Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: James Bond collection $125 on Amazon today

This is topic James Bond collection $125 on Amazon today in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000572

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-13-2007, 02:03 PM:

The entire James Bond collection (minus the new Casino Royale) is on sale at amazon today for $125 for all 4 sets... not a bad deal

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-14-2007, 12:29 AM:

quote: Mike Heenan
minus the new Casino Royale

Cheapskates... [Wink]

They should include that and dump Die Another Day. [puke]

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 03-14-2007, 01:41 AM:

I dont know about that. I JUST saw Casino Royale. What a mess. I don't like the "early" years of bond premise when they mention 9/11 in the movie. Where is Q? M basically in her lines...this movie was crap. Die Another Day...crap also, but at least it was REAL Bond.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-14-2007, 06:21 AM:

Well I'm looking forward to seeing Casino Royale just the same. As far as Die Another Day goes though...in my opinion it was quite simply the dumbest and worst of the Bonds to date. It also had the worst ever theme song made EVEN WORSE by the end credit version of the song...I hardly believed it could have been done, but there it is.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 03-14-2007, 02:42 PM:

I was looking forward to Casino Royale too. I heard it was cool, and gritty, and back to basics for Bond. It basically turned a great, fun series into another bull [bs]

action movie. No gizmos, very few exotic locations...a real let down.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-14-2007, 03:26 PM:

Hmm.... Bahamas, Madagascar, Uganda, France, Venice, nothing exotic there? Sure beats an ice castle in the middle of nowhere. Unfortunately back to basics means less gadgets... at least there was no silly invisible car or a killer laser beam from a satellite in outer space.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-14-2007, 04:06 PM:

I don't remember seeing an invisible car.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 03-14-2007, 05:12 PM:

quote: John Wilson
I don't remember seeing an invisible car.

Just follow the tire tracks in the snow. You'll bump into it sooner or later. [Big Grin]

I'm with you Mike H. "Casino Royale" made me think of the early movies and Fleming books again (even with a misstep here and there). A refreshing breath of air compared to "Die Another Day" That was just the worst. And that laser-beam satellite--was that left over from "Diamonds Are Forever"?

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 03-15-2007, 02:37 AM:

Even the early Bond had Q. Q wasn't even MENTIONED in this movie. What was the big gadget in this movie? A defibrillator in the glove box...ooook. Pardons himself from the poker game, goes out to car, tries to jumpstart his heart, wakes up, walks back to the card game. I mean...cmon...how stupid was that? I agree that Die Another Day was crap, but this one WASN'T Bond in my opinion. This could have been made into another British spy movie with top notch results, but it ISN'T Bond. The franchise has made a history of using a certain type of formula, it works, why change?? I will watch the next Bond movie in anticipation of Q and SOME gadgets returning...By the way, anyone know what the next one will be called? Other than Bond 22?

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-15-2007, 02:44 AM:

quote: Frank Dubrois
but this one WASN'T Bond in my opinion. This could have been made into another British spy movie with top notch results, but it ISN'T Bond.

I think Ian Fleming would disagree with you. Like it or not, CASINO ROYALE is way closer to the source material than any of the other movies have been.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 03-15-2007, 06:18 AM:

quote: Frank Dubrois
Even the early Bond had Q.

Beginning the series, in "Dr. No," Bond is equipped by Major Boothroyd, as he was originally known in the books, and then only given his Walther PPK to replace his Beretta. Not too gadgety. He wasn't called "Q" in "From Russia With Love," either, but did give Bond a nifty briefcase with some handy gimmicks. It didn't become invisible, though.

The formula that began with "Goldfinger" (in which Bond does address Major Boothroyd as Q) is successful, provided they don't get too carried away with the gadgetry.

As for what is or is not Bond, fans of Fleming's books generally point to the less gadgety films as the more faithful adaptations, retaining Fleming's suspense. We all know Bond will survive, but it's much more exciting when he doesn't have a magic button to push (or is turned into a cartoon windsurfer).

Casino Royale has the flavor of Fleming's books and the best of the early film series. Very Bond.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-15-2007, 11:35 AM:

I'm not going to buy that big Bond collection for one very simple reason: I don't like all the James Bond movies. Some are very good while others don't need to be taking up space in my DVD collection.

quote: Frank Dubrois
Die Another Day...crap also, but at least it was REAL Bond.

Frank, how old are you?

Are you well under 20 years of age? I only ask because when it comes to James Bond movies, younger people are usually only used to whoever was playing James Bond as they were growing up. Are you only used to Pierce Brosnan playing James Bond?

I was used to Roger Moore playing 007 when I was a kid, but quickly grew to appreciate Sean Connery as being the better Bond.

The ONLY "real" James Bond story lines were those from Ian Flemming's novels. Casino Royale was the first of those novels by Flemming.

Die Another Day was not written by Flemming. It was conjured up by others. It was the worst, most stinking pile of embarrassing shit in the entire Bond franchise. And I thought there was little way a Bond movie could be worse than the previous The World Is Not Enough featuring the acting "talents" of Denise Richards. Goldeneye was the only decent Bond movie starring Pierce Brosnan, and even that show was weak in certain places.

There's been lots of other clunkers for Bond movies as well. Both of the ones starring Timothy Dalton were pretty forgettable, with License to Kill playing more like a Joel Silver produced Lethal Weapon installment, complete with an out of place score by Michael Kamen.

Roger Moore's time in the Bond role was often hit and miss, The Spy Who Loved Me being the best of his bunch. Casino Royale is the best Bond movie made since that 1977 release.

Sean Connery had fewer stinkers playing Bond, but then more of his Bond outings were based on Ian Flemming novels.

I'm sort of hoping this "re-imaging" of James Bond (under a new movie studio, certain new producers and a new actor, Daniel Craig) will perhaps re-adapt a couple of Flemming's novels into better versions of already previously released Bond movies. Mookraker is obviously one choice. I think Diamonds Are Forever was the lesser of Connery's movies and could be dealt better justice in a re-make.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 03-15-2007, 11:45 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The Spy Who Loved Me being the best of his bunch.

I think that movie was the BEST Bond. I grew up in the Roger Moore era. I guess I am more accustomed to the suave classy Bond. i don't disagree that Craig is a good Bond, I like him in the role, I also appreciate Sean Connery. Pierce could have been an awesome Bond if he had better material to work with. Goldeneye was really the only good one he got to do. I am VERY glad that they seem to have gotten away from putting Hollywood celebrities in these movies. I was sick of seeing the likes of Denise Richards, Madonna, Hally Berry etc...Europeon models or exotic actresses seem to make the best Bond women. Same with the evil guys....NO celebrities. I just feel a few more gadgets would have been nice. Its the gadgets that separate Bond from the other spy movies....even if its just a really cool functional watch and a decked out spy car..THATS Bond. Anything else is simply a spy movie. I think I really would have enjoyed Casino Royale more if it was just an MI6 spy flick rather than a Bond movie. I just expect certain material in Bond movies, I didnt get it any of it here.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-15-2007, 12:17 PM:

The problem is gadgets aren't what makes any spy movie, even if it is a Bond movie, any good. The strength of character, story line and actors' performances are what really make the difference. That's where Casino Royale was clearly superior to the last several Bond movie installments.

Another problem with gadgets in movies is that too often the gadgets dreamed up aren't even practical or even possible to make. The scenes where "Q" does his bad comedy, running down the various gadgets also can harm the story line. Often it's too obvious a set up for the scene you know is coming later on where that gadget will just have to be used.

I'll also say it is kind of a character let down for Bond to be saved by some computerized toy rather than getting out of a situation just by using his brains and brawn.

If any kind of gadgets have to be involved, let it be something practical and realistic, as well as something that doesn't telegraph the damned storyline. Casino Royale at least had that, such as a very expensive sports car with a two-drawer glove box, featuring a computer networked defibrillator in one drawer and a Heckler and Koch USP .45 equipped with a suppressor in another drawer. That bit wasn't in the original novel either. Too much more added fluff and it would have veered the story too far away from the original material.

If there's anything that Ian Flemming intended out of Bond, it wasn't an interest in gadgets, it was in having an interest for the "finer things," such as good clothing, exotic locals and well made martinis. Exotic women and very expensive settings do more to make a Bond movie feel like a Bond movie than having a drawn out deal with gadgetry.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-15-2007, 12:32 PM:

I read a piece of some interview with Christopher Lee where he talked about hanging out with Ian Fleming and discussing the character of Bond in great detail. Lee said that based on those discussions, he could definitively say that Pierce Brosnan's portrayal of Bond was the closest to what Fleming intended.

I also read somewhere that Fleming wanted James Mason to play Bond back in the day.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-15-2007, 03:44 PM:

Christopher Lee is actually related to Ian Flemming, a cousin. What Lee says could be true. Nevertheless, Goldeneye was still the only Brosnan-era Bond movie worth recommendation.

I've read various accounts over which actor Flemming supposedly originally wanted cast in the Bond part. David Niven and Roger Moore have been mentioned. In retrospect it's all pretty meaningless. I couldn't imagine someone else playing Bond in Goldfinger other than Sean Connery.

There's other weird examples for other movies. Frank Sinatra was originally cast in the part of Dirty Harry Callahan, but backed out of the project. Enter Clint Eastwood.

Tom Selleck was originally considered for the Indiana Jones role, but couldn't get out of his Magnum P.I. contract with CBS. Enter Harrison Ford.

And in another piece of meaningless trivia, Ian Flemming's birthday is the same as mine: May 28.
[Razz]

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 03-15-2007, 04:25 PM:

Timothy Dalton was originally offered the Bond Role in 1968 for On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but turned it down thinking he was too young. Instead, we got George.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-15-2007, 04:27 PM:

Bobby, I agree with you from a few posts back that they should start remaking Fleming's books for this new continuity. They should just go in order, straight down the list. That would make LIVE AND LET DIE next.

I'm quite fond of Brosnan's movies, and I actually think GOLDENEYE is the least good (not to say that it's bad). I've always thought of TOMORROW NEVER DIES as the quintessential Bond movie. It contains all of the elements that the films are known for, and unlike many of the films, they all work. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH presented Bond in a fairly hardcore light, which I appreciated. And DIE ANOTHER DAY was a throwback to the big epic romps of the Roger Moore era. But unlike those movies, it was watchable. That movie addressed a concern felt by many that the franchise was stale and getting its ass kicked by every other contemporary action movie. It really amped up the production value to something that resembled a 21st century movie.

In fact, I liked DIE ANOTHER DAY so much that I'm showing it next month to my Tuesday Night Movie Club, which meets every Monday Night.

But all that being said, CASINO ROYALE crushes all of those movies like they were ants.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-15-2007, 04:56 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
DIE ANOTHER DAY was a throwback to the big epic romps of the Roger Moore era. But unlike those movies, it was watchable.

Does that mean you've never watched 'The Spy Who Loved Me'? [Eek!]

It's all a matter of opinion I know, but how you can say Die Another Day is watchable and SPY or For Your Eyes Only were not is incredible.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-15-2007, 06:47 PM:

I don't like THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, but it's not like it's MOONRAKER. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY is actually good, but keep in mind that that's the one where they were like, "Oh. Maybe this fantastical epic stuff isn't working. Maybe sending James Bond to space was a bad idea."

As for why neither of those movies are as good as DIE ANOTHER DAY, two words: Roger Moore.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-15-2007, 07:41 PM:

When I think what Burt Reynolds could have done for the series.... sigh. [Big Grin]

Octopussy is one of my favorites because of the stunts at the end where the 2 guys are outside of the plane trying to kill each other. Man those guys had balls in those days... it'd all be CGI today. And the fact it takes place in India was pretty cool.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 03-15-2007, 11:21 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
I've always thought of TOMORROW NEVER DIES as the quintessential Bond movie.

SAY WHAT? That was such a lame movie. Bond vs Ted Turner.

Out of all the toys or gimmcks we could have seen in Casino Royale, a computer networked defibrillator is all we get? Cmon man. I dont have a problem with the actor or the car. Even the Bond women were good..the villian left a little to be desired, the story was OK, but the gadgets man...its all about the gadgets. I don't care if the movie closely follows the books, as most books don't directly translate well, but they have a formula, it works, why change it? All they have to do is look at what Coke did. Coke was good...but they changed the formula. Some will like it some will not. I do not. In BOTH cases. They can change the Bonds, and I'm OK with it...but they cant change the essence of the movie. I almost fell off my chair when M threatened to have Bond killed. Cmon...that and reference to 9/11 all while they were telling us that this was "in the beginning" when Bond first became a 00. That part really screws up the timeline for me. It simply doesnt make sense.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-15-2007, 11:55 PM:

It would have been cool if they really started over and have it take place in the 60s.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 03-16-2007, 12:05 AM:

that would be interesting, however, probably a little to expensive considering all the locations. Possibly CGI could help that out a little, who knows. I do like "Bond during the cold war" era. It always made for good stories.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-16-2007, 03:43 AM:

quote: Frank Dubrois
Cmon...that and reference to 9/11 all while they were telling us that this was "in the beginning" when Bond first became a 00. That part really screws up the timeline for me. It simply doesnt make sense.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the idea is that CASINO ROYALE is relaunching the franchise. This isn't supposed to be a flashback. It's an entirely new continuity. Storywise, they are completely disregarding what has come before.

As for setting it in the 60's, that's what Quentin Tarantino was planning to do if he got the rights to make CASINO ROYALE. He was going to set it in continuity right after ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. It was going to take place in the 60's, and he had Brosnan lined up as Bond and Uma Thurman as Vesper.

I don't like his idea as much as what they ended up doing, but I would have loved to have seen that movie.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 03-16-2007, 05:47 AM:

These different ideas for "Casino Royale" would have been fascinating to see (could only imagine how Tarantino would have handled that torture scene [evil]

), but I think they took the best route in the end. Last time I watched "Die Another Day" (yes, I watched it more than once) I kept thinking that the series has really lost it's touch. The '60's Bonds are so wonderfully "of their time," but lately the films just come across as a mish-mash.

For me, the most exciting action lately has involved
another "J.B." -- Jack Bauer on "24." The sense of danger so evident on that program had long been absent from the Bond films, and faced with the task of adapting a 1952(?) book to the screen in a post 9/11 world, IMHO, they've done a decent job making James Bond relevant again.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 03-16-2007, 11:49 AM:

quote: Mike Schindler
It's an entirely new continuity. Storywise, they are completely disregarding what has come before.

Thats rediculous. Their taking the entire history of a character (even though it spanned 40+ years) and wiped it clean. Thats insulting. Replacing all the great movies and stories with this pile of [bs]

. This movie was just retarded. From the tortue scene to the defibrillator scene, to M threatening to have Bond killed. Bring back the jet packs, submarine cars, and other Q gadgets. I've had my fill of gritty reality based crap. If I want reality, I dont have to go to the movies, all I have to do is step outside. I guess all this gritty realism stuff were seeing in the movies and TV is there for a reason, SOMEONE likes its. Count me out.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-16-2007, 12:05 PM:

Umm, so what did you think of the torture scenes in Die Another Day? Also, they showed said scenes during the theme song as well, which broke from the formula of just shadowy naked ladies (I think this is the only time it's been done, except for FYEO where Sheena Easton appears on the screen).

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-16-2007, 12:09 PM:

OK, Frank. You're counted out. You hated the movie. Fine.

I really liked Casino Royale. So did a lot of other people, enough that this new direction for Bond movies is a done deal. Those who can't stand it will just have to move on to something else.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-16-2007, 12:34 PM:

quote: Hillary Charles
For me, the most exciting action lately has involved another "J.B." -- Jack Bauer on "24."

You gotta love the Jack Bauer Power Hour! The idea of extending the show beyond the first year is kind of ridiculous, but that first season is quite possibly the finest single season of television ever produced.

quote: Frank Dubrois
Thats rediculous. Their taking the entire history of a character (even though it spanned 40+ years) and wiped it clean. Thats insulting.

It worked for BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and BATMAN BEGINS. And speaking of comic books, that medium more than any other has to deal with continuities which have been muddled by characters which have existed for decades. There are two ways to handle this. There's the Marvel way, which is to ignore the passage of time, and say that what happened in the first issue of SPIDER-MAN is canon even though it takes place in the 60's and now, in 2007, the character is still in his 20's. And then there's the DC way, which is to wipe the slate clean every decade or so so that it still kinda makes sense. Lots of the best DC stories are the retellings of these iconic characters' origins, updated so that they become relevant to the world we live in.

Bond went the Marvel route for the first 20 movies. It worked through Roger Moore, because Moore portrayed an older Bond. But when Dalton came in, that led to some questionable continuity. So now they've finally wised up and pulled a DC. I'm not saying that you can't make the Marvel way work, but the DC way makes a whole lot more sense.

And those original movies aren't going away. They still exist in their own 20-movie long continuity which can be viewed for years to come.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 03-16-2007, 07:42 PM:

Well, go figure because I didn't like the new Batman and I think the new Battlestar Galactica is a little on the boring side.

quote: Bobby Henderson
OK, Frank. You're counted out. You hated the movie. Fine.

I don't really hate it. As an action movie its pretty damn good. As a Bond movie..yes, it blows. I'm not counted out. I know of a lot of Bond fans that DIDN'T like the new Bond movie and also a lot of previous NON-Bond fans that did like it. I think they may have gotten some new fans, however, I think they alienated others.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-31-2007, 07:18 PM:

Today I was on the Home Theater Forum, and I noticed a thread talking about all the problems with the various transfers in this set. Apparently, 4 of the movies have something or another wrong with them. Most notable is GOLDENEYE, which is transferred from some print which was reformatted for TV and cropped quite a bit. I was just skimming, and don't know much about the specifics. But most people seem to agree that the other 16 movies look way better than their earlier counterparts.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 04-01-2007, 03:37 AM:

But if you already have the bond movies on DVD, then whats the point? I'd be very interested in hearing Roger Moore (MY Bond) talking about the movies, that would be fun, however I will not sell my new-old set for a new-new set when the HD versions are right around the corner

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-01-2007, 07:41 PM:

I'm planning on waiting for the HD versions as well, although I'm a bit worried that they'll most likely use the same transfers as they did this time around. I'm considering picking up the 2nd box set in order to get the new version of DIE ANOTHER DAY in time for the previously mentioned Tuesday Night Movie Club screening. That seems reasonable, because the price isn't bad, and I don't have any of the other movies in that set. The transfer's supposed to be a lot better on DIE ANOTHER DAY. It's the European version, with a shot of a Phillips razor instead of a Norelco razor, which was seen in the American version, and the subtitles are burned in like they were theatrically instead of being added electronically by the player. There's also supposed to be a lot less edge enhancement.

As far as extras go, I believe they're all the same as the last release, except for DIE ANOTHER DAY, which is missing the contents of the second disc.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-02-2007, 02:42 PM:

Also on DAD, there's supposed to be a couple extra seconds during the sex scene not on the previous release

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 05-28-2007, 06:13 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
I also read somewhere that Fleming wanted James Mason to play Bond back in the day.

I heard on the radio the other day that Fleming wanted David Niven to play Bond (Niven actually did play Bond in the original comedic Casino Royale film that also featured Woody Allen.) However, that was the first time I had heard that Fleming wanted Niven.

I had always heard that Fleming thought that a secret agent should be someone very plain looking - someone who would NOT stand out in a crowd. I had heard that he thought Hoagy Carmichael should play Bond. And he definitely didn't want Sean Connery.

In my opinion, there were really only two good Bond movies: From Russia with Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Those were the only two that really followed the books and treated the characters (and the audience) with respect. Most of the others simplified the books into cartoons or were a series of explosions and other effects for teens. In the books, Bond feels pain. In the movies, he's Superman.

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 05-29-2007, 01:42 AM:

quote: Martin Brooks
In the books, Bond feels pain. In the movies, he's Superman.

Very correct Martin , I do recall in one of the books Bond has a finger broken , he throws up and passes out or something like that. The films are so different, then I guess the film were ten years after the books.

I enjoyed all the films in one way or another , i grew up with them as a kid , back in the days when a cardboard monster dragged around with fishing line used to scare us the death!

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-05-2007, 09:31 PM:

Ditto, Phil! Anyone remember From Hell it Came? I can remember us kids being scared out of our gords over this picture!

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 07-12-2007, 08:32 AM:

exactly Tim , it is laughable looking back at what shows used to scare us and how lame they were , amazing how we evolve with film over time, watching something like Saw 3 back in 1966 would have shocked us to death! and then if we had special effects in films today that consisted of cardboard cutouts and fishing line , no one would bother to watch them. We even pick almost flawless CGI to bits.

So glad I dont have to get out of the car to lock the exit gate at the drive in anymore [Eek!]

Todays films would see the gate left open!