closest we will ever had on screen as Fleming's character is Mr. Connery in From Russia With Love.

View attachment 254645

I’m glad we have the movie version of 007and that it’s not the book version. Perhaps that’s why I prefer Moore and some of he other Bond actors. I like Connery but again Thunderball and diamonds are my top 2 for him.i don’t have anything against him as Bond.

I often wonder what would have happened if he kept playing Bond too. Maybe the series does in the 70s. Who knows. Thankful we had someone that gave the series 7 fine films after Connery’s departure.

 

[Sultanofcinema]

Learned this last night:

Virna Lisi - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Though she turned down the Tatiana Romanova role in From Russia with Love(1963),[3

I will never forget Virna Lisi coming up and out of the cake towards the beginning in the ballroom when she first sees Jack Lemmon in How To Murder your Wife. She would have been a good choice.

 

[Sultanofcinema]

I’m glad we have the movie version of 007and that it’s not the book version. Perhaps that’s why I prefer Moore and some of he other Bond actors. I like Connery but again Thunderball and diamonds are my top 2 for him.i don’t have anything against him as Bond.

I often wonder what would have happened if he kept playing Bond too. Maybe the series does in the 70s. Who knows. Thankful we had someone that gave the series 7 fine films after Connery’s departure.

Osato, I've pondered this many times. I know the schedule was frightful but if you only have to work 6-7 months on a film with two years in between and having everything at your fingertips, why not? Turned down 5 million dollars for Live And Let Die.

 

[ScottRE]

I wonder if me feeling “blah” about Bond in America is because I’m an American living in America and therefore it’s not an exotic locale for me. Or if it’s just objectively blah.

Oh I feel the same way. Even Bond movies set in America tend to be less interesting to me. I prefer to see places I probably won't actually visit. Bond in New York? Snore.

 

[Osato]

Osato, I've pondered this many times. I know the schedule was frightful but if you only have to work 6-7 months on a film with two years in between and having everything at your fingertips, why not? Turned down 5 million dollars for Live And Let Die.

Yep. Roger Moore didn’t care though. He took it / them to the bank.

 

[Sultanofcinema]

A casting question for serious Bond colleagues. I haven't thought about this since the release of Diamonds Are Forever. Because Natalie Wood comes to mind with the upcoming release of Splendor In The Grass, I had always thought of her at that time as a good choice for the role of Tiffany Case after seeing how wonderful she looked in Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice.