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

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by koberulz

There is no way the difference between 1.78 and 1.85 is enough to create "framing issues".

They would be shot open, so plenty of room for issues

[koberulz]

Cropping from 1.78 to 1.85, or opening up from 1.78 to 1.85, is not going to cause framing issues.

Completely redoing the framing from scratch might, but that's not because of the ratio chosen.

[captainsolo]

Originally Posted by koberulz

There is no way the difference between 1.78 and 1.85 is enough to create "framing issues".

In that regard yes. I think it was just someone not really paying much attention to the framing when making the new versions in 1.78. Nothing is really cropped off on those DVDs like the WB Horror of Dracula DVD did or horribly so like the later Hammer BDs in the wrong ratio but it definitely cramps up the visuals when you go back and look at them again-and this goes for all five on the original special edition DVD line.
It's just something I noticed over the years and was very happy they went back to the original ratios for the later releases.

[grim_tales]

Are the single release BDs of the early Bonds (not the ones in the collections) 1.66 or 1.85?

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by grim_tales

Are the single release BDs of the early Bonds (not the ones in the collections) 1.66 or 1.85?

1.66. They're the exact same discs.

[dragon53]

TRIVIA---more James Bond movie trivia.
In THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, James Bond goes undercover as marine biologist Robert Sterling to investigate Bond Villain Karl Stromberg, who has hijacked nuclear submarines in order to start a nuclear war and kill all of mankind so he can rule the Earth from his sea base at the bottom of the sea.
In the movie VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM of the SEA, Robert Sterling played Capt. Lee Crane, commander of the nuclear submarine Seaview, who must help save mankind from a global catastrophe after the Van Allen radiation belt is set on fire.

In THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, James Bond goes undercover as marine biologist Robert Sterling to investigate Bond Villain Karl Stromberg, who has hijacked nuclear submarines in order to start a nuclear war and kill all of mankind so he can rule the Earth from his sea base at the bottom of the sea.








In the movie VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM of the SEA, Robert Sterling played Capt. Lee Crane, commander of the nuclear submarine Seaview, who must help save mankind from a global catastrophe after the Van Allen radiation belt is set on fire.

[CHASLS2]

[quote=dragon53;17625063]TRIVIA---more James Bond movie trivia.
In THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, James Bond goes undercover as marine biologist Robert Sterling to investigate Bond Villain Karl Stromberg, who has hijacked nuclear submarines in order to start a nuclear war and kill all of mankind so he can rule the Earth from his sea base at the bottom of the sea.
In the movie VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM of the SEA, Robert Sterling played Capt. Lee Crane, commander of the nuclear submarine Seaview, who must help save mankind from a global catastrophe after the Van Allen radiation belt is set on fire.

In THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, James Bond goes undercover as marine biologist Robert Sterling to investigate Bond Villain Karl Stromberg, who has hijacked nuclear submarines in order to start a nuclear war and kill all of mankind so he can rule the Earth from his sea base at the bottom of the sea.


In the movie VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM of the SEA, Robert Sterling played Capt. Lee Crane, commander of the nuclear submarine Seaview, who must help save mankind from a global catastrophe after the Van Allen radiation belt is set on fire.

Last sub looks like the Seaview.

[koberulz]

FFS it's bad enough that these threads get bumped with these stupid image-filled trivia posts, and now we have people quoting them?

[CHASLS2]

Originally Posted by koberulz

FFS it's bad enough that these threads get bumped with these stupid image-filled trivia posts, and now we have people quoting them?

Then don't open the thread ted.

[kidglov3s]

I cut myself on those scrEEnshots.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by CHASLS2

Then don't open the thread ted.

Or you could do the courteous thing and put spoiler tags around your quoted images... this isn't a trivia thread, it's a Bond thread so anyone who sees the bumped thread will naturally click on it to see if there's discussions about Bond, not re-posted images.

[koberulz]

Or just not quote the post at all, seeing as there weren't any posts between the trivia post and the post quoting it, and the post was quoted in full. The quote served literally no purpose except to make it more of a PITA to read the thread.

Frankly I think someone ought to stop dragon53 and his thoroughly pointless image-spam posts, but at least if it's only them the Ignore function does the job.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by koberulz

Frankly I think someone ought to stop dragon53 and his thoroughly pointless image-spam posts, but at least if it's only them the Ignore function does the job.

Well I don't necessarily think they do any harm, though it can be annoying clicking on a thread to see if there's new info or discussions going on and just seeing asinine IMDB level trivia.

[koberulz]

If it was just the trivia posts it would be annoying but nothing more. The giant images are just a dick move.

[CHASLS2]

Originally Posted by koberulz

Or just not quote the post at all, seeing as there weren't any posts between the trivia post and the post quoting it, and the post was quoted in full. The quote served literally no purpose except to make it more of a PITA to read the thread.

Frankly I think someone ought to stop dragon53 and his thoroughly pointless image-spam posts, but at least if it's only them the Ignore function does the job.

I never meant to include the pics mick. But the cry babies sure came out of the wood work. I got rid of the pics for ya guys.

[dragon53]

I thought the trivia would be interesting since they are connected to a particular movie and often have information some aren't aware of. Since many of you aren't interested in them, then I'll discontinue them.

[MasterChief3624]

I was just looking at Amazon for the pre-Spectre volume collections for fun and I noticed that it seems Roger Moore Collection, Vol 1 and 2 are both particularly costly. But he other "collections" don't seem to have as extreme of a price.

Daniel Craig Collection is $48 new, $9 used
Pierce Brosnan: $45 new, $27 used
Timothy Dalton: $56 new, $40 used
Roger Moore Vol 1: $98 new, $90 used
Roger Moore Vol 2: $99.35 new, $85.68 used
Sean Connery Vol 1: $21.55 new, $16.45 used
Sean Connery Vol 2: N/A new, $60 used

I can understand the higher prices because of OOP status, but why are Roger Moore's films getting the brunt of the markup? Are the discs used to hack into a PS4 or something? It just seems so bizarre, haha!

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by MasterChief3624

I can understand the higher prices because of OOP status, but why are Roger Moore's films getting the brunt of the markup? Are the discs used to hack into a PS4 or something? It just seems so bizarre, haha!

Perhaps it's just that everyone suddenly appreciates the genius of Roger Moore. I've always thought he was underrated. Lots of people ridicule his run, but he kept the series going for a LONG time. It could easily have folded after Connery quit for the second time, or after Saltzman left, or any of a number of other times.

Even when they kept trying to replace him in the 80s, they realized they couldn't and kept bringing him back as he approached his dotage. I love that he was self aware enough to laugh about it, yet still gave his all.

I grew up with Roger Moore as Bond, the first Bond film I saw was A View to a Kill.

I think he's wonderful as Bond.

[chriszilla]

Originally Posted by koberulz

If it was just the trivia posts it would be annoying but nothing more. The giant images are just a dick move.

Thank goodness your posts, complete with semi-profane putdowns, are here to help elevate the quality of the thread.

[MasterChief3624]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Perhaps it's just that everyone suddenly appreciates the genius of Roger Moore. I've always thought he was underrated. Lots of people ridicule his run, but he kept the series going for a LONG time. It could easily have folded after Connery quit for the second time, or after Saltzman left, or any of a number of other times.

Even when they kept trying to replace him in the 80s, they realized they couldn't and kept bringing him back as he approached his dotage. I love that he was self aware enough to laugh about it, yet still gave his all.

I grew up with Roger Moore as Bond, the first Bond film I saw was A View to a Kill.

I think he's wonderful as Bond.

He is my favorite Bond, even if it took a few movies for him to really start to shine, I think. Watching him hurt Andrea Anders in The Man With the Golden Gun is just... really uncomfortable and hard to watch, and it feels like it is completely at odds with how his portrayals end up being, starting with Spy Who Loved Me.

Timothy Dalton comes in at a close second for me, despite being in only 2 films. He was the antithesis to Roger Moore, opting to play it straight and more grounded. But they are both excellent in the role, just different targets for their performances!