James Bond: The Ultimate Collection (1962-2012) + Volume Collections

[Bourne1886]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I don't usually care about going off-topic but it is kind of annoying to load the thread looking for new info and be spammed with huge VHS cover images for no apparent reason.

Though on that topic I do have to say it's a shame MGM/EON/Fox don't use the amazing poster art that exists for these movies. That and the annoying Bond 50 packaging are the best arguments out there for using custom covers.

There's always a reason!

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Because sometimes 5.1 mixes have altered audio/new effects added etc.
(see the Terminator Bluray in which the 5.1 mix has no relation to the original audio. Music instruments and melodies missing, SFX altered. Another example is the E.T. Bluray. The 5.1 mix has a completely new dialogue (!!!) in the "hospital" scene compared to the original stero track)

Also, see this video on Jaws:
Jaws Before-and-After Sound FX Demo - YouTube

Now, I'm no expert on James Bond films, but again i would prefer the original audio, in case things changed substantially in the new mixes.

I have a hard time believing that Jaws example is real. Something has to be wrong like someone running some channels out of phase when creating the YouTube video. If it is real, then someone made a really big mistake in the 5.1 mix. It couldn't have been done purposely. Besides, how can one judge a 5.1 mix listening in mono or 2-channel?

When a film originally mixed in mono is upgraded to a 5.1 mix, relative levels are going to change, almost by definition. Although for the most part, the dialog is going to get panned center and the music track left and right stereo (with some echo return going to the surrounds). The only real variable is the sound effects and generally, the levels are going to be raised, not lowered, because since the dialog is isolated to the center channel, you can have loud sound effects coming out of the other channels and still be able to hear the dialog.

A mono mix may be the way some films were originally seen and the original mono mix is indeed the historical record. But the mono mix was not ideal because it was mixed with really only one thing in mind: high dialog intelligibility within the old Academy rolloff curve, which started rolling off high frequencies above 2KHz in the theatre. If a Blu-ray is made from a print, that's what we're getting. If a Blu-ray is made from a negative or inter-positive or dup master or the like and the original mag track still exists, then we're going back to the mono mix before the roll-off, but it was never heard that way in a theatre unless a 4-track mag version was released.

I also have a bit of a hard time believing the claims that new sound effects were purposely added to many films for the 5.1 Blu-ray. I just have a hard time believing that the studios would spend the money to do that, especially for back catalog titles that are selling for relatively low prices. What I actually think is happening is that when they go back to the mag tracks to remix, there are sound effects on there that weren't perceivable in the original mix that are now getting arbitarily mixed louder.

I suppose anything is possible, but as an ex-recording engineer, that's what I think is happening.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I have a hard time believing that Jaws example is real. Something has to be wrong like someone running some channels out of phase when creating the YouTube video. If it is real, then someone made a really big mistake in the 5.1 mix. It couldn't have been done purposely. Besides, how can one judge a 5.1 mix listening in mono or 2-channel?

When a film originally mixed in mono is upgraded to a 5.1 mix, relative levels are going to change, almost by definition. Although for the most part, the dialog is going to get panned center and the music track left and right stereo (with some echo return going to the surrounds). The only real variable is the sound effects and generally, the levels are going to be raised, not lowered, because since the dialog is isolated to the center channel, you can have loud sound effects coming out of the other channels and still be able to hear the dialog.

A mono mix may be the way some films were originally seen and the original mono mix is indeed the historical record. But the mono mix was not ideal because it was mixed with really only one thing in mind: high dialog intelligibility within the old Academy rolloff curve, which started rolling off high frequencies above 2KHz in the theatre. If a Blu-ray is made from a print, that's what we're getting. If a Blu-ray is made from a negative or inter-positive or dup master or the like and the original mag track still exists, then we're going back to the mono mix before the roll-off, but it was never heard that way in a theatre unless a 4-track mag version was released.

I also have a bit of a hard time believing the claims that new sound effects were purposely added to many films for the 5.1 Blu-ray. I just have a hard time believing that the studios would spend the money to do that, especially for back catalog titles that are selling for relatively low prices. What I actually think is happening is that when they go back to the mag tracks to remix, there are sound effects on there that weren't perceivable in the original mix that are now getting arbitarily mixed louder.

I suppose anything is possible, but as an ex-recording engineer, that's what I think is happening.

I have the Bluray, and it's real.

I don't understand why you have a hard time believing that studios change audios.
There are mono and stereo tracks that are re-purposed as 5.1 without changing anything, yes, but also there are many Blurays where the 5.1 features new added or altered effects, altered dialogues etc. to make the track more modern on purpose (and also because it's not easy to make a 5.1 track which features much audible activity in the various channels from a mono/stereo track).
This shouldn't be done of course at all, but unfortunately it is done.
Vertigo is another movie for which they recorded new sound effects to put in the 5.1 mix. I think I had seen a video about that.

Also, see this video about Terminator.
As an ex-engineer I hope you notice the difference:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xyk...ack_shortfilms

[Riddler95]

Originally Posted by moviedude 2K15

This set is down to $89.99 on Amazon.ca now. That's a fantastic price. That's only $3.91 per movie! I just ordered it myself!

$89.99 is an amazing price for a set like that! I wonder if the movies will be packaged individually?

I just hope that MGM gets their act together and gives GoldenEye a proper remaster considering the fact this this November marks the film's 20th Anniversary.

[MikeyHitchFan]

There's also a newly updated, smaller size James Bond Archives book coming soon. It's around $65 shipped on Amazon UK. The U.S. version is a bit more. It includes Spectre info.

[Neon Rabbit]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I have a hard time believing that Jaws example is real. Something has to be wrong like someone running some channels out of phase when creating the YouTube video. If it is real, then someone made a really big mistake in the 5.1 mix. It couldn't have been done purposely. Besides, how can one judge a 5.1 mix listening in mono or 2-channel?

When a film originally mixed in mono is upgraded to a 5.1 mix, relative levels are going to change, almost by definition. Although for the most part, the dialog is going to get panned center and the music track left and right stereo (with some echo return going to the surrounds). The only real variable is the sound effects and generally, the levels are going to be raised, not lowered, because since the dialog is isolated to the center channel, you can have loud sound effects coming out of the other channels and still be able to hear the dialog.

A mono mix may be the way some films were originally seen and the original mono mix is indeed the historical record. But the mono mix was not ideal because it was mixed with really only one thing in mind: high dialog intelligibility within the old Academy rolloff curve, which started rolling off high frequencies above 2KHz in the theatre. If a Blu-ray is made from a print, that's what we're getting. If a Blu-ray is made from a negative or inter-positive or dup master or the like and the original mag track still exists, then we're going back to the mono mix before the roll-off, but it was never heard that way in a theatre unless a 4-track mag version was released.

I also have a bit of a hard time believing the claims that new sound effects were purposely added to many films for the 5.1 Blu-ray. I just have a hard time believing that the studios would spend the money to do that, especially for back catalog titles that are selling for relatively low prices. What I actually think is happening is that when they go back to the mag tracks to remix, there are sound effects on there that weren't perceivable in the original mix that are now getting arbitarily mixed louder.

I suppose anything is possible, but as an ex-recording engineer, that's what I think is happening.

The Jaws video is most definitely real. Besides some of the other films that have been named, Superman: The Movie and The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly are 2 more examples of films that had radically different sound effects when remixed into 5.1. There is no way you can listen to Superman's 5.1 mix compared to any pre-2000 mix and say that those are the same effects from the original mixing stems.

This is definitely something that does happen and it is a very annoying trend.

[Riddler95]

Originally Posted by Neon Rabbit

The Jaws video is most definitely real. Besides some of the other films that have been named, Superman: The Movie and The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly are 2 more examples of films that had radically different sound effects when remixed into 5.1. There is no way you can listen to Superman's 5.1 mix compared to any pre-2000 mix and say that those are the same effects from the original mixing stems.

This is definitely something that does happen and it is a very annoying trend.

When they created the 5.1 Mix for Superman 1 the original audio elements of the sound effects had deteriorated so badly that they couldn't be restored and therefore had to be replaced with brand new sound effects. I really like the 5.1 Mix that was created for Superman 1.

Apparently when Warner Bros was preparing the 4-Disc DVD Edition of Superman 1, they had to source the Theatrical Audio for the Theatrical Cut from the WideScreen LaserDisc because they couldn't restore the mix.

[Geoff D]

I can believe that about STM, the audio for the theatrical cut is pretty poor. When we get the shots of the fields with the rustling sheafs of wheat or corn (whatever it was) it just sounds like a constant hiss coming from the rears,I thought something was wrong with my system the first time I listened to it. Laserdisc PCM generally has a pretty good reputation for quality but IIRC the audio on the STM LD was always known for being poor.

Zoet: do you really think people are just basing all these comments about 5.1 mixes on youtube videos? No, we've got the discs and are listening to them in the correct multi-channel environment....and they still suck donkey balls. You can have a hard time all you want with it, but it's laughable to even suggest that something like Terminator sounds so different because we're hearing it at a higher fidelity...does that include instances of music and sound effects being removed completely? Perhaps they were originally recorded at such a high fidelity so that only dogs can hear them?

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

More like a damp squib than fireworks. Still, at least he got a vacation for something a little less trivial than a shirt button this time.

Shirt button? I feel like I'm at a party where everyone is laughing and I'm not in on the joke. So what did the poster do to get banned?

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by Riddler95

$89.99 is an amazing price for a set like that! I wonder if the movies will be packaged individually?

I just hope that MGM gets their act together and gives GoldenEye a proper remaster considering the fact this this November marks the film's 20th Anniversary.

More importantly, will it be bilingual?

Edit: It is

[imsounoriginal]

Something about Connery's facial expression on the From Russia With Love cover is ; might be as bad as Craig's expression on Quantum of Solace's.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I think that the uniform look of the new stand-alone Blu-rays is cool, but the cover images are better with the 50th Anniversary Blu-rays.

The big chunk of white ruins the image, it would be neat if it was a mini slip and there was artwork underneath, but I don't think that's the case.

I've also wondered why we always get stuck with portrait style cases with new formats? it would be nice to see some landscape ones, they'd take up less shelf space vertically! Square cases would be neat too!

[BNex99]

I normally don't like to complain too much about cover art, but sometimes it seems like MGM deliberately tries to see how uninteresting they can make the cover art for their catalog films. And they keep getting worse; the 50th Anniversary covers for the individual Bond releases were bland, but these are just flat-out ugly.

I wish the major studios would take a cue from Arrow & Shout Factory and maybe try some reversible covers with the original poster art.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by BNex99

I normally don't like to complain too much about cover art, but sometimes it seems like MGM deliberately tries to see how uninteresting they can make the cover art for their catalog films. And they keep getting worse; the 50th Anniversary covers for the individual Bond releases were bland, but these are just flat-out ugly.

I wish the major studios would take a cue from Arrow & Shout Factory and maybe try some reversible covers with the original poster art.

They don't have to put that much thought into cover art; it's Bond, people will buy no matter what.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I have a hard time believing that Jaws example is real. Something has to be wrong like someone running some channels out of phase when creating the YouTube video. If it is real, then someone made a really big mistake in the 5.1 mix. It couldn't have been done purposely. Besides, how can one judge a 5.1 mix listening in mono or 2-channel?

When a film originally mixed in mono is upgraded to a 5.1 mix, relative levels are going to change, almost by definition. Although for the most part, the dialog is going to get panned center and the music track left and right stereo (with some echo return going to the surrounds). The only real variable is the sound effects and generally, the levels are going to be raised, not lowered, because since the dialog is isolated to the center channel, you can have loud sound effects coming out of the other channels and still be able to hear the dialog.

A mono mix may be the way some films were originally seen and the original mono mix is indeed the historical record. But the mono mix was not ideal because it was mixed with really only one thing in mind: high dialog intelligibility within the old Academy rolloff curve, which started rolling off high frequencies above 2KHz in the theatre. If a Blu-ray is made from a print, that's what we're getting. If a Blu-ray is made from a negative or inter-positive or dup master or the like and the original mag track still exists, then we're going back to the mono mix before the roll-off, but it was never heard that way in a theatre unless a 4-track mag version was released.

I also have a bit of a hard time believing the claims that new sound effects were purposely added to many films for the 5.1 Blu-ray. I just have a hard time believing that the studios would spend the money to do that, especially for back catalog titles that are selling for relatively low prices. What I actually think is happening is that when they go back to the mag tracks to remix, there are sound effects on there that weren't perceivable in the original mix that are now getting arbitarily mixed louder.

I suppose anything is possible, but as an ex-recording engineer, that's what I think is happening.

The Jaws example is definitely real. Of course, it sounds a little fuller in a 5.1 or 7.1 environment, but the re-recorded foley is there. Fortunately, the mono is also on the Blu-ray (and some DVDs).

As others have said, there are other examples, such as Superman, The Terminator, Psycho, and several of the Bond movies. However, I think the 5.1 on Thunderball, which some considered the most egregious of the remixes, was apparently toned down for the Blu-ray, so it sounds a little closer to the original.

[redphoenix]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

It's amazing that OHMSS has grown in stature over the decades. When I first saw it in the early 90s, I was curious because it had such a bad reputation and I wanted to see what the fuss was about. I thought it was fantastic and it's still one of my favourites. Not long after, it's cult reputation started to grow. Makes me kind of proud. I was living in the UK at the time so the first few times I watched it was in that edited version you mention. When I saw the proper version it was a revelation!

Ok, you guys have peaked my interest now. I'm guessing I've seen the "edited" version, which is the proper version I should check out?

[chip75]

Originally Posted by redphoenix

Ok, you guys have peaked my interest now. I'm guessing I've seen the "edited" version, which is the proper version I should check out?

They might have cut it down for length on TV, but I think it's been complete for a few years now. The DVD and BDs are the full versions as far as I can remember and the BD is the proper version.

[redphoenix]

Originally Posted by chip75

They might have cut it down for length on TV, but I think it's been complete for a few years now. The DVD and BDs are the full versions as far as I can remember and the BD is the proper version.

Thanks. I don't own it on BD yet so it was definitely the TV version I've seen then.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by redphoenix

Ok, you guys have peaked my interest now. I'm guessing I've seen the "edited" version, which is the proper version I should check out?

The edited version I am referring to was released on VHS in the UK in the late 80s. Perhaps it was edited for length because it was a 140 minute film being squeezed onto a single tape? Who knows. Anyway, in the edited version there were two main sequences removed. The first was the scene where Bond breaks into Gumbold's office, photocopying the documents and stealing the Playboy centrefold. In the edited version it goes from Bond entering the main door of the building and then cuts right to Bond arriving at M's mansion.

The second sequence that was edited out was the one where Campbell (the blond curly haired British agent played by Bernard Horsfall who shadows 007 in Switzerland) tries to access the cable car to Piz Gloria and protests as Grunther pushes him away.

If you remember seeing these two sequences, then you've seen the complete film!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Markgway

Shirt button? I feel like I'm at a party where everyone is laughing and I'm not in on the joke. So what did the poster do to get banned?

He couldn't get over Vincent D'Onofrio's shirt button changing sides in a shot in Jurassic World (where clearly they'd flopped the shot to make more sense of it within the layout of the scene) and kept spamming the thread and getting into arguments over it. That was a few weeks back, now he's gone off on one about Moore holding up that black chick with a gun on the new cover of LALD and earned another vacation.