UHD James Bond films in Ultra HD blu Ray? (2 Viewers)

[Worth]

I'm pretty sure all of the titles that weren't initially done at 4K (everything from Man with the Golden Gun to Die Another Day, minus Moonraker) have new masters. 4K DCPs are available for all of them, and the ones I've seen in the cinema (Golden Gun, Spy Who Loved Me and Goldeneye) looked amazing.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

That's true -- the question is, by now, those 4K DCPs are probably five years old -- do we want those or do we want new masters that would better match what a 4K scan of the other movies would look like? I saw Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only on DCP earlier in the year, and those were satisfactory.

The current GoldenEye Blu-ray looks awful. That definitely needs improvement.

But the Connery films all need redos. Badly.

 

[Ryan Barrett]

It's incredible how much each of the Bond transfers fluctuate from film to film....

I feel that Dr. No and Goldfinger look fantastic.
From Russia with Love and Thunderball look very good, but good be improved
Majesty's and YOLT have a blue tint that I don't feel is accurate to the source
Diamonds is pretty troubling...ranging from blown out colors to absolutely mind-boggling color shifts

For my money, the Moore and Dalton pictures look pretty good

Goldeneye is an egregious sin to bluray...for how "new" the film is, the DNR really kills the picture quality (kudos for getting the aspect ratio correct, but removing the '95 UA logo from this particular iteration is silly)

Otherwise TND and so on, look sound fantastic as to be expected. I really wish MGM would give someone else a chance with these - with the advent of bluray, it feels like there is so much effort from smaller boutique labels to "detail" and "resurrect" so much of what collectors want in motion pictures - how perfect would the Bond series be as a candidate?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I really wish MGM would give someone else a chance with these - with the advent of bluray, it feels like there is so much effort from smaller boutique labels to "detail" and "resurrect" so much of what collectors want in motion pictures - how perfect would the Bond series be as a candidate?

The thing is, though, all of those boutique labels are using transfers provided by MGM -- so whether MGM distributes this through their partnership with Fox, or through another label, the transfer is going to be the one that MGM provides. Only MGM has access to the film elements needed to create better masters - it's up to them to do it.

The 2006 masters look fantastic when viewed as they were intended - downrezzed as standard definition DVDs. The problems are more apparent when viewed on Blu-ray (which they were never meant for), and especially when viewed in projection (either from a DCP or BD). Without making any judgments on color or contrast, the transfers simply do not look like film, they look like digital video. On smaller screens, this doesn't look disastrous, it just doesn't resemble how the film actually looks - but on larger screens, the lack of film grain and lack of a consistent film look make them seem a bit off and lacking in detail.

Ironically, the problem with 90% of MGM's other transfers is that they look like battered 35mm release prints rather than looking like fresh scans of a quality element.

 

[Ryan Barrett]

The thing is, though, all of those boutique labels are using transfers provided by MGM -- so whether MGM distributes this through their partnership with Fox, or through another label, the transfer is going to be the one that MGM provides. Only MGM has access to the film elements needed to create better masters - it's up to them to do it.

The 2006 masters look fantastic when viewed as they were intended - downrezzed as standard definition DVDs. The problems are more apparent when viewed on Blu-ray (which they were never meant for), and especially when viewed in projection (either from a DCP or BD). Without making any judgments on color or contrast, the transfers simply do not look like film, they look like digital video. On smaller screens, this doesn't look disastrous, it just doesn't resemble how the film actually looks - but on larger screens, the lack of film grain and lack of a consistent film look make them seem a bit off and lacking in detail.

Ironically, the problem with 90% of MGM's other transfers is that they look like battered 35mm release prints rather than looking like fresh scans of a quality element.

I think that's a good point ...however, when Kino, SHOUT!, Arrow, etc. claim a new 4k, 2k transfer...they're not typically the studio (i.e. MGM) though...it's the label itself, isn't it? I hope that makes sense.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think that's a good point ...however, when Kino, SHOUT!, Arrow, etc. claim a new 4k, 2k transfer...they're not typically the studio (i.e. MGM) though...it's the label itself, isn't it? I hope that makes sense.

Often, it is the studio that produced that new scan (possibly at the request of the licensee), or the licensee is making a boast about something that's not necessarily worth bragging about.

For instance, Criterion has recently put out some new titles from Warner and Sony claiming new transfers... and they are new, but the fine print is that Warner and Sony did the transfers, and merely provided the digital master to Criterion. That's the same thing that happens with a lot of these companies. Shout will probably claim that their upcoming release of "Matinee" (a Universal title) is from a new 2K transfer. The thing is, what does "new" mean in this case? Is it a new master created solely for Shout's use? Is it the same "new" master that Arrow talked about having for their UK release earlier this year? Is that the same "new" master that Koch in Germany used last year? I would strongly suspect that all three are coming from the same master, which was probably newly made within the past few years. I doubt that Universal is loaning out original film elements to three different companies for three different releases. It's worth noting that these releases look good and that the transfers appear new. But what I think gets a little lost in translation sometimes is that, in the majority of the cases, it's the studio that's making the transfer. There are some rare cases when a licensee will handle the scanning of the elements themselves, but I think that's more the exception than the rule these days.

I don't have a problem with any of that, except to the extent that it makes people start clamoring for things to come out on one label vs another, without there really being any evidence or solid reasoning behind that wish. It was either on Facebook or on another thread here that I recently saw someone express some extreme unhappiness that Warner Archive was releasing a certain title on Blu-ray, rather than Criterion. I pointed out that Warner does not allow their physical assets off their lot, and that if Criterion were to have released this title instead, they would have simply used the exact same transfer that Warner Archive used. Nonetheless, facts and logic didn't really have an impact on the discussion, and this one individual remained upset that Criterion wasn't releasing the movie and may have even said that it cost them a sale. I don't get that sort of thing. There was a movie he wanted, it was being made available in a new high quality transfer, and coming from Warner Archive vs Criterion, the SRP was a lower $21.99 rather than $39.99. In every measurable way, it would have seemed to have been great news that Warner Archive was putting it out, but it didn't have the "magic" Criterion label, so it was instead a great injustice being visited upon the film world.

How good or bad future Bond releases look will depend entirely on how much MGM cares about it at any given moment. The problem is further compounded by the fact that a large percentage of the home viewing population isn't as nitpicky as we are on HTF, so what they have now is certainly "good enough" for most viewers. The current 007 sets have clean and clear transfers, with decent (if inaccurate) color and are generally close to OAR. Each disc has hours of bonus features. That's more than enough for most people. And I think MGM knows this, and won't have much of an incentive to put more money into the project.

 

[Worth]

MGM's recent transfers have been very good. Their redos of Fargo, Rocky, Ronin and a number of titles licensed to Kino all look excellent. Not sure if they're doing it themselves or if Fox is handling it for them, but I hope they keep it up.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

MGM's recent transfers have been very good. Their redos of Fargo, Rocky, Ronin and a number of titles licensed to Kino all look excellent. Not sure if they're doing it themselves or if Fox is handling it for them, but I hope they keep it up.

I think that they do higher quality transfers for Fox releases than for stuff they're doing for licensees.

Twilight Time recently released "Baby Boom" which was an MGM and the transfer was said to be unusually good for MGM. Twilight revealed that this was because Fox showed an interest in putting it out in a wide release at one point, so a good transfer was made. When Fox ended up losing interest, MGM licensed that transfer out to Twilight. So that kinda confirms my theory on that.

A lot of the transfers that MGM is licensing out to other labels I don't think was intended for BD release. I think a lot of those transfers were created at the beginning of the HDTV era, when everyone was desperate for HD content, just so they'd have material to license out for HD channels. Those masters can be used for BDs, but I think they would have been done with more care if that had been the intention from the start.

If MGM were to make all new 4K scans, I think the likelihood is that they'd be good. The fear is that MGM will merely say "Hey, we have 4K versions from 2006, let's use those!"

 

[Cranston37+]

Here's a pleasant surprise - iTunes just upgraded eligible titles to 4K and Skyfall and Spectre are among them

 

[Ryan Barrett]

I think that they do higher quality transfers for Fox releases than for stuff they're doing for licensees.

Twilight Time recently released "Baby Boom" which was an MGM and the transfer was said to be unusually good for MGM. Twilight revealed that this was because Fox showed an interest in putting it out in a wide release at one point, so a good transfer was made. When Fox ended up losing interest, MGM licensed that transfer out to Twilight. So that kinda confirms my theory on that.

A lot of the transfers that MGM is licensing out to other labels I don't think was intended for BD release. I think a lot of those transfers were created at the beginning of the HDTV era, when everyone was desperate for HD content, just so they'd have material to license out for HD channels. Those masters can be used for BDs, but I think they would have been done with more care if that had been the intention from the start.

If MGM were to make all new 4K scans, I think the likelihood is that they'd be good. The fear is that MGM will merely say "Hey, we have 4K versions from 2006, let's use those!"

I hope this is not the case - I know that Lowry is a respected name, but these films are in need of an actual restoration. I guess my confusion is that it is an absolutely 100% respected franchise...and I cannot believe it hasn't gotten that treatment (especially for the 50th Anniversary!)...then again, we still don't have THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS in HD, so what do I know

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I hope this is not the case - I know that Lowry is a respected name, but these films are in need of an actual restoration. I guess my confusion is that it is an absolutely 100% respected franchise...and I cannot believe it hasn't gotten that treatment (especially for the 50th Anniversary!)...then again, we still don't have THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS in HD, so what do I know

The Lowry masters were state-of-the-art for early 2000s, and they look absolutely spectacular in standard definition - which was what the intention was from the start. I know Lowry's name was respected, but since his passing and the selling of his company, I don't know that they're the powerhouse they once were. A lot of the major studios have in-house restoration programs now that equal or exceed what Lowry was doing. They were pioneers in their day but the work they did isn't relevant in the same way today.

My hope is that the actual film elements aren't in terrible shape, and that full blown restorations aren't required. On one hand, popular films from the era of physical film print production tend to be more problematic because they've been used more often to make more prints and have wear and tear as a result. On the other hand, they were popular films back when MGM was a real studio that actually functioned, so maybe the elements were treated well.

I'm not surprised that the 50th anniversary releases were so half-assed; it's MGM. Every time something with MGM comes up, I think you need to take deep breaths and say to yourself, "Not a functional studio, not a functional studio, not a functional studio" - or at least, that's what I need to do to calm down. If you look at their decisions from the perspective that MGM is a major studio with a huge and important history, then they're baffling. But if you shift your perspective, and few MGM as essentially a holding company run by bean counters who are seeking to maximize revenue by licensing their existing intellectual property to third-party financiers and production studios to gain income without exercising any creative expenditure on their own, then it makes sense. There's no one working at MGM that has any connection to their corporate history or to the history of the business.

Look at a movie like "The Magnificent Seven" remake that they put out last year. That's their business model. For that movie, MGM supplied the intellectual property rights that allowed the classic film to be remade. They contracted with financing companies like LStar Capital and Village Roadshow to actually pay for the film's production. They contacted the actual physical production of the film to outside companies like Escape Artists. And then, Sony was brought on to handle the actual theatrical distribution of the finished film. This is their model now. Their only interest in their catalog is to the extent that it can be exploited for remakes, sequels and reboots, because they don't have creative people working on staff.

I would absolutely love to be wrong, but I don't think MGM will ever fully recover, and I don't think they will ever start giving a crap about their library beyond what they think can make them a quick buck. If we get new, high quality versions of the Bond films on UHD or anything else in the future, I think that will have more to do with the Broccolis insisting on them than MGM having a genuine desire to do so. (Just the way Fox insists on better quality for the MGM product that Fox distributes.)

 

[Worth]

...My hope is that the actual film elements aren't in terrible shape, and that full blown restorations aren't required. On one hand, popular films from the era of physical film print production tend to be more problematic because they've been used more often to make more prints and have wear and tear as a result. On the other hand, they were popular films back when MGM was a real studio that actually functioned, so maybe the elements were treated well...

Bond was a United Artists property until 1982 when UA was folded into MGM.

 

[Osato]

something has to give eventually....

https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond-25-apple-and-amazon-bid-for-distribution-deal?id=04307

 

[Osato]

Well here is the 4k digital releases!

https://mobile.twitter.com/iTunes/status/944303185325363206

$15 each.

I'm guessing the uhd blu ray discs will be released with bond 25 in 2019.

Pretty cool news for uhd adopters though.

I'm waiting for the discs. will adopt to uhd 4k hopefully in 2019. Being patient with the format and waiting for price drops too.

I did pick up some uhd blu Rays this year though.

 

[titch]

Well here is the 4k digital releases!

https://mobile.twitter.com/iTunes/status/944303185325363206

$15 each.

I'm guessing the uhd blu ray discs will be released with bond 25 in 2019.

Pretty cool news for uhd adopters though.

I'm waiting for the discs. will adopt to uhd 4k hopefully in 2019. Being patient with the format and waiting for price drops too.

I did pick up some uhd blu Rays this year though.

But we want new Cristopher Nolan-like 4K scans from the original negatives for all the films for our Bond UHD 4K discs. No James Cameron-like Terminator 2 degraining either. If MGM pop down to these guys, it should work out at between $ 250 000 and $ 300 000 for the whole lot, depending on what they need to colour-correct and restore in addition. Of course, if you have to call in Robert Harris or Grover Crisp, you will have to fork out a bit more.

http://www.videofilmsolutions.com/film-scanning

Dr. No: $ 9990
From Russia With Love: $ 11 250
Goldfinger: $ 10 530
Thunderball: $ 11 250
You Only Live Twice: $ 11 250
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service: $ 12 960
Diamonds Are Forever: $ 10 890
Live And Let Die: $ 10 890
The Man With The Golden Gun: $ 11 070
The Spy Who Loved Me: $ 11 250
Moonraker: $ 12 240
For Your Eyes Only: $ 12 240
Octopussy: $ 11 790
A View To A Kill: $ 11 790
The Living Daylights: $ 11 700
Licence To Kill: $ 11 970
Goldeneye: $ 11 700
Tomorrow Never Dies: $ 10 800
The World Is Not Enough: $ 11 250
Die Another Day: $ 11 970
Casino Royale: $ 12 960
Quantum Of Solace: $ 9 450

(Skyfall and Spectre filmed digitally)

Bonus: Casino Royale (1967): $ 13 500 + Never Say Never Again: $ 12 330

Wish I was filthy rich and could just commission the project out of my own pocket.

 

[Osato]

https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/james-bond-in-4k-now-available-on-apple-itunes-171222

The entire library of 24 official James Bond films is now available to stream in 4K from the Apple iTunes store.

You will need a new Apple TV 4K unit ($199) in addition to a 4K television.

Back in 2012, the back catalogue of 007 adventures was digitized in 4K from original negatives and remastered. These new 4K digital versions were down-sampled to 1080p HD for the Bond 50 BluRay release, so this is the first time they have been released in 4K for home video. MI6 understands that a new 4K BluRay set may be released to tie-in with Bond 25 in 2019.

 

[Worth]

I bought Octopussy from iTunes. I don’t have a 4K setup, but even in 1080p, the iTunes version is superior to the blu-ray - more filmic and natural looking, and not as scrubbed and sharpened as the disc.

 

[arbogast]

(Skyfall and Spectre filmed digitally)

SPECTRE was shot on film, not digitally.

 

[titch]

SPECTRE was shot on film, not digitally.

Indeed it was.

 

[Osato]

I bought Octopussy from iTunes. I don’t have a 4K setup, but even in 1080p, the iTunes version is superior to the blu-ray - more filmic and natural looking, and not as scrubbed and sharpened as the disc.

THanks for the review post! I don't have uhd or 4k, but I intend to upgrade in 2019 when the bond uhd blu Rays are released.

Octopussy is my first bond. I appreciate the review and can't wait to see the new uhd transfers!!!