James Bond 007 Collection: Sean Connery Collection 4K UHD

[JackyJacquard]

Originally Posted by BNex99

Glad to see the original theatrical audio tracks are apparently being included. I just hope they fix the fade-out at the end of Goldfinger's mono.

And of course, I wonder which mono will be used for Thunderball. This would actually be a great opportunity to finally present both the unaltered US and UK tracks.

Well now I’m curious, what’s the difference between Thunderball UK and Thunderball US?

Not a big expert on the small differences, only stuff like different cuts, so only audio difference I know of a big movie from that era is The Italian Job changing a line

[lilboyblu]

Originally Posted by BNex99

Glad to see the original theatrical audio tracks are apparently being included. I just hope they fix the fade-out at the end of Goldfinger's mono.

Where are you seeing this?

[Dr. T]

Originally Posted by lilboyblu

Where are you seeing this?

Nowhere official as nothing has been announced yet.

[RobertSterling]

.....

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by JackyJacquard

Well now I’m curious, what’s the difference between Thunderball UK and Thunderball US?

Not a big expert on the small differences, only stuff like different cuts, so only audio difference I know of a big movie from that era is The Italian Job changing a line

I can't remember for sure which is which, but one mix is missing a handful of lines, and in a couple of instances substitutes other lines. There's a featurette on the DVD and Blu-ray about some of the differences.

And as RobertSterling mentioned, the most noticeable is the end titles music. One mix has the Bond theme, and the other has an instrumental of "Thunderball."

But the Blu-ray (both mono and 5.1) seems to be a mashup of the two mixes, as some of the dialogue differences are there, but the end credits still has the Bond theme.

Originally Posted by lilboyblu

Where are you seeing this?

There's nothing official, but others have pointed out that Zavvi's listed specs include 2.0 English tracks. That seems to indicate mono or stereo, and with Warner and MGM's recent track record, my guess is that they at least intend to include the original tracks. Whether they get them right or not remains to be seen, of course.

[stvn1974]

Hmm, the listing on amazon for the Connery set shows digital but the cover art doesn't. I guess Bezos is going to want you to stream the films on amazon.

[Number_6]

Originally Posted by mar3o

But then why are some posts in here now saying they will be including the blu-rays, and at least one post seemed to mention it is listed somewhere as 12 discs? They must be getting this info somewhere?

I think it's because the Zavvi UK release mentions Blu-ray copies being included. Whereas the US simply mentions that it's a 6-disc set, implying the US release won't include Blu-rays.

The spec specifics are so scatter shot it's hard to know for sure what is and isn't being included at this point.

[RFK]

[Number_6]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Figures the US would get screwed again with no blu-rays. If the UK set includes the blu-rays, even if they're the old ones, that would be the set to get for those who don't currently own anything, unless the UHDs also include all the extras, which is doubtful, plus there's the chance they'll look worse on the UHDs than they do on the current blu-rays. Zavvi doesn't list every extra but it seems apparent that the UK sets will likely include all or most previously-released extras.

That's what I'm thinking. My concern is that the Zavvi set is a UK site-exclusive so I'll be locked out from ordering it from them directly and have to resort to getting it from scalpers on eBay.

[Dr. T]

Originally Posted by mar3o

But then why are some posts in here now saying they will be including the blu-rays, and at least one post seemed to mention it is listed somewhere as 12 discs? They must be getting this info somewhere?

Because people believe everything they read on the internet.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by mar3o

But then why are some posts in here now saying they will be including the blu-rays, and at least one post seemed to mention it is listed somewhere as 12 discs? They must be getting this info somewhere?

Additionally the Amz.fr listing says BDs. We'll have to wait 'til the smoke clears

[MifuneFan]

I'm blind as hell. I thought that was an X-ray of a bionic leg on first glance

[stvn1974]

Originally Posted by Dr. T

Because people believe everything they read on the internet.

It is no longer April 1 so everything you read on the internet is true.

[Dr. T]

Until there is a press release from the studio it's all speculation.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I'm blind as hell. I thought that was an X-ray of a bionic leg on first glance

A spy's ally is subterfuge.

[SHolmes221B]

Originally Posted by mclellandj

I very strongly doubt that art is legit given the distortion of the WB logo. There are strict corporate branding standards.

Good catch, but I think the spine side was just stretched. If you look at the "O"s they're elongated instead of round. Fixed. Then again it could just be a badly made place holder image and you're correct. Hopefully we get some updates soon to end the speculation.

[stvn1974]

No MGM logo makes me think it is fake.

[Dr. T]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

No MGM logo makes me think it is fake.

It's only a place holder. There's no way they're issuing a new 4K set with the same art as the nearly decade old Blu-ray set.

[DR Herbert West]

It would match the Craig 4K collection.

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Just as US settled for 1.85 in the late 50s, UK indicated 1.75 with allowance (protection) between 1.66 and 1.85, but these charts show a progression towards 1.85 and elimination of 1.66 in British productions from the late 50s till arriving to the 1.85 commonality of the 70s onwards. It's "evolutionary" common sense as A) the "markets" where theater screens were 1.85 was bigger, B) The main producer of the big box office films was Hollywood (1.85) so you would optimize your theater screens for the majority of movies, C) related to B, if you had a 2.35/9 wide screen installed for "Scope" films, why would you project spherical (flat) widescreen films at a smaller 89% 1.66 width size, when you could project them a the bigger sized 1.85 width? You wanted your patrons to come back and be impressed with your big new screen's size! which leads to D) Having the ability to project 1.66, 1.75, and 1.85 and Scope, involves double the investment in projection lenses and more complicated masking/lens turrets/change overs from format to format than just standardizing in 1.85 and Scope.

You don't really need different lenses for the different widescreen flat ratios. Just different aperture plates and adjusting the screen masking. If you're showing 1.33:1 you're also going to need a different lens to maximize image size along with a 1.33/37 aperture plate.

In the US later in the 20th century most mainstream commercial theaters could only worked with two aspect ratios, 1.85 and Scope. Don't know what they did in the UK, but it wouldn't surprise me if many theaters just showed all widescreen flat films 1.75:1

Art/rep theaters in the US would also be equipped for 1.33 and 1.66--1.66 was really necessary for European, especially older European films. Not just for the proper composition but to allow enough room for subtitles not to get cut off.

I'm assuming most flat films in the UK were like the US, shot open matte, protected for TV. They may have composed visually for 1.75 or 1.85, but either aperture plate could work. So could 1.66 if in Europe, just with some excess headroom... That 99% of the audience wouldn't have noticed when they were engrossed in Bond's escapades.

Scope films allowed that nice wide frame, but they also locked the composition so the projectionists couldn't misframe and screw up the composition. But then you were stuck with anamorphic lenses which weren't so great in the 50s and well into the 60s.