JAMES BOND ULTIMATE COLLECTION (1 Viewer)

[Jim-M]

Looking at screenshots the framing doesn't appear insignificant to me, but when I actually watched Goldeneye I didn't notice anything unusual. I just got caught up in the action again. I don't have a trained eye, so maybe those with one will be troubled. What is obvious to me when watching the UEs is how clean, sharp, and detailed the pictures look. Not to say that the incorrect framing is OK, but I bet most people won't notice it unless told to look for it specifically, yet they will notice more realistic colors and cleaned up transfers.

Before I received Goldeneye last weekend I had scouted out a few sources of the SE and was prepared to purchase it if the UE was as bad as it was being made out to be. But since the framing wasn't something that was an issue when watching it I have no desire anymore to get the SE again.

 

[John H Ross]

Once again it amazes me that people who contribute to this forum and, thus, presumably CARE that movies are presented on DVD (and other various HD formats) as they were originally intended, are so "flippant" about such a significant change to TWO films from the most successful movie franchise of all time!

I can understand the argument that "well, perhaps that's what the director intended and it's been wrong for the last 21/11 years and what we're getting now is actually right" even though, IMHO, that argument is full of holes.

But I don't understand the "well there's nothing really important missing so let's not worry about it" attitude. It baffles me. Perhaps somebody can explain why those people are willing to accept what really does have a very big chance of being flawed product with so little fuss...

John

 

[Douglas Monce]

John,

I'm not saying that it doesn't matter. If that’s not what was intended in the first place then I don't see any reason to make changes to a film. However I don't know what was originally intended and nether do you. I saw Golden Eye on its original release but that was so long ago I have no idea how these shots were framed then. And even if they are different, maybe these shots always bothered the director or producers and at last they had the chance to fix them.

The other thing is that these changes are VERY specific! It’s not like the whole movie, or even one reel is miss-framed. These are on a shot by shot basis. I doubt some one at Lowry or even some executive at Sony/MGM had anything to do with it. These changes are very deliberate and took a lot of effort and man hours. This isn't just a screw up. SOMEONE wanted the films to be seen like this.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

It could very well be that when that particular film was being worked on, Glen was available to be consulted and asked for a few changes. It could be he was not available when the others were done. To be honest I don't know. As for Broccoli and Wilson letting Glen make changes it wouldn't surprise me. From what I understand they are very good friends.

Also Michael Wilson isn't just one of the "current producers". He was the producer of Licence to Kill. He also co-wrote the screenplay. It’s not like he is some executive somewhere who had nothing to do with the production.

Doug

 

[norrisMc]

JAMES BOND DVD's - are they affected by "laser rot" ??? !!!!

EVEN more worrying to me than all the color changes and cropping is...

The "milky cloudy" look to the actual discs in the box sets (non-label side).
I have seen this "cloudy" issue on discs before and some of them over time get "laser rot" which means in a years time they don't play anymore ("Silence of the Lambs", "Rocky" etc etc).

Is anyone elses discs got this milky cloudy water mark in their BOND discs?

It is best seen when you hold the disc up to a lamp or light source and tilt the disc. A kind of weird "stain" can be seen in the layers of the discs. The special features discs seem to be worse than the film discs.

Is anyone elses discs got this milky cloudy water mark in their BOND discs?

Are our Bond discs gonna be unplayable in 6 months time so we have to go for the next versions or Blu-ray versions? !!!

Please inspect your discs and report back???

Thanks.

 

[Matt Hough]

I read of the likely DVD and Blu-ray release of CASINO ROYALE in March. What surprised me was that there was no Blu-ray announcement for any of the other Bonds. I can't believe that along with the selected single DVD releases of some of these ultimate editions that MGM/Fox doesn't plan some Blu-ray releases, too. But why no word yet? I would think the idea of getting GOLDFINGER or THUNDERBALL or even GOLDENEYE and DIE ANOTHER DAY in Blu-ray would sell a few players.

 

[James Bond]

Most of my DVD's (In general, not just bond) are like that, and all me SE's Bonds were also. They all still play fine, and even if they don't... you'll always be able to buy a new set with the ammount of rereleasing in the years to come

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Doesn't surprise me.

There will be a lot more S-DVD Bond sets sold as long as they
prolong a Blu-Ray release.

If I were a betting man I'd say no Bond on Blu-Ray for at least
a year or two.

Hope I'm proved wrong.

 

[Reed Grele]

Perhaps they're just using Casino Royale to test the waters. If the Blu-ray version sells big time, then we'd be more likely to see more Blu-ray Bonds in the near future. If not...

Personally, I'd rather wait until they come out with the next wave of "Definitive, Penultimate, Super Duper Deluxe with a Cherry on Top Editions" and hopefully get someone to correct the color timing/framing and any other issues before plunking down more green to upgrade Bond yet again.

 

[rich_d]

I understand the sentiment but Blu-ray is their path forward.

They just went through agony getting Blu-Ray into the Playstation 3 which involved a great reduction in their rollout quantities. They didn't make that commitment because they wanted to test the hi-def waters. They are totally committed (right or wrong) to Blu-Ray.

 

[brioni]

I'm sure they are on good terms, but if John asked for one of the deleted scenes from Licence To Kill to be put back in, then the answer would be a unanimous no. i just don't see him having this of level of control.

when the QA of these sets has been so sloppy: the TB pool shot, the R2 missing captions, then that goes to show the amount of man hours they haven't taken. also the use of the Roger Moore photo on the FYEO cover which isn't even from that film! thats a typical mix up you'd expect from MGM. On the Dr No SE booklet they mistakenly used some caribbean still from another MGM musical! thats the level of knowledge these people have about the films. is anyone even there from United Artists that works at MGM now?

 

[Ronald Epstein]

All I can add to this conversation is that whatever happened
to these new sets is not the fault of Fox, who inherited this
release with their recent distribution deal.

The restoration of these films started many years ago. I
remember meeting John Lowry back in 2005 and he was telling
me about how good Dr. No looked.

We have no-one here on this forum who actually was involved
with the project that can tell us definitively why there are
so many "oddities" involved with these releases. For that reason
it's really disturbing that so many of you argue over points that
are purely "speculative."

We also know that the restoration of these films were started
while under the control of Sony, and possibly earlier under MGM.
This should give you a general idea as to why there may have
been a considerable amount of negligence put into getting these
sets exactly right.

Unfortunately, as with all things, we are the vocal "minority"
here and most consumers will be "oohing" and "aaahing" over
the improved picture quality but will absolutely have no clue
about all the little mistakes that exist with these releases.

If you guys wish, I can attempt to set up a chat with
Mr. Lowry. He was very agreeable to doing one with us back
in 2005. My only concern is that I don't want to see this
gentleman nailed up against a wall, having to answer for things
that probably were out of his control.

 

[norrisMc]

All really good points Ronald. I think the sets are a very big positive move in the right direction. Sadly, they called them the "Ultimate Editions" which I think is why so many here are having a problem with the "oddities". Whilst they are good, excellent even, they are NOT Ultimate with the simple errors that exist on them. I think Mr Lowry has done a TREMENDOUS job, but perfection seems to have been out of reach. Having said that... how many DVD's are "perfect"?

What does everyone make of this "milky cloudy" look to the discs? Is this anything to worry about?

Merry Christmas all!

 

[Brandon Conway]

Ron - perhaps you could just interview Mr. Lowry instead of opening it up for a full member chat. Less chances of problems and angry questions that way.

As far as quality control goes, just because it hasn't been fixed doesn't mean it wasn't reported. Again, my experience leads me to believe that most of the color timing and framing issues must have been arranged/approved by someone at the top.

 

[John H Ross]

An interview would be cool. An open debate would also be cool.

What confuses me is that somebody evidently noticed - or listened to complaints regarding - some of the issues plaguing the R2 discs and fixed them for R1, specifically the re-colouring of the water in Thunderball. I won't also list the burned-in captions because I believe it was always the intention to do those properly in R1.

So, if the whole of Thunderball was re-mastered to fix one little scene, why not change some of the other problems across the other titles which are far more obvious and distracting? If, as has been suggested, the other changes were done on purpose then we really need to be told so that a) we don't waste our money on any future HD releases and b) we keep tight hold of our old SE discs!!

John

 

[Frank@N]

I'm not trying to form a lynching party, but when did DTS/Lowry start discarding OAR and using computer-controlled color correction?

Up to the UEs they had a good rep, now they seem to have 'gone Lucas'.

I'll wait for the individual releases and only get what's faithful to source materials.

 

[Joseph Bolus]

Since I'm viewing these "Ultimate Editions" on my old, obsolete, Tosh HD-A1 (and they look *great*), I really have no need to wait for and/or anticipate the Blu-ray editions. That's the only good thing about the lack of support for HD-DVD from Sony, MGM, Fox, and Disney: We don't have to worry about the Blu-ray iteration that may be coming right around the corner!

 

[John H Ross]

This, of course, is the very definition of PAN AND SCAN! Yes, folks, for whatever reason AVTAK and GE are PANNED AND SCANNED! Sure, they're still presented in a 2.35:1 frame but they're still PANNED AND SCANNED.

No OAR = No Sale. Surely.

 

[Carter of Mars]

I've watched both A View To A Kill and GoldenEye and have seen no evidence of panning or scanning.

 

[Douglas Monce]

This is not unusual. Look at the extras on the Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition. There is a segment on how the film was composed for every shot using the super 35 frame. They frequently zoom in on the image, zoom out, change the framing from the left to the right side of the frame. This is done not only with the 2.35 extraction but also with the 1.33 "full frame" version. Almost never does the 1.33 version actually use the full frame. In fact the full frame version moves around a lot more than the 2.35 version does.

Of course super 35 is a different animal than a film shot scope. But the point is it’s not uncommon for the filmmakers to push in on an image or change the composition completely in post production.

Doug