What's new

MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

troy evans

Screenwriter
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
1,294
Thank You Douglas. I feel you've hit it square on the head. Grain is good. We've all seen films that have been processed to hell to remove all the so called imperfections. They have a way of looking sterile and unremarkable. Damn it! I'm starting to cave on my holding out for that Bond Blu boxset and it's only been a day. :) I guess I may go ahead and get Thunderball. I love Thunderball!
 
Joined
May 25, 2000
Messages
268
Real Name
Charles de Lauzirika

I'd love to read that interview where I supposedly said this. It ain't true, in any case.

As much as I adore the Bond films and would loved to have been involved in the whole series of special editions, John Cork did a wonderful job on all the pre-"GoldenEye" discs he worked on with David Naylor and Bruce Scivally. No need for me to re-do that which is already stellar work.

If I have one regret, it's that my Lazenby-esque one-time stint as a Bond DVD producer came one film too early.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008

Good example. I have the SD of ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD and it looks excellent to my eyes, one of the most appealing images ever. Smooth, clear, sharp... Not the "grainy" look I'm referring to at all. So then - is it actually the inherent film grain I'm objecting to...?
 

AlexCosmo

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 15, 2001
Messages
246
The titles are grainier because they are one generation away from the rest of the movie. (Because the film had titles put over it). Grain varies WILDLY in all films from all eras. So what's wrong with simply allowing the movie to look like it looked, whatever that might be?
 

Will*B

Supporting Actor
Joined
Aug 12, 2003
Messages
579
Location
Winchester, England
Real Name
Will
It will be interesting to see if the BD Bonds contain the original burnt-in subtitles and location cards, like the R1 UEs do. So many BDs seem to be encoded for all markets, I'm concerned that we'll get the awful R2-style player-generated ones instead...
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008

I wasn't talking about "all" titles for "every" film; I specifically pointed out the Sherlock Holmes movies. With the Holmes' titles I'd thought that they had to get them from another source in some cases (16mm perhaps?).

If we allowed movies to simply look as they looked, we probably wouldn't have anything near as spruced up as SD and BD in the first place.
 

Brandon Conway

captveg
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
9,623
Location
North Hollywood, CA
Real Name
Brandon Conway
The first 20 films (Dr. No to Die Another Day) are owned outright by MGM. Fox now distributes for MGM. The new films (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace), are joint MGM/Sony projects, with Sony holding distribution rights.

Unless distribution rights change, or deals are struck between Fox and Sony (like they were when they sandwiched the Casino Royale release with the more recent box sets), the first 20 will always be sold separately than the two new films.
 

Mark Oates

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
875

We may be on to a breakthrough here. I think we really need a common frame of reference to get to the bottom of this. I also have the SD of Adventures of Robin Hood, and the Sherlock Holmes restorations and I'd say all those films demonstrate movies where film grain hasn't been eradicated. Film grain shouldn't be in-your-face, it should be a subtle effect that tells you you're not watching a frozen frame (or partially frozen frame). It sounds to me more like a generational issue that troubles you. The Holmes titles are all multi-generational elements, with Dressed To Kill in particular being a blow-up from a 16mm syndication print (the only surviving element of that movie's original title). Now discs mastered from multi-generation materials can have all kinds of problems inherent in the increased grain caused. Now on that score we're in agreement - there's nothing more painful than watching a film that's been mastered from second or third-rate materials, purely from a viewpoint of "is that the best they can do?" On the other hand, I'd hate to see what detail is in the image hoovered up by DNVR. I mean, have a search of Jerry Beck's site for DNVR on Warner cartoons - it'd break your heart!
 

StevenA

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 28, 1999
Messages
350


Your entire objection to film grain is based on a personal aesthetic preference. You have used the word "appealing" to describe the look you're seeking.

My point is that your personal preference, or anybody's for that matter, is irrelevant to the issue of how films should be presented on Blu-Ray or any other home video format, IMO.

Your preference just happens to be for grain-free images. It may as well be for low-contrast images, or highly saturated images, or images with no green, to quote my earlier analogy. Films should not be manipulated to match any one of those preferences if it means altering the image in a way that dishonors the original work.

If you have a specific aesthetic preference for how a film should look, the answer is to shoot your own film on whatever format satisfies that preference. Films made by others should remain as they are.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008

Then they should be seen only on 35mm reels and not touched up in any manner for home video releases. The colors, for one thing, are almost always enhanced on DVD.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008

Let me put it this way... if I ever see less detail in a film image I know well, I will be infuriated. But all I have ever witnessed is more detail on DVD, if anything. I see more pores in people's skin; not less. I see more intricate textures on clothing...
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce


I think you maybe thinking of a film that is sometimes referred to as looking "doopy" because it is many generations away from the camera original. It ends up looking muddy and undefined. If that is what you are talking about I too dislike that. The SE releases of both Dr. No and Thunderball had a slightly doopy look to me. The new editions are MUCH improved in that regard.

But a film like Bullitt or The Sting for instance are fairly grainy, but not doopy looking at all. These two films have a beautiful rendition of natural looking film grain.

Doug
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce


No one is suggesting they should look like a 16mm version of the film. Although in some cases 16mm elements maybe all that is left.

We are hoping that the films will look like they did on opening day, clean, clear and with NATURAL film grain.

Doug
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce

Actually there has been some speculation that the Broccoli family bought back all the rights to the Bond films from UA in the mid 1980s when they weren't sure if UA would survive the Heaven's Gate train wreck.

My understanding is that the Broccoli's own the films outright and that MGM had a distribution deal. The right to produce a James Bond film, with the exception of the Thunderball story, has never left the hands of the Broccoli family and no studio can make one with out them.

Doug
 

StevenA

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 28, 1999
Messages
350

I believe you're experiencing an illusion. Where is this extra detail coming from? If you were to project a good 35mm film print in your living room on to a screen the size of your TV, I guarantee you will perceive more detail than you would from a DVD of the same image. Even Blu-Ray will have a hard time matching a projected 35mm image for perceived detail on the same screen size (depending on the generation of the print and other factors.)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,812
Messages
5,123,607
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
1
Top