|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Oct 12, 2012 1:16:00 GMT -5
^Thanks for the info and yeoch, sounds like your thoughts on Goldeneye were spot on. These folks have been reviewing the blu-ray set disc by disc and they were not happy with the look of this one... bluray.highdefdigest.com/7890/bond50_goldeneye.htmlOdd that it's a more recent Bond flick that is having so many problems with both the DVD and BD releases. |
|
|
|
Post by BJ on Oct 12, 2012 2:12:58 GMT -5
Here's what's really depressing about Goldeneye. The first frame in the link is what almost all of the the BD looks like according to those who have seen it, lots of smearing and edge enhancement. The second is the immediate frame afterward. It's the beginning of a fade out, and for whatever reason, the auto filtering isn't there. It's a glimpse of what the whole disc should look like. screenshotcomarison.com |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Oct 22, 2012 16:08:06 GMT -5
I don’t know how long the sale is going, but Best Buy had a bunch of Bonds BDs on sale for $9.99. The added benefit is that they offer a $10-off code to see Skyfall. With ticket prices the way they are, that’s like getting a free BD. So I grabbed Goldfinger. I haven’t read any reviews on this release, but it looked amazingly sharp at first blush, a big improvement on the DVD (which I popped on afterward to compare) so I am very happy with the purchase
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Oct 25, 2012 23:50:23 GMT -5
The Brits are getting Skyfall first and early reviews are promising.
I purchased more Blu's
I wanted to -at least- have my elite 8 on BD (I already had Casino Royale). 3 stores had exclusives with Best Buy hosting the majority of them - and with their DVD buyback (which has since expired in case your wondering) I was able to get their titles for $5, plus get the $10 tickets for Skyfall. So nice deal.
Dr. No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger all look amazing as did On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (but the DVD was pretty sharp as well so that was not unexpected).
The Spy Who Loved Me was a big upgrade over the DVD. As was The Living Daylights, which came from Target (I got their last copy but didn’t see any other exclusive goodies and didn’t ask)
Lastly, from Wal-Mart’s exclusives, the controversial GoldenEye. I was unhappy with the DVD so I went ahead and took a chance with the BD. My thoughts: There’s edge enhancement and that odd smearing - and If DNR bugs you, this will bug you. Sean Bean looks especially waxy. I’ve read that the worst examples of DNR can be found on Patton and Predator and while this isn’t as bad as them, it’s bad. Noting that, it is an improvement over the DVD: The image is overall crisper, the original titles are restored (though seriously, I couldn’t see too much of a difference with them) and there’s none of the bad cropping.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Oct 29, 2012 15:50:06 GMT -5
Watched the Thunderball BD, and the first half of the film looks wretched. The second half is a little better. The problem early on is that the night shots are littered with defects: Lines, grains, splotches… I couldn’t recall if my old DVD looked that bad so I went and checked -- compared, in particular chapter 8. And the DVD looks clean. No deep lines/scratches, no black blotches, dirt or hair. How is that possible? They must have use a different print for the BD, but why? I didn’t see any obvious cropping issues as was had with the GoldenEye DVD. I don’t have the means to screen cap a BD, but for example, in chapter 8 at the 28:29 minute mark. Here’s my DVD cap from the Ultimate Edition  Looks pretty sharp. Now go to this same spot on the BD. The picture is murky, there are several large black spots above the boat, there’s a gate hair on the left side, just above the sea-line. There is also long black line that cuts from the middle bottom of the screen up to the middle right. It’s horrid, it looks about as bad as a VHS copy, pre restoration. And I’m not exaggerating on that point. I did a google search on reviews, but no one seems to be pointing this out and DVD Beaver was happy with the release. Baffles me - I'm surprised no one is upset or curious as to the hows and whys. |
|
|
|
Post by BJ on Oct 29, 2012 17:43:29 GMT -5
That's interesting. I love Thunderball, and a lot of it's due to the visuals, so it's a shame there's so much print damage. I did a search and came up with this. It has the usual uninformed nonsense involved with people evaluating Blu-Rays online (I especially like the person who says the BDs are great, and then admits to having upgraded from VHS), but it backs up what you said. I'd love to know how and why that happened. The whole upside of Lowry de-graining/re-graining for the DVDs was that they also cleaned up all those flaws. www.hometheaterforum.com/t/304157/poor-quality-blu-ray-transfer-of-thunderballLooking further, the HDD review also mentions the issues. It's from Josh Zyber, the only writer there I pay attention to. bluray.highdefdigest.com/1583/thunderball.html |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Oct 31, 2012 0:16:50 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing those links. Yeah I watched Thunderball and You Only Live Twice that day. In the past I've ranked YOLT ahead of Thunderball, but this time out I found I preferred 'ball. Even watched it a second time (because the BD was irritating & distracting me on the first run through). The clarity of the BD really exposes the weakness of some of the SFX and process shots in YOLT. Sometimes more detail is not always a good thing.  (though it does look nicer than the DVD overall. Note: the vertical white scratches that have always been on every print and release I've seen for YOLT, remains on the BD.) |
|
|
|
Post by BJ on Oct 31, 2012 16:36:17 GMT -5
The final battle is so iconic, it's hard not to love You Only Live Twice.
It's strange, but I don't get into the Bond rating game the way so many other fans seem to. I have my favorites, and I think OHMSS, Diamonds are Forever and a few others are weak, but I enjoy each one as I go through the set. They're basically just escapist fun, so I try not to take it too seriously. I guess that's why I rarely discuss Bond online.
The discussions frequently devolve into posters saying how much they hate Roger Moore, or how every Brosnan film was terrible, etc., and I just sit back and realize my perspective on the series is entirely different. It's like discussing color with someone who sees a different range of wavelengths than I do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Nov 1, 2012 0:31:38 GMT -5
I'm a rating fool, it's a compulsion with me on everything. In fact, I'm comfort rating my laptop as we speak I'm down to watching my bottom feeders now and most of them have something appealing to them... even Live and Let Die --which none the less, still bores me (and that Sheriff Pepper guy I want to strangle) |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Nov 1, 2012 23:27:46 GMT -5
Well the Bond-a-thon is winding down; I’ve watched most of my Blu’s (saving Casino and Quantum for later) and am wrapping up with my SE DVDs. I have such a blast with these marathons, I often do one whenever a new movie premiers at theaters.
I must be in an especially good mood this time because even the weakest 007 flicks have provided something enjoyable -- Though tonight’s showing, “A View to a Kill” stretched my tolerance a bit.
With respect to his fans, sometimes the Roger Moore flicks were too stupid to be believed. Roger’s 007 movies sometimes make me cringe and take the Lords name in vain (I do face palms and say stuff like “Oh for Christ sake!” or “Jesus, Mary and Joseph!” or even, “Dear God make it stop!” Whenever I hear a dumb-ass music Que or a Tarzan yell or see a bird give a double take)
Still, I did like Patrick McNee in this one; he and Roger worked well together. There’s some cool action, I liked the scenes atop the Golden gate Bridge. And hey, whacked out Christopher Walken is always fun (Even if he does chew the hell out of the scenery)
Roger seems like a nice guy and I do like him as Bond… I’m just not fond of the broad or campy humor, and AVTAK is one of the worse offenders in that regard. It’s “Chock Full O’Dumb”! Tanya Robert’s is terrible, I think the cat even out acted her -- but man, she’s got a striking pair of blue peepers. I couldn’t take my eyes off her eyes.
Despite these nitpicks and other eye rolling moments, I enjoyed myself… not to Goldfinger levels, but still…
I’m real curious to see if this positive feeling can continue with License to Kill, which has always been the one Bond movie I have never been able to tolerate. (Funny that my bottom 2 both draw pieces from the same novel, “Live and Let Die.”) I’ve been working on re-writes for the website, wonder if I’ll end up softening up my LTK write-up?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Nov 10, 2012 21:52:23 GMT -5
Saw it and I hate to say it, but I'm a bit disappointed. It's good, but from the reviews and hype that were proclaiming this one of the best, I was expecting more than just good.
This is emo Bond. Tired and cranky looking. There are nods to the past, which I liked... but which ultimately came off condescending. Especially when you get a dismissive crack about exploding pens, and an iconic piece of 007 film history is destroyed. Felt like a middle finger to the old school.
Maybe I'm stuck in the past, but I like the fun and audacious Bond. I liked the movies from the 60s best of all. Bardem does gives us a screwy villain, but he feels out of place in this gray, depressing film (and even he has a depressing past connected to M).
Maybe as a movie about a beaten up old spy this would have been excellent, but as a Bond movie I found it lacking. Maybe a second viewing with expectations lowered, It'll shine for me. But as of right now I wouldn't even rank it in my top 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Nov 14, 2012 0:37:52 GMT -5
|
|
(though it does look nicer than the DVD overall. Note: the vertical white scratches that have always been on every print and release I've seen for YOLT, remains on the BD.)