James Bond on Blu-ray/4K

17071737576108

Comments

  • JWPepperJWPepper You sit on it, but you can't take it with you.
    Posts: 512
    IMO the reason the Blu-Ray format never really took off, is the higher price and still releasing movies on both formats (dvd and bluray).
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    So long as it’s cheap and watchable, most people don’t really care if they’re watching on HD or not. That’s why DVDs still sell better than all other formats even 13 years after blu-ray debuted.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited August 2019 Posts: 10,591
    Do average moviegoers still actually purchase movies on physical home media formats anymore? I remember one of my friends being shocked at the fact that I went out and bought a Bluray of SP instead of buying it digitally. It looks as if the market for DVD and Bluray has dropped significantly.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Reading these comments mentioning the lack of image quality on DVD's make me feel bad for still opting for DVD's 9/10 times when I buy films!

    Never really jumped on the Blu-ray train, and I'm still on the fence about going down the route of buying brand new equipment for 4K, even though I'm a big film fan.
    @Torgeirtrap, as long as you´re happy with DVD, expecially if your tv set is smaller than 60", you shouldn´t lose sleep over it. Some people speak about nicht and day differences, but the only night and day difference for me was the jump from VHS to DVD. From then on, there have surely been improvements, but they get smaller with every new development. Unless you really get into it and become a geek for all kinds of technical details, like surround sound, colour details, and such things.
  • edited August 2019 Posts: 17,753
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Reading these comments mentioning the lack of image quality on DVD's make me feel bad for still opting for DVD's 9/10 times when I buy films!

    Never really jumped on the Blu-ray train, and I'm still on the fence about going down the route of buying brand new equipment for 4K, even though I'm a big film fan.
    @Torgeirtrap, as long as you´re happy with DVD, expecially if your tv set is smaller than 60", you shouldn´t lose sleep over it. Some people speak about nicht and day differences, but the only night and day difference for me was the jump from VHS to DVD. From then on, there have surely been improvements, but they get smaller with every new development. Unless you really get into it and become a geek for all kinds of technical details, like surround sound, colour details, and such things.

    @boldfinger I have to agree; although there is an upgrade in quality with Blu-ray, I haven't found the difference enough to make a complete switch of formats. If anything it's the titles I already own and really enjoy I could see myself getting on Blu-ray. That includes Bond of course, but buying yet another complete set… well, I might just wait until the next time they release one.

    My TV is also "just" 40" – and must be 12 years or more now; never going to get the complete Bly-ray experience on that. On top of that, I tend to watch more and more on my laptop for some reason.
    JWPepper wrote: »
    IMO the reason the Blu-Ray format never really took off, is the higher price and still releasing movies on both formats (dvd and bluray).

    Good point. Unlike when DVD took over for VHS, you now have two formats releasing the same content for years. DVD's being cheaper has definitely been a factor for some of my purchases too – especially when buying films on a whim, or films you're not sure are good enough to justify purchasing on a more expensive format (even though the difference in price is minimal in some cases).
    jake24 wrote: »
    Do average moviegoers still actually purchase movies on physical home media formats anymore? I remember one of my friends being shocked at the fact that I went out and bought a Bluray of SP instead of buying it digitally. It looks as if the market for DVD and Bluray has dropped significantly.

    Don't think they do, tbh. Physical formats are probably becoming something for those of us that are interested in having a physical copy of the films we purchase – and of course, owning copies of films that are unlikely to be available to download digitally or to stream.

    It's the same thing with buying music on CD or vinyl too.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    The only reason I would buy a UHD disc is if it happens to have a heavily improved transfer of a film and that improved transfer is not available on a blu-ray disc. At the moment, the only title I have is the first Superman film with Christopher Reeve.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    jake24 wrote: »
    Do average moviegoers still actually purchase movies on physical home media formats anymore? I remember one of my friends being shocked at the fact that I went out and bought a Bluray of SP instead of buying it digitally. It looks as if the market for DVD and Bluray has dropped significantly.

    Average, no. It would seem that streaming is the future and physical media is only for those of us who care about the difference in quality.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I'm a physical format advocate and will always be until I can't.

    No I certainly won't be converting my Blu-ray collection whole over to 4K. Like @Creasy47 said he's only buying those films that really stand out from the rest and will definitely benefit from the upgrade.

    Though I think once you acclimatize to HD going back to SD is glaringly noticeable.

    Fair enough if you aren't going to upgrade to a better TV to HD or 4K but the upscale is genuine.

    I personally want to see films in the best possible resolution and I totally disagree that a great film is enjoyable equally on VHS or DVD to Blu-ray or 4k.

    You are telling me I'm going to enjoy a SD Lawrence of Arabia over the Blu-ray or a forthcoming 4K release?

    When it's down to the visual aspect, the effect of seeing that image, being swept up in the experience of witnessing those scenes but I argue if you go there and get used it and recognize and how could you not, you are never going back to DVD ever again.

    Yes you might still watch your existing collection but you certainly aren't buying future titles on the format unless it's your only option, the Bond Blu-ray's despite some issues here and there wipe the floor with the UE DVD's.

    I won't be upgrading all the series to 4K as a boxset will be a ridiculous price but I will buy the 4K DC titles and OHMSS but after that I don't think I'll be bothering unless some of those top 10 previous era titles are that much of an up tick over the existing Blu-ray versions.

    Yes I also am a vinyl fan and yes it wipes the floor with streaming.

    As long as it's there physically I'm buying it and 4K Blu-ray for me is another step along the way which I will indulge but not commit to wholly.
  • boldfinger wrote: »
    Reading these comments mentioning the lack of image quality on DVD's make me feel bad for still opting for DVD's 9/10 times when I buy films!

    Never really jumped on the Blu-ray train, and I'm still on the fence about going down the route of buying brand new equipment for 4K, even though I'm a big film fan.
    @Torgeirtrap, as long as you´re happy with DVD, expecially if your tv set is smaller than 60", you shouldn´t lose sleep over it. Some people speak about nicht and day differences, but the only night and day difference for me was the jump from VHS to DVD. From then on, there have surely been improvements, but they get smaller with every new development. Unless you really get into it and become a geek for all kinds of technical details, like surround sound, colour details, and such things.

    There is a world of difference between DVD and Blu-ray.
  • Posts: 5,767
    @BonSimonLeBon_1, I never denied that there are differences, but notable differences become visible only with the respective technical equipment. And even then, the differences between DVD and BR are small in comparison with VHS vs. DVD. That doesn´t mean to say there aren´t some significant differences if you watch the films on a huge tv set with a cinematic surround sound system. But the point is, it is possible for many people to be happy with the DVD format without being ignorant.
    I bought several recent films I already had on DVD also on BR, because I was curious what differences I would see. I used a 32" tv set and a standart BR player. I could see small improvements in movements, where the DVD would be a bit blurry in places. I only noticed this when I directly compared the two formats, never when I watched a DVD alone. When I hit "Pause" and watched a still, I couldn´t see differences. Every tiny little hair or piece of lint was equally sharply visible.
    Which makes me wonder about the Bond BRs. Because someone in this thread I think mentioned that they were the same restorations and masters used for the UE DVD. But those two versions look totally different. Why would the same master look so different on the two formats, when contemporary films look more or less the same, if it´s not because they after all did some additional treatment for the BR release they didn´t do for the UE DVDs?
    Which brings me to @Shardlake´s question:
    Shardlake wrote: »
    You are telling me I'm going to enjoy a SD Lawrence of Arabia over the Blu-ray or a forthcoming 4K release?
    It all depends on how well the film is restored or otherwise prepared. I watched the latest version of Apocalypse Now in the cinema, and I don´t find it superior to the restauration they did for the Redux version. Colours and sound were worked on, yes, it´s clearly visible and audible. But it´s not better.
    Resolution is not everything that makes a film. I hugely enjoy seeing films in the cinema. I would say BRs have a sharper picture, but I would still prefer cinema.
    I agree with you on LOA. I watched it on BR, and I would never watch any older version again.
    I bought Manhunter on BR when it came out and was hugely disappointed. While it is true that a lot of details I only peripherally noticed on the DVD jumped at me on the BR, the colours were so reduced that the BR almost feels like a b/w film in comparison to the 80s neon rush of the DVD.
    Predator. No need to spend many words on that case.

  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I am happy with my 50th Anniversary BluRay box, but would certainly upgrade the Connery and Craig films to 4K. Like some Hitchcock films (Rear Window, Vertigo, To Catch A Thief) I will buy these again and again if it‘s a new tranfer or upgrade. Orherwise I am fine with the picture quality even on my 2m screen - imho the Bond BluRays have a very good picture and sound quality
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Which makes me wonder about the Bond BRs. Because someone in this thread I think mentioned that they were the same restorations and masters used for the UE DVD. But those two versions look totally different. Why would the same master look so different on the two formats, when contemporary films look more or less the same, if it´s not because they after all did some additional treatment for the BR release they didn´t do for the UE DVDs?

    Not all of them were the same restorations and masters. The first batch of Bond blu-rays that came out in 2008 and 2009 were from the same masters used on UE DVD (DN, FRWL, GF, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, FYEO, LTK, TWINE, DAD). TB was the exception, probably due to the UE having some errors (most notable was the pool not turning red after Largo had his henchman tossed to the sharks).

    Then there was a three year wait for more blu-ray releases because MGM was having its own financial issues. Finally in 2012 the remaining films came out on blu-ray for the first time (YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, TSWLM, OP, AVTAK, TLD, GE, TND). As far as I could tell, the only ones of that batch that used the same master as the UE DVDs were OP, AVTAK, TLD, and TND. The master for GE must have been an older one because of the apparent DNR, as the UE master was badly cropped and the image looked duller. YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, and TSWLM were given new remasters, which I thought was a notable improvement over the UE DVD remasters.

    All that said, for the most recent 4K transfers there had to be new remasters done. Back in 2005 only the first eight films were originally remastered at 4K, and the remaining films were simply cleaned up from their existing video masters (which is why later films like TND don't really have much of a leap between DVD and blu-ray). Why did they only do the first eight? 1) Scanning at 4K was much more expensive 15 years ago than today, so they had to be selective. 2) They only gave such treatment to the oldest films given they required more clean up than later installments. That's not to say the later films didn't look great remastered then. The UE DVD of TLD looked like a massive improvement over the original SE DVD, but that was fine for then, and this is now.

    So that called for new remasters, especially for later films. I haven't had too much time to watch all of them yet via iTunes, but going by the fact that A VIEW TO A KILL now looks much truer to its original theatrical presentation than both the UE DVD and blu-ray, I suspect all the other films have gotten the same treatment.
  • Posts: 5,767
    The UE DVD of TLD looked like a massive improvement over the original SE DVD
    Not the main point, but I sharply disagree.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited September 2019 Posts: 8,182
    The 80s film arguably look the worse on SE with all the aggressive compression and edge enhancement going on. The colors on the UE are truer, my point of reference being the sunrise shot in the Afghan desert.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 5,767
    The 80s film arguably look the worse on SE with all the aggressive compression and edge enhancement going on. The colors on the UE are truer, my point of reference being the sunrise shot in the Afghan desert.
    I noticed that shot as well. I´m not sure I remember wether I preferred that particular shot in the SE or the UE, but overall I much preferred the SE over the UE, despite the SE probably having one or the other flaw. It is possible that I mostly checked out newer films on the UE. I clearly remember that I found TLD and GE too dark for my taste. LTK too, but I liked the little extensions in some scenes at the time. The SE had this charme that no matter how I felt while watching the film, the next morning I would inevitably feel good. And that went away with the UE.
    But it´s possible I never saw any of the older films on UE DVD. And since I bought the BR collection, I felt no need for watching the SE DVD either.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    The UE DVD of GE was definitely on the dull side. I’d sooner watch the SE version. TLD was likely darker in spots, but the blu-ray handles the black levels much better.
  • MartinBondMartinBond Trying not to muck it up again
    Posts: 861
    I bought the very first DVD's with the 007* logo on the back, and got the briefcase one for almost nothing x years ago. I told myself I'd skip the 50'th edition and go for a new set every 10 years or so. With Craig bowing out after NTTD, the 6 Bonds-25 films box, case, book or whatever they make of it will end up on my shelf.
  • Posts: 16,153
    The Lowery UE DVD and Blu-ray of TLD regarding the sunrise shot is far more muted and dark than the SE DVD and theatrical version. In the cinema that shot had a deep golden hue which looked vibrant. It's much duller on the Blu-ray.
    Now the overall image is much sharper on the Lowery restoration, but the colors aren't accurate to the cinematic prints, IMO.
    Also, Lowery adjusted the shot as Bond and Kara are being escorted away from the plane. There was a boom mike waved in front of Dalton and d'Abo as they passed. That shot has been zoomed in to obscure the mike. I personally don't like such changes and prefer the films in their original content, flaws and all.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    October's going to be quite a pricy month for great movies and 4K transfers/restorations - I'm curious, however, why the Craig era is getting a 4K release at the end of that month yet the others aren't; perhaps it's to judge the popularity and interest in it, like they do with a lot of TV and film series, before releasing the entire set? I'm dying to check out the others on 4K, particularly GE after that horrid blu-ray transfer it received.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited September 2019 Posts: 8,182
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    The Lowery UE DVD and Blu-ray of TLD regarding the sunrise shot is far more muted and dark than the SE DVD and theatrical version. In the cinema that shot had a deep golden hue which looked vibrant. It's much duller on the Blu-ray.
    Now the overall image is much sharper on the Lowery restoration, but the colors aren't accurate to the cinematic prints, IMO.

    I used to believe that was the case, but in fact the UE is actually more faithful to the theatrical version. Changing the sunrise from dark amber to a golden hue was actually only done for the late 90s VHS and SE DVDs. So to give credit, TLD is one of the few films Lowry not only got right but corrected.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    October's going to be quite a pricy month for great movies and 4K transfers/restorations - I'm curious, however, why the Craig era is getting a 4K release at the end of that month yet the others aren't; perhaps it's to judge the popularity and interest in it, like they do with a lot of TV and film series, before releasing the entire set? I'm dying to check out the others on 4K, particularly GE after that horrid blu-ray transfer it received.

    Probably because his films sell the best, given he's popular and is the current Bond. All other Bond 4Ks will likely come in time for NTTD.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    October's going to be quite a pricy month for great movies and 4K transfers/restorations - I'm curious, however, why the Craig era is getting a 4K release at the end of that month yet the others aren't; perhaps it's to judge the popularity and interest in it, like they do with a lot of TV and film series, before releasing the entire set? I'm dying to check out the others on 4K, particularly GE after that horrid blu-ray transfer it received.

    Probably because his films sell the best, given he's popular and is the current Bond. All other Bond 4Ks will likely come in time for NTTD.

    That's been my assumption, akin to what they did with the blu-ray releases of the missing installments pre-SF. Good way to market NTTD, no doubt a lot of the single releases (if they get them and it's not just one big box set or sets attributed to each individual actor) will have tickets for NTTD, too.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 16,153
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    The Lowery UE DVD and Blu-ray of TLD regarding the sunrise shot is far more muted and dark than the SE DVD and theatrical version. In the cinema that shot had a deep golden hue which looked vibrant. It's much duller on the Blu-ray.
    Now the overall image is much sharper on the Lowery restoration, but the colors aren't accurate to the cinematic prints, IMO.

    I used to believe that was the case, but in fact the UE is actually more faithful to the theatrical version. Changing the sunrise from dark amber to a golden hue was actually only done for the late 90s VHS and SE DVDs. So to give credit, TLD is one of the few films Lowry not only got right but corrected.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    October's going to be quite a pricy month for great movies and 4K transfers/restorations - I'm curious, however, why the Craig era is getting a 4K release at the end of that month yet the others aren't; perhaps it's to judge the popularity and interest in it, like they do with a lot of TV and film series, before releasing the entire set? I'm dying to check out the others on 4K, particularly GE after that horrid blu-ray transfer it received.

    Probably because his films sell the best, given he's popular and is the current Bond. All other Bond 4Ks will likely come in time for NTTD.

    The 1988 CBS/Fox Home Video VHS version had the golden sunrise, as did the MGM/UA Home video 1992 remastered edition. The '92 remastered version was quite a bit sharper, though.
    That hue is also evident on the 1987 HAPPY ANNIVERSARY 007 special. The Blu-ray and Lowery DVD for TLD contains the version of that special which includes the sunrise shot and that's exactly the way the film looked on earlier VHS releases and the cinematic prints I saw. For that I'm only going by memory. I'd love to see it in the cinema again on 35mm. Now I'm more curious than ever.
    The HAPPY ANNIVERSARY 007 seems to have utilized the CBS/Fox Home Video transfers for all of it's clips.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    I’ll have to do a side by side comparison sometime with my LaserDisc copy, because the golden hue only seemed apparent on SE DVD.
  • Posts: 16,153
    I’ll have to do a side by side comparison sometime with my LaserDisc copy, because the golden hue only seemed apparent on SE DVD.

    Wonder if you could post a comparison? I just looked at the clip from the 25th anniversary special and the sunrise clip was pretty vibrant. Very rich in color. I remember seeing the old CBS/Fox laser disc years ago. Although it was pan and scan the colors looked very close to the cinematic version.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 2,436
    Interesting comparisons with Dr. No on this page. Notice how the Lowry Blu-ray darkens the Houses of Parliament/Big Ben shot and crushes all the detail.

    http://www.the007dossier.com/007dossier/post/2016/07/01/James-Bond-in-Glorious-Technicolor
  • Posts: 16,153
    Interesting comparisons with Dr. No on this page. Notice how the Lowry Blu-ray darkens the Houses of Parliament/Big Ben shot and crushes all the detail.

    http://www.the007dossier.com/007dossier/post/2016/07/01/James-Bond-in-Glorious-Technicolor

    The Blu-ray looks color timed a bit too much on magenta side in that comparison. I'd always prefer the 35mm Technicolor version even though that copy looks a bit scratchy. Of those comparisons I'd say the SE DVD looks the closest to the print. Pity about the framing, though.
    Back in the days of VHS and tube televisions with knobs for settings I was pretty obsessed on picture quality. I'd see an early Bond film in the cinema and immediately upon returning home be at my set adjusting the tint and colors to the way it looked on screen. I remember seeing a clean print of SUPERMAN THE MOVIE and then using my Warners VHS tape to get the tint right on Reeve's cape.
    If I still were watching movies on that old set I'd take that LaserDisc of DR NO, or the SE DVD, enhance the sharpness a titch, and tweak the tint so it's not as magenta and Connery looks more tanned.
    I could still do that with the hi def TV I have now, but just prefer choosing from the preset options.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I’ll have to do a side by side comparison sometime with my LaserDisc copy, because the golden hue only seemed apparent on SE DVD.

    Wonder if you could post a comparison? I just looked at the clip from the 25th anniversary special and the sunrise clip was pretty vibrant. Very rich in color. I remember seeing the old CBS/Fox laser disc years ago. Although it was pan and scan the colors looked very close to the cinematic version.

    I’ll get to that soon. I’ll also record VHS FOX/CBS for screencaps as well.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited September 2019 Posts: 8,182
    Doing the comparison @ToTheRight asked for.

    Here's screenshots of the TLD sunrise shot. For sources: Both captures of the 1988 CBS/FOX VHS and 1992 MGM LD were dubbed via Sony RDR-VXD655 VHS-DVD Recorder. The MGM 2000 DVD is just a straight up screenshot on my desktop PC, the blu-ray provided via Screenmusings.com (which I used as the basis to have every screencap at nearly the exact frame at pause) and then a screencap of 4K iTunes on my desktop PC.

    I sold my UE DVD long ago, so I couldn't provide a screencap of that but it should be close to the formats that came after. I couldn't find my late 90s MGM VHS P&S copy, but to my memory it had the same color timing as the 2000 DVD, so take that for what it's worth.


    Anyway, here's all the grabs...


    1988 CBS/FOX VHS
    tld-vh10.png


    1992 MGM LD
    tld-ld10.png


    2000 MGM DVD
    tld-dv10.png


    2012 FOX BD
    tld-bd10.jpg


    2017 iTunes 4K
    tld-it10.png



    This is all very interesting to look at not just in terms of color timing but also exposure, as the brightness of the sun varies from format to format. If we're using the VHS and LD as a close reference to how the film looked theatrically, then the 2000 DVD veered toward the golden hue.

    However, I didn't forget your citing of the 007 Silver Anniversary special, so I looked into that and you're correct in that it looked much closer to the 2000 DVD.

    Happy Anniversary 007 TV Special (1987)
    007ann10.png


    Looking at all these different transfers, I think the LD serves as the best middle ground of all. But when it comes down to it, which color grading is most accurate to what was featured in cinema in 1987? Looking at the 1988 VHS, it's clear now Lowry didn't just pull that color timing out of their arse when remastering the film back in 2005. Perhaps there were two different prints back then?
  • Posts: 17,753
    This is off topic, but relates to the 4K discussion so I might as well take it here. Are there any Hitchcock films out on 4K? If I'm ever going down the route of trying out 4K, having the opportunity to watch films as Vertigo, North by Northwest, Rear Window etc, in that format is a must.
  • Posts: 16,153
    Doing the comparison @ToTheRight asked for.

    Here's screenshots of the TLD sunrise shot. For sources: Both captures of the 1988 CBS/FOX VHS and 1992 MGM LD were dubbed via Sony RDR-VXD655 VHS-DVD Recorder. The MGM 2000 DVD is just a straight up screenshot on my desktop PC, the blu-ray provided via Screenmusings.com (which I used as the basis to have every screencap at nearly the exact frame at pause) and then a screencap of 4K iTunes on my desktop PC.

    I sold my UE DVD long ago, so I couldn't provide a screencap of that but it should be close to the formats that came after. I couldn't find my late 90s MGM VHS P&S copy, but to my memory it had the same color timing as the 2000 DVD, so take that for what it's worth.


    Anyway, here's all the grabs...


    1988 CBS/FOX VHS
    tld-vh10.png


    1992 MGM LD
    tld-ld10.png


    2000 MGM DVD
    tld-dv10.png


    2012 FOX BD
    tld-bd10.jpg


    2017 iTunes 4K
    tld-it10.png



    This is all very interesting to look at not just in terms of color timing but also exposure, as the brightness of the sun varies from format to format. If we're using the VHS and LD as a close reference to how the film looked theatrically, then the 2000 DVD veered toward the golden hue.

    However, I didn't forget your citing of the 007 Silver Anniversary special, so I looked into that and you're correct in that it looked much closer to the 2000 DVD.

    Happy Anniversary 007 TV Special (1987)
    007ann10.png


    Looking at all these different transfers, I think the LD serves as the best middle ground of all. But when it comes down to it, which color grading is most accurate to what was featured in cinema in 1987? Looking at the 1988 VHS, it's clear now Lowry didn't just pull that color timing out of their arse when remastering the film back in 2005. Perhaps there were two different prints back then?

    Wow! Thanks for posting those. My memory of those tapes is way off, then.

    Maybe I'm so use to that clip from the anniversary special? I was looking at some scenes from the 1998 VHS and the color timing isn't quite as rich I remembered either.
    Funny how on that first U.S. edition, the gunbarrel and title sequences are widescreen. The rest of the film is not.

    I'm tempted to go back and collect some of the Bonds on VHS for nostalgia. I still have a few of the CBS/Fox tapes.

    Thanks again, @MakeshiftPython .
Sign In or Register to comment.