4 of 114 people found the following review helpful
LETS MAKE A BIT MORE CASH,
This review is from: James Bond - 22 Film Collection [Blu-ray]  (Blu-ray)How many times can they repackage these movies for heavens sake. I thought the remastered DVDs were just fine. Upscaled they look pretty much flawless, so I won't be paying out for this set. Just a thought, will the early films all be presented in 4:3 with black bars either side? I've seen that done on a number of old movies, and I was told that the BluRay remastering process doesn't work well with conversion to 16:9. I'm sure it will sell by the bucketload, and probably to a quite a few people who have already shelled out on several earlier editions in standard DVD. They could have remastered these movies for BluRay ages ago, and released them simultaneously with the remastered DVD set. At least then you would have had a choice, and not had to pay twice.
Tracked by 4 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 30 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 10 May 2012 01:53:47 BDT
Dennis E. Sisterson says:
The early films won't be presented in 4/3 because they weren't made in 4/3.
In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2012 16:41:57 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 May 2012 16:43:05 BDT
No-one is forcing you to buy this set. If you don't want to fork out for it then don't.
Anyone who has already bought previous editions should know that there will always be more editions in the future with the advent of new types of media etc.
I don't understand the idea that re-releases are a bad thing, particularly when you will be getting a version that is potentially better than the previous one. Sure, it's about money but if a Blu-Ray set was not released then there would also be outcry from those that want it, so essentially, whatever they do, the people in charge of this can't win.
What should they have done, stopped at the VHS release?
In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2012 19:24:12 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 May 2012 19:27:49 BDT
J. Martin says:
Agreed, I've never understood how people complain at re-releases, because they've been happening for decades.
I really don't understand where Mr. L. N. Taylor is coming from; Bond has been re-released and re-released countless times over the years, so this is nothing new. IMO, this has to be one of the most appropriate re-releases ever considering it's the 50th anniversary and what better way to celebrate it than release all the films in HD, giving them the most accurate presentation ever, especially when half the films aren't even out on BD yet.
I'll agree the DVDs do look great upscaled, more so than most DVDs, but flawless? No. For film the only way to have a flawless presentation is to give it a proper restoration and present in HD, not on DVD in SD and upscaled.
They could have released all the films back in 2006 on Blu-ray when the Ultimate Edition DVDs came out, but BD was still brand new and the format war was on, so it wouldn't have been appropriate. You also point out that had the BDs and DVDs come out at the same time you wouldn't have had to pay twice - didn't you have to pay twice when upgrading from VHS to DVD? Even if the BDs and DVDs did come out together in 2006, many people would still have paid twice for the same release, because they wouldn't necessarily have had BD in 2006. Whereas now far more people have it, so they would be replacing their 2006 DVDs with the same 'hypothetical' 2006 BDs. I know that maybe a bit confusing, but the point is the majority of consumers would be paying twice regardless of when the Blu-rays came out, because the market is always growing and more and more people are adopting Blu-ray. The only argument you could have in the instance of paying twice is if they own the the original 11 Blu-ray releases, but for those that do have them they could easily sell them and put the money towards 'Bond 50'.
As for the aspect ratio? Well, as Dennis pointed out the earlier films weren't shot in 4:3. 'Dr. No' was filmed in 1962, very few films were still being made in 4:3 then and in fact just three years later with 'Thunderball' the Bond films began shooting in 2.35:1, whereas the previous three films are 16:9, as are 'Live and Let Die' and 'The Man with the Golden Gun' later on.
In short I think this is a very worthy re-release and can't wait to get it. The only disappointment I have is it means I'll be replacing my Deluxe Edition of 'Casino Royale', which has beautiful packaging. But I can forgive one film for having all 22 films, and 23 not much later.
Posted on 19 May 2012 10:53:26 BDT
Posted on 12 Jun 2012 15:56:29 BDT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jun 2012 15:57:52 BDT
Malcolm M says:
The DVD editions suffer from edge enhancement, that's halo's around high contrast areas, edge enhancement is a process used on standard definition to artificially "sharpen" content, unfortunately the side effect is halo's around objects, many people don't spot this until they buy themselves a much larger display and then it sticks out like a sore thumb.
As for the early Bond films and their aspect ratio, Dr No through to Goldfinger were shot with an aspect ratio of 1.66:1, from Thunderball onwards they shot scope 2.35:1 ( sometimes referred to as 2.39:1 ) the only exceptions were the early Moore films, Live and Let Die and The Man With The Golden Gun, they were 1.85:1 but are fine when shown at 1.78:1 ( 16/9 )
An article on edge enhancement with an example of the process from my film review website.
Widescreen was introduced in 1953 and there were various formats competing, some had a 1.66:1 aspect ratio, some such as Superscope were 2.00:1 although some early Superscope movies such as Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers were actually filmed 1.85:1, then came Cinemascope and various other wider formats ( such as Ultra Panavision 70 ) these formats were typically anything from 2.20:1 to 2.76:1 and anything inbetween, most films shot before 1953 are typically filmed with an aspect ratio of 1.37:1 ( close to 4/3 old tv standards )
The reason the boxset was delayed ( as well as the latest film, Skyfall ) is because MGM once again ran into financial difficulties, those wanting separate editions will be able to buy them in 2013.
In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 08:57:20 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 22 Jun 2012 11:26:11 BDT]
In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 09:00:59 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Jul 2012 09:44:12 BDT
PAULO SILVA says:
Regarding the comments of Mr. Martin, I couldnīt agree more. I never understood the ethics behind this kind of questioning. Itīs like " So they do that for the money??? Wow! What a shock!".
Bond movies and Home Video, in any format, are a match made in heaven. With the Blu Ray editions this experience has never been closer to the real cinema. Thank God for new technologies and greedy producers. And if anyone is having problem in making the extra 90 pounds, not getting the new Bond Blu Ray set, should be the last of their concerns.
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2012 22:56:57 BDT
Mr. A. E. Ward Davies says:
Posted on 5 Aug 2012 20:28:56 BDT
J R Hartley says:
Why do people feel the need to write a 'review' on something that (a) they don't own and (b) they have no intention of buying? Surely the purpose of a review is to provide a viewpoint on something you've purchased to assist other buyers?
I would assume Mr. L. N. Taylor likes the look of his own text too much. And his full stops. A.S.W.
In reply to an earlier post on 8 Aug 2012 23:47:16 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 21 Aug 2012 15:53:55 BDT]