It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Can't say I noticed that, but there are some streaks down the image on some of the underwater scenes. Last time I saw it was on my 32" TV, I now have a 104" screen, so will look out for the white dot next time I see it.
Quite a bit, but instead decided on a 50" smart TV. As many of the movies I get now
By digital download etc.
I see they are being shown in what aspect ratio they were filmed in.That's cool it was just weird seeing it change from one movie to the next I thought they were all going to be the same.
* a misleading term as it usually means it fits a 3:4 tv screen, cropping of the edges.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/181963094490?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649
Interested?
LALD and TMWTGG were shot on 1.85:1 because of expensive film stock.
Where are you getting that notion? Its not categorically true as Flat and Scope use the EXACT same film stock and quantity. Only difference is the lens you stick on the front of the camera.
Because it's what Ted Moore, the DoP on both films said.
Obviously anamorphic lenses are more expensive to produce and thus more expensive to hire and maybe THAT was a contributing factor.
You have to use an anamorphic lens for Panavision 2.35:1. Panavision gives you less depth of field, that why some filmmakers stick with flat aspect ratios, because it's easier to shoot without an anamorphic lens. But in this instance they shot 1.85:1 because of more expensive film stock, because you need faster film stock when filming in Panavision.
I'm willing to bet that was the REAL reason. :) I don't buy (pardon the pun) for a second that Broccoli, Saltsman, Hamilton, et all, quibbled over a few bucks for film stock when they are flying people all over the world, wrecking cars, buses, buildings etc.
Was Goldfinger made on the cheap? No, yet it was shot flat.
But we are digressing and should probably prune this little segue if we want to discuss further.
Hopefully you will be able to get it again soon and at a cheaper price?
This is not true, they were exhibited in Europe at 1.66:1 and the US in 1.85:1. I think you mean 'open matte' which means that there is more image on the negative. Hence Kubrick films for instance have the mattes removed (or did) for TV showings. 1.78:1 didn't exist until widescreen TVs were they sought a compromise between 1.33:1 and 1.85:1.
Even those not filmed for that aspect ratio? I'd rather keep to the original aspect ratio (OAR), which is why the Blu Rays are so good - the first time that DN, FRWL and GF have been available on home video in 1.66:1; and LALD and TMWTGG in 1.85:1.
SP will be out in Feb... I hope they take time and do it to match the others in the set.
That's why those boxed sets are worthless as a proper collection. I don't see an end to James Bond anywhere in sight, so they'll never match up properly and fully until the (totally unlikely) day that James Bond ends for good and a massive, full, complete set is released.
Yes that's right. And some of the blu-rays, maybe true too of the ultimate editions (I waited for Blu Ray), the titles sequences are window-boxed.
After searching high and low for the last two years and after pestering you guys on the boards, I finally got a Skyfall Blu-Ray that matches the rest of the 50th Blu Ray Collection!
I'm thrilled with this. My girlfriend got it for me today. It was just a single disc edition of Skyfall on BR (dated 2015) and the disc art is perfect!