› ›

I've never noticed that before...

1…4546485051…170

Comments

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Never caught that before, either. Cats are the devil.
    Cats are minions of the antichrist.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I hope Blofeld's suit was thick enough to protect him from those claws.

    I read that the cat actually got so scared from the explosions and such it ran away and hid up where the crater door opens. Poor thing.
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Never caught that before, either. Cats are the devil.
    jake24 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Never caught that before, either. Cats are the devil.
    Cats are minions of the antichrist.

    Don't let @Dragonpol hear you
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Just goes to show Pleasance was such an in command actor. This man would go on to face Michael Myers in deadly confrontation after deadly confrontation for decades afterwards, so the cat clawing was great training in pain tolerance.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I guess that's how Ernst got his scar. ;)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Murdock wrote: »
    I guess that's how Ernst got his scar. ;)
    You jest, @Murdock, but Dr. Loomis does get a bad burn on one side of his face after surviving a confrontation with Michael which is dare I say, very Blofeld-esque. ;)
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, Perhaps in an alternate universe, Blofeld was a good guy but got similar injuries. :)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited September 2016 Posts: 28,694
    Murdock wrote: »
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, Perhaps in an alternate universe, Blofeld was a good guy but got similar injuries. :)

    @Murdock, yes!

    "I know there to exist two Ernst Stavro Blofelds out there. One is the man you see before you now, but the other...took a far different path. Rather than pursue domination and worldwide control, he chose to help people with simple therapeutic techniques and his knowledge of psychology. A grand departure from the man I look at in the mirror each morning; a man I barely recognize, in fact. But what binds us, my friends, is this scar. We've both got one, you see, to remind us of the one force of nature that always gets in our way. We both face our own monsters frequently, this other Ernst and I. His goes by the name of Michael. Mine is called James..."

    Cross-over time!
  • IGUANNAIGUANNA
    edited September 2016 Posts: 1,296
    Personally I would like to see Blofeld kidnap Bond, tie him up, and give him an unwanted therapeutic massage.
  • IGUANNAIGUANNA
    Posts: 1,296
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    IGUANNA wrote: »
    @tanaka123 They have also fiddled with the colours and grain structure of the old Bonds beyond acceptable thresholds....... hence a troubling 'praise' from certain "dimwits' on how Dr No in HD looks like it was made yesterday, friends if anyone wants a download of the director-approved Criterion laserdisc with the original colours don't ask me because I'm not sharing.

    And this is a bad thing because?
    If a film made in 1962 has been restored to make it look better, then why is this a bad thing? The film itself hasn't been changed.

    We're also drifting off topic here. Let's get back on track, to what this thread is here for.
    Any new things spotted?



    No @Benny , it's best state is it's original state. The goal of film restoration is to get the film (including colours) as accurate to the original. It's been restored to look like an original 35mm print would have looked in 1962, at least that's the intention, an original 35mm print is the best quality you'll ever get.

    Here

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

    you can see the differences.

    I'm pretty passionate about the color timing issues as well. Having had the opportunity to see many of the Bonds on 35mm in the past several years, I distinctly remember the colors, and as sharp as most of the blu rays are, they often don't accurately represent what the prints look like on the big screen.
    To be honest, as lame as it sounds, I think the mid 1980s VHS editions of the Bond films are the closest in terms of colors, to the cinematic prints.
    Some of the blu-rays, I think aren't too far off, though. DAF, for instance is pretty close as is MR. GF is alright.
    The UE edition of TLD is WAY off the beam. The "chocolate box" shot of the sunrise in the desert is so muted it loses it's magic.
    I don't know about anyone else here, but I almost always go for the original mono track when popping these films in since the sound effects and music cues have been so drastically altered in the restored versions.
    Thank you @ToTheRight, I also go for the monos I just wish they were in lossless like they should be.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,169
    IGUANNA wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    IGUANNA wrote: »
    @tanaka123 They have also fiddled with the colours and grain structure of the old Bonds beyond acceptable thresholds....... hence a troubling 'praise' from certain "dimwits' on how Dr No in HD looks like it was made yesterday, friends if anyone wants a download of the director-approved Criterion laserdisc with the original colours don't ask me because I'm not sharing.

    And this is a bad thing because?
    If a film made in 1962 has been restored to make it look better, then why is this a bad thing? The film itself hasn't been changed.

    We're also drifting off topic here. Let's get back on track, to what this thread is here for.
    Any new things spotted?



    No @Benny , it's best state is it's original state. The goal of film restoration is to get the film (including colours) as accurate to the original. It's been restored to look like an original 35mm print would have looked in 1962, at least that's the intention, an original 35mm print is the best quality you'll ever get.

    Here

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

    you can see the differences.

    I'm pretty passionate about the color timing issues as well. Having had the opportunity to see many of the Bonds on 35mm in the past several years, I distinctly remember the colors, and as sharp as most of the blu rays are, they often don't accurately represent what the prints look like on the big screen.
    To be honest, as lame as it sounds, I think the mid 1980s VHS editions of the Bond films are the closest in terms of colors, to the cinematic prints.
    Some of the blu-rays, I think aren't too far off, though. DAF, for instance is pretty close as is MR. GF is alright.
    The UE edition of TLD is WAY off the beam. The "chocolate box" shot of the sunrise in the desert is so muted it loses it's magic.
    I don't know about anyone else here, but I almost always go for the original mono track when popping these films in since the sound effects and music cues have been so drastically altered in the restored versions.
    Thank you @ToTheRight, I also go for the monos I just wish they were in lossless like they should be.

    Some of the levels aren't quite hot enough for my tastes so I'm always boosting the sound up a bit.
    For those who never saw any of the early Bonds in the cinema, the clips used in the HAPPY ANNIVERSARY 007 special on TLD dvd/blu ray are a pretty good example of what the colors looked like in the cinema. Those clips used the same transfers from the CBS/FOX Home Video editions. I would imagine the CBS/FOX laser discs also used the same transfers.
  • IGUANNAIGUANNA
    edited September 2016 Posts: 1,296
    Yes @ToTheRight you can use some of the old tv specials and making of documentarys as a reference for how the colours are supposed to look. Also, the original audios to me I like better of course except for they are tinny and shrill due to low bitrate, this was never corrected on the blu ray releases even tho thye had ample disc space to do so.

    Anyway to get back on topic, you can see up Tracy's nose when she's reciting her poetry in OHMSS.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    I partly agree with you @Iguana there is such a thing as too much restoration which can ruin the original effect intended by the filmmakers.

    The colours of the films which you've touched on, most notably the OHMSS PTS.

    But there have also been sound changes which the original editor/sounds mixers have been disappointed with. Eg:
    - door slam noise removed from end of GF PTS
    - when Largo enters the meeting room at the start the sound of the door opening has been changed
    - most famous one is the differences in Bunt's gunshot sound end of OHMSS

    It would be nice if someone has a full list of differences over the years

    Restoration has its benefit but sometimes too many cooks can alter the directors vision. I can just imagine in 50 years time someone removing the filters from DAD and SP





  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    w2bond wrote: »

    It would be nice if someone has a full list of differences over the years

    That has been on my to do list now for a while.
  • IGUANNAIGUANNA
    Posts: 1,296
    Bond's face is covered in dirt at the end of the getting ready montage at Skyfall.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    w2bond wrote: »
    I partly agree with you @Iguana there is such a thing as too much restoration which can ruin the original effect intended by the filmmakers.

    The colours of the films which you've touched on, most notably the OHMSS PTS.

    But there have also been sound changes which the original editor/sounds mixers have been disappointed with. Eg:
    - door slam noise removed from end of GF PTS
    - when Largo enters the meeting room at the start the sound of the door opening has been changed
    - most famous one is the differences in Bunt's gunshot sound end of OHMSS

    It would be nice if someone has a full list of differences over the years

    Restoration has its benefit but sometimes too many cooks can alter the directors vision. I can just imagine in 50 years time someone removing the filters from DAD and SP





    Those sound differences are not restoration, restoration is preserving something back to its original state.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,169
    w2bond wrote: »
    I partly agree with you @Iguana there is such a thing as too much restoration which can ruin the original effect intended by the filmmakers.

    The colours of the films which you've touched on, most notably the OHMSS PTS.

    But there have also been sound changes which the original editor/sounds mixers have been disappointed with. Eg:
    - door slam noise removed from end of GF PTS
    - when Largo enters the meeting room at the start the sound of the door opening has been changed
    - most famous one is the differences in Bunt's gunshot sound end of OHMSS

    It would be nice if someone has a full list of differences over the years

    Restoration has its benefit but sometimes too many cooks can alter the directors vision. I can just imagine in 50 years time someone removing the filters from DAD and SP





    I'd love to see a list, too. One change that really bothered me was in LALD after Bond jumps over the crocodiles, the music was horrendously remixed removing that wonderful bass line and guitar riff.
    I do remember some of the earlier VHS editions of GF had a couple frames missing in the PTS which cut the door slam and the first note of the theme song.
    In the 1992 remastered VHS edition of TSWLM the scene on the Nile with Anya was given that now trendy bluish tint as per the PTS of OHMSS. I believe many of the changes began with those remastered versions. The cat's meow in DAF certainly was replaced on those tapes.
    I've seen beautifully clean and some pretty scratchy crummy prints of the Connery's on the big screen, and one thing they have in common are the colors looking vivid. Even on an extremely worn out print of TB, the Nassau beach scenes still pop out.
    It's a shame some of the colors were reduced on the Lowry editions. Frankly I don't want YOLT to look like it was shot today. I can always watch Batman V Superman or (heaven forbid) Twilight if I want an example of 21st century muted cinematography. I want YOLT to look and sound as close as it did when my Dad saw it on the big screen summer of 1967. I still maintain the opinion that the transfers used in the mid-late 80s for the VHS and laser-disc editions of the earlier Bonds are the truest to the cinematic prints in terms of color timing.
    Too bad they couldn't just use those and give them a high definition blu-ray release.
    Also I'd love to see the original UA logos back at the front prior to the GB. The ABC Sunday Night at The Movies transfers often used the old US logos.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    I partly agree with you @Iguana there is such a thing as too much restoration which can ruin the original effect intended by the filmmakers.

    The colours of the films which you've touched on, most notably the OHMSS PTS.

    But there have also been sound changes which the original editor/sounds mixers have been disappointed with. Eg:
    - door slam noise removed from end of GF PTS
    - when Largo enters the meeting room at the start the sound of the door opening has been changed
    - most famous one is the differences in Bunt's gunshot sound end of OHMSS

    It would be nice if someone has a full list of differences over the years

    Restoration has its benefit but sometimes too many cooks can alter the directors vision. I can just imagine in 50 years time someone removing the filters from DAD and SP





    I'd love to see a list, too. One change that really bothered me was in LALD after Bond jumps over the crocodiles, the music was horrendously remixed removing that wonderful bass line and guitar riff.
    I do remember some of the earlier VHS editions of GF had a couple frames missing in the PTS which cut the door slam and the first note of the theme song.
    In the 1992 remastered VHS edition of TSWLM the scene on the Nile with Anya was given that now trendy bluish tint as per the PTS of OHMSS. I believe many of the changes began with those remastered versions. The cat's meow in DAF certainly was replaced on those tapes.
    I've seen beautifully clean and some pretty scratchy crummy prints of the Connery's on the big screen, and one thing they have in common are the colors looking vivid. Even on an extremely worn out print of TB, the Nassau beach scenes still pop out.
    It's a shame some of the colors were reduced on the Lowry editions. Frankly I don't want YOLT to look like it was shot today. I can always watch Batman V Superman or (heaven forbid) Twilight if I want an example of 21st century muted cinematography. I want YOLT to look and sound as close as it did when my Dad saw it on the big screen summer of 1967. I still maintain the opinion that the transfers used in the mid-late 80s for the VHS and laser-disc editions of the earlier Bonds are the truest to the cinematic prints in terms of color timing.
    Too bad they couldn't just use those and give them a high definition blu-ray release.
    Also I'd love to see the original UA logos back at the front prior to the GB. The ABC Sunday Night at The Movies transfers often used the old US logos.

    YOLT's cinematography is still the same on the blu ray!
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    edited September 2016 Posts: 16,169
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    I partly agree with you @Iguana there is such a thing as too much restoration which can ruin the original effect intended by the filmmakers.

    The colours of the films which you've touched on, most notably the OHMSS PTS.

    But there have also been sound changes which the original editor/sounds mixers have been disappointed with. Eg:
    - door slam noise removed from end of GF PTS
    - when Largo enters the meeting room at the start the sound of the door opening has been changed
    - most famous one is the differences in Bunt's gunshot sound end of OHMSS

    It would be nice if someone has a full list of differences over the years

    Restoration has its benefit but sometimes too many cooks can alter the directors vision. I can just imagine in 50 years time someone removing the filters from DAD and SP





    I'd love to see a list, too. One change that really bothered me was in LALD after Bond jumps over the crocodiles, the music was horrendously remixed removing that wonderful bass line and guitar riff.
    I do remember some of the earlier VHS editions of GF had a couple frames missing in the PTS which cut the door slam and the first note of the theme song.
    In the 1992 remastered VHS edition of TSWLM the scene on the Nile with Anya was given that now trendy bluish tint as per the PTS of OHMSS. I believe many of the changes began with those remastered versions. The cat's meow in DAF certainly was replaced on those tapes.
    I've seen beautifully clean and some pretty scratchy crummy prints of the Connery's on the big screen, and one thing they have in common are the colors looking vivid. Even on an extremely worn out print of TB, the Nassau beach scenes still pop out.
    It's a shame some of the colors were reduced on the Lowry editions. Frankly I don't want YOLT to look like it was shot today. I can always watch Batman V Superman or (heaven forbid) Twilight if I want an example of 21st century muted cinematography. I want YOLT to look and sound as close as it did when my Dad saw it on the big screen summer of 1967. I still maintain the opinion that the transfers used in the mid-late 80s for the VHS and laser-disc editions of the earlier Bonds are the truest to the cinematic prints in terms of color timing.
    Too bad they couldn't just use those and give them a high definition blu-ray release.
    Also I'd love to see the original UA logos back at the front prior to the GB. The ABC Sunday Night at The Movies transfers often used the old US logos.

    YOLT's cinematography is still the same on the blu ray!

    The colors are washed out on the blu-ray compared to the theatrical prints. The picture is sharp, but doesn't have that warm hue.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I watched AVTAK last night, and paused at both the trolley scene and the first meeting scene between Bond and Chuck, and all the women in these scenes didn't look like Maud Adams, so I'm either wrong or her cameo is featured elsewhere.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited September 2016 Posts: 10,591
    That's her:

    http://image.wikifoundry.com/image/1/707lLmO9KUe4rKiNd7TOKw39156/GW551H359
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I rewound and paused several times, and it just didn't look like her to me at all. Oh well.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited September 2016 Posts: 9,117
    jake24 wrote: »
    That's her:

    http://image.wikifoundry.com/image/1/707lLmO9KUe4rKiNd7TOKw39156/GW551H359

    On what are you basing this assertion? Just that picture?

    It doesn't look much like her to me. Maud is quite tall isn't she?

    https://goo.gl/images/DScE0u

    Going from the above pic (although she's no doubt wearing heels) she's only a few inches shorter than Rog. Given she was a model it would make sense that she was tall.

    But if that woman in your pic is her that guy to her right (and slightly behind?) must be about 7ft 6. Do guys that tall and conspicuous really get used in scenes as extras?

    I found the following quote from John Glen on C********rBond.com:

    'We were shooting at Fisherman’s Wharf. Maud — who is a very good friend of ours — decided to come and visit us on the set with her boyfriend. I said to Maud “Come on, why don’t you become a crowd extra?” So she and her boyfriend walked through'

    Now if we look at 02.47 in this video:


    We can clearly see Maud visiting the set. If we assume the guy with her is said boyfriend and Glen is correct then he is clearly a different guy to the bloke walking with the woman in the scene.

    In addition there's something about the woman's hair in your picture that doesn't quite match Maud's in that clip.

    I'm sorry I just don't think the case is proven.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    At least that video there shows us what she was wearing that day. Back to the viewing!
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,169
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    That's her:

    http://image.wikifoundry.com/image/1/707lLmO9KUe4rKiNd7TOKw39156/GW551H359

    On what are you basing this assertion? Just that picture?

    It doesn't look much like her to me. Maud is quite tall isn't she?

    https://goo.gl/images/DScE0u

    Going from the above pic (although she's no doubt wearing heels) she's only a few inches shorter than Rog. Given she was a model it would make sense that she was tall.

    But if that woman in your pic is her that guy to her right (and slightly behind?) must be about 7ft 6. Do guys that tall and conspicuous really get used in scenes as extras?

    I found the following quote from John Glen on C********rBond.com:

    'We were shooting at Fisherman’s Wharf. Maud — who is a very good friend of ours — decided to come and visit us on the set with her boyfriend. I said to Maud “Come on, why don’t you become a crowd extra?” So she and her boyfriend walked through'

    Now if we look at 02.47 in this video:


    We can clearly see Maud visiting the set. If we assume the guy with her is said boyfriend and Glen is correct then he is clearly a different guy to the bloke walking with the woman in the scene.

    In addition there's something about the woman's hair in your picture that doesn't quite match Maud's in that clip.

    I'm sorry I just don't think the case is proven.

    Early in the scene, when Bond first meets Chuck Lee, the guy with the mustache in the plaid shirt crosses behind Roger briefly. On Moore's audio commentary he identifies that guy as Maud's boyfriend. I suppose Maud could have changed outfits for the shot or buttoned up her black jacket. Hard to say- in the film from that angle it doesn't really look like her. I should pop in AVTAK and see just how tall that guy is compared to Roger.............the things we do just to solve these little mysteries.
  • IGUANNAIGUANNA
    Posts: 1,296
    In the Spectre PTS, it's the same elevator as the one in LTK in Mexico City.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    IGUANNA wrote: »
    In the Spectre PTS, it's the same elevator as the one in LTK in Mexico City.

    Yes it is.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    So the elevator was dismantled and shipped from Isthmus to Mexico in the meantime?
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,169
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    That's her:

    http://image.wikifoundry.com/image/1/707lLmO9KUe4rKiNd7TOKw39156/GW551H359

    On what are you basing this assertion? Just that picture?

    It doesn't look much like her to me. Maud is quite tall isn't she?

    https://goo.gl/images/DScE0u

    Going from the above pic (although she's no doubt wearing heels) she's only a few inches shorter than Rog. Given she was a model it would make sense that she was tall.

    But if that woman in your pic is her that guy to her right (and slightly behind?) must be about 7ft 6. Do guys that tall and conspicuous really get used in scenes as extras?

    I found the following quote from John Glen on C********rBond.com:

    'We were shooting at Fisherman’s Wharf. Maud — who is a very good friend of ours — decided to come and visit us on the set with her boyfriend. I said to Maud “Come on, why don’t you become a crowd extra?” So she and her boyfriend walked through'

    Now if we look at 02.47 in this video:


    We can clearly see Maud visiting the set. If we assume the guy with her is said boyfriend and Glen is correct then he is clearly a different guy to the bloke walking with the woman in the scene.

    In addition there's something about the woman's hair in your picture that doesn't quite match Maud's in that clip.

    I'm sorry I just don't think the case is proven.

    Early in the scene, when Bond first meets Chuck Lee, the guy with the mustache in the plaid shirt crosses behind Roger briefly. On Moore's audio commentary he identifies that guy as Maud's boyfriend. I suppose Maud could have changed outfits for the shot or buttoned up her black jacket. Hard to say- in the film from that angle it doesn't really look like her. I should pop in AVTAK and see just how tall that guy is compared to Roger.............the things we do just to solve these little mysteries.

    Humbly, I stand corrected. The guy is in the forefront of the shot eating ice cream shortly before Roger makes it to Chuck Lee's stand. I'd say he's about as tall as Roger.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    The dinner tables at Piz Gloria are on a revolving platform!
Sign In or Register to comment.