55 replies to this topic

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Notice that people complain about how "SONY" at first released "a less than packed full of bonuses" DVD of CR only to release a more complete version later making us double dip. Yet they forget that MGM first released several "basic" Bond films on DVD, then released the "Special Edition" and then the "Ultimate Edition" of the films on DVD.

Not on consecutive years.

[The Shark]

Notice that people complain about how "SONY" at first released "a less than packed full of bonuses" DVD of CR only to release a more complete version later making us double dip. Yet they forget that MGM first released several "basic" Bond films on DVD, then released the "Special Edition" and then the "Ultimate Edition" of the films on DVD.

Not on consecutive years.

Exactly. I wouldn't really have a problem if Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were 30-40 year old Bond films receiving a new DVD release ten years ago, spurred on by advances in technology and larger catalogue of archived Bond material uncovered.

In case with SONY however, it feels solely a opportunist and rather cynical mechanism designed to get money out of customers wallets, regardless of quality or quantity of content.

Let's not forget their abysmal track record regarding Bond posters, and the fact that they were the ones who cherry picked JACK WHITE and ALICIA KEYS for a duet, much to MICHAEL G WILSON's later regret.

Who's running their corp - GORDON GEKKO?

It certainly feels like it.

[jaguar007]

Let's not forget their abysmal track record regarding Bond posters, and the fact that they were the ones who cherry picked JACK WHITE and ALICIA KEYS for a duet, much to MICHAEL G WILSON's later regret.

Well it was MGM who greenlit Modonna's "DAD" so what is your point.

While I find the QoS artwork rather bland, I like the artwork for Casino Royale better than the previous few Bond films.

Remember it was MGM who forced EON to "retire" Dalton and hire Brosnan and SONY who gave EON the freedom to switch gears and hire Craig. I know I just opened up a new can of worms with that last sentence .

My point about the DVD release is that there is not one studio that is not guilty of releasing a movie as a bare bones DVD only to release an upgraded special edition a few years later.

As far as the earlier Bond DVDs. They released some of the original titles on DVD in 1997. Then they released the Special Editions in 2002 and the Ultimate Editions in 2006.

[Joe Bond]

Notice that people complain about how "SONY" at first released "a less than packed full of bonuses" DVD of CR only to release a more complete version later making us double dip. Yet they forget that MGM first released several "basic" Bond films on DVD, then released the "Special Edition" and then the "Ultimate Edition" of the films on DVD.

Not on consecutive years.

Exactly. I wouldn't really have a problem if Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were 30-40 year old Bond films receiving a new DVD release ten years ago, spurred on by advances in technology and larger catalogue of archived Bond material uncovered.

In case with SONY however, it feels solely a opportunist and rather cynical mechanism designed to get money out of customers wallets, regardless of quality or quantity of content.

Let's not forget their abysmal track record regarding Bond posters, and the fact that they were the ones who cherry picked JACK WHITE and ALICIA KEYS for a duet, much to MICHAEL G WILSON's later regret.

Quantum of Solace was NOT released on DVD and Blu-ray buy Sony but by MGM through 20th Century Fox. This shows that its going to happen with any studio since double dipping is a business strategy for businesses to do what they are in business to do and thats to make money. Sure I don't like buying a film twice but if you don't like it then rent it until the second version comes out or buy the initial version and skip the second version if special features aren't important. My point is that most studios will double dip like how studios like MGM thought Blu-ray could be priced at a premium but when the market didn't respond as well the prices of Blu-ray went down to a fair price since consumers were not buying Blu-ray as much as the studios expected. Its up to the consumer to buy a film twice, once, or not at all and once double dipping becomes less profitable then studios will stop doing it.

As far as the earlier Bond DVDs. They released some of the original titles on DVD in 1997. Then they released the Special Editions in 2002 and the Ultimate Editions in 2006.

I also believe that Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, and The World is Not enough had more special features on Ultimate Edition DVD's when compared to the Special Edition DVD's which IMO is double dipping.

Edited by Joe Bond, 18 March 2010 - 11:31 PM.

[Royal Dalton]

Bit cheeky. If Sony wants Bond they should bid for it. Not try to sneak in through the back door.

[JimmyBond]

Here's a thought: How bad would Bond be without Sony?

At least we would have colourful, imaginative, and inspired posters,

While I do have my issues with the poster artwork for the two Craig films, how is it any worse than the posters we got for the Brosnan films? And that was under the eye of MGM.

[Zorin Industries]

Here's a thought: How bad would Bond be without Sony?

At least we would have colourful, imaginative, and inspired posters, along with decent special features on our DVDs.

Really? How do you know? Just curious...

And why would anyone rate a studio / financier based on the extras on a DVD. That's like saying "I hate that bloody Apple Records as The Beatles albums had really sparse sleeve notes".

And this notion of "double dipping" is only a reality as fans want the world. You don't have to buy the DVDs folks. I bought SOLACE as I wanted the film, not behind the scenes titbits which are vanilla in their real insight at best.

[SecretAgentFan]

I agree. When DVDs came into the marketplace I always made sure only to get the super special editions loaded with extras. These days I only care about a pristine quality of the film itself.

Deleted Scenes? Mostly they are deleted for a reason.
Audio commentary? Depends on the director, but mostly the commentaries are not that enlightening. And the extra docus or features? How often can you stand hearing actors or directors complimenting each other about how great it was to work with them, how wonderful they captured this or that.

The only real extra on a CR-special edition that I would really like to see was the screentest of Craig. But that won´t happen anytime soon, I guess. If ever.

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule. But mostly DVD or Bluray-extra content is just filler material.

[Professor Dent]

If Sony is involved then they won't be suing to try & make their own Bond franchise or spending money on a Bond knock-off like xXx. I'd rather see them spend their money on something worthwhile like financing the next movie(s).

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Bit cheeky. If Sony wants Bond they should bid for it. Not try to sneak in through the back door.

That was exactly my post! They want the property without buying it. Sony owns a percentage of MGM. They just have to buy the rest off their consortium partners. The fact is the greedy bastards want the biggest possible slice off the cake WITHOUT buying. CR and QOS's substantial BO should have helped MGM's finances, only most of it went to Sony's vaults. As I remember, Sony still owns Danjaq money.
I can't stand all this love for Sony from posters. They've only been involved with 2 Bond films and everybody kisses their to the extent of feeling sad the next film (if it ever gets made, thanks a lot for that one Sony!) won't include the Columbia logo! Bloody idiots who're not old enough to have seen the films with the original UA logo (nobody laments UA, the only studio who took the risk for Bond when it really mattered).
I find QoS the first film where I don't see all the money on the screen. It looks cheap compared to its exhorbitant budget and I've no doubt it stems from filling the key technical crew with Hollywood "talent" (when you share the editor with Get Smart, you know these decisions are "corporate" rather than artistic). If Sony stays in Bonds will sure get saturation advertising, budgets will increase exponentially, reducing profits even more, etc.
Anyway, the fact that Sony are being public about their desire to continue involved is because they aren't. QoS dvd was released without Sony (and it did include all featurettes and trailers, as well as DTS on the SD and a way better transfer, Sony's transfers are Hollywood's worst). They were cut loose because MGM shareholders voted them out.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I really miss the U\ logo.
And I don't think the Brosnan era posters were that bad. We've had REAL Bond posters featuring explosions, gals, cars, action scenes, and villains in the posters much as the ones from the Moore era. I'd like the Craig era posters, but I miss those images of Bond holding the gun sorrounded by the film's universe!

And Sony didn't do well with the DVDs, except the 3 disc edition of Casino Royale. All the rest where two editions of few unimportant extras, no trailers, no deleted scenes, no TV spots... And we know Sony has the material cos we see it featured on the documentaries. So, what's the message? "Look, we've got these things but we're pricks enough of not letting you enjoy it until we care of releasing a 1.000.000 disc Ultra Super Hiper Ultimate Quantum of Solace Special Editiob DVD".

[Zorin Industries]

Bit cheeky. If Sony wants Bond they should bid for it. Not try to sneak in through the back door.

That was exactly my post! They want the property without buying it. Sony owns a percentage of MGM. They just have to buy the rest off their consortium partners. The fact is the greedy bastards want the biggest possible slice off the cake WITHOUT buying. CR and QOS's substantial BO should have helped MGM's finances, only most of it went to Sony's vaults. As I remember, Sony still owns Danjaq money.
I can't stand all this love for Sony from posters. They've only been involved with 2 Bond films and everybody kisses their to the extent of feeling sad the next film (if it ever gets made, thanks a lot for that one Sony!) won't include the Columbia logo! Bloody idiots who're not old enough to have seen the films with the original UA logo (nobody laments UA, the only studio who took the risk for Bond when it really mattered).
I find QoS the first film where I don't see all the money on the screen. It looks cheap compared to its exhorbitant budget and I've no doubt it stems from filling the key technical crew with Hollywood "talent" (when you share the editor with Get Smart, you know these decisions are "corporate" rather than artistic). If Sony stays in Bonds will sure get saturation advertising, budgets will increase exponentially, reducing profits even more, etc.
Anyway, the fact that Sony are being public about their desire to continue involved is because they aren't. QoS dvd was released without Sony (and it did include all featurettes and trailers, as well as DTS on the SD and a way better transfer, Sony's transfers are Hollywood's worst). They were cut loose because MGM shareholders voted them out.

Not sure much of what you say here is remotely true. In fact, it probably isn't. You might want to really read up on your Bond studio history and realise that Sony and Eon HQ / Danjaq had/have a very good relationship which has nurtured the new era of Bond films - regardless of whether you like the last film and its logos or not.

[B. Brown]

Sony serves its shareholders not Bond; multinationals are concerned with profit not artistic integrity; if Nazism becomes popular with Bond's teen-scum demographic expect to see 007 don Schutzstaffel uniform.

and what makes Sony any different than any other movie studio in that regard?

Nothing. That's why I can't see why anyone should care whether or not Sony's involvement continues.

Oh and Zorin, have you been tested for Aspergers? Just a thought.

lmao

Classic...

[jaguar007]

I would actually like to thank Sony for getting the Casino Royale DVD in our hands a mere 4 months after the films release. The original release has as much extras as most typical DVD releases have. It takes time for the studio to put together the extras that went into the collectors edition and I personally don't want to wait several extra months (or years) for them to finish the commentaries etc. to get the film.

I really don't understand all the hate on Sony. Since MGM bought UA in the 80s, MGM has caused several problems for EON/ Danjaq. EON has stated that they have a good working relationship with SONY and I would much rather see the Bond series under a stable company rather than have more problems with MGM crumbling again down the line.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I really don't understand all the hate on Sony. Since MGM bought UA in the 80s, MGM has caused several problems for EON/ Danjaq. EON has stated that they have a good working relationship with SONY and I would much rather see the Bond series under a stable company rather than have more problems with MGM crumbling again down the line.

Agreed.
Can't speak for the situation in the US, but just for starters in the UK you didn't have to read very far in the magazines published at the time CR and QoS were released to find quotes from the producers about how good and productive it was working with Sony.

[Joe Bond]

QoS dvd was released without Sony (and it did include all featurettes and trailers, as well as DTS on the SD and a way better transfer, Sony's transfers are Hollywood's worst). They were cut loose because MGM shareholders voted them out.

I disagree. First off the initial Casino Roayle DVD had some worthwhile behind the scenes material where Quantum of Solace just had featurettes that came from the internet podcasts or released on the internet before the theatrical release. For that matter Bond girls Are Forever was included on the CR DVD and they could have included a similar documentary, The James Bond Story anyone, on the Quantum of Solace DVD if they didn't have that much material but they did not. The transfer of Casino Royale on the initial Blu-ray and DVD release was pretty much the same on the Collector's edition of both which was stellar in quality. Frankly, having a DTS track on a DVD really is not advantageous since it usually will sound similar to a Dobly Digital track but be louder and the Dolby Digital track on the initial CR DVD was great sounding and I doubt a DTS track would have improved things. Personally, I would rather have the movie available on Blu-ray/DVD as soon as possible rather then waiting longer for special features I may watch once if ever. At least they did not do what Fox is doing with the AVATAR DVD/Blu-ray release including no special features and spinning it as a benefit to the customer.

[The Shark]

The transfer of Casino Royale on the initial Blu-ray and DVD release was pretty much the same on the Collector's edition of both which was stellar in quality

I disagree entirely here. The difference between the quality of the transfer for the Special and Collectors edition is huge from my experience. I found the sound quality (YKMN sounded it like it was record in a toilet) and picture quality was pretty awful in the original release.

I'd prefer to wait 7 months, so they can find the time to put together some deleted scenes (which are nearly always interesting), commentaries, and perhaps an isolated score (sorely lacking on the Barry Bond films).

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

QoS dvd was released without Sony (and it did include all featurettes and trailers, as well as DTS on the SD and a way better transfer, Sony's transfers are Hollywood's worst). They were cut loose because MGM shareholders voted them out.

I disagree. First off the initial Casino Roayle DVD had some worthwhile behind the scenes material where Quantum of Solace just had featurettes that came from the internet podcasts or released on the internet before the theatrical release. For that matter Bond girls Are Forever was included on the CR DVD and they could have included a similar documentary, The James Bond Story anyone, on the Quantum of Solace DVD if they didn't have that much material but they did not. The transfer of Casino Royale on the initial Blu-ray and DVD release was pretty much the same on the Collector's edition of both which was stellar in quality. Frankly, having a DTS track on a DVD really is not advantageous since it usually will sound similar to a Dobly Digital track but be louder and the Dolby Digital track on the initial CR DVD was great sounding and I doubt a DTS track would have improved things. Personally, I would rather have the movie available on Blu-ray/DVD as soon as possible rather then waiting longer for special features I may watch once if ever. At least they did not do what Fox is doing with the AVATAR DVD/Blu-ray release including no special features and spinning it as a benefit to the customer.

C'mon, even the old 1999/2000 Special Editions had better extras than Sony's releases (except the Casino Royale 3 disc set). I never understood why Sony makes a "2 Disc DVD set" including all the extras that could have perfectly fitted in one. And NO Trailers and NO spots. That annoys me a lot. I'm quite sure it doesn't take much time to search Trailers and Spots on the vault. And who cares about the other films releases? I'm buying a BOND movie, and I want BOND trailers, no "Rocky", "Pursuit of Happiness", "The Holiday", etc. I can search them all on Youtube or Imdb.
The Die Another Day 2 Disc Special Edition was a lot better than the Die Another Day Ultimate Edition and the Casino Royale Widescreen Edition, IMO.

[jaguar007]

I'd prefer to wait 7 months, so they can find the time to put together some deleted scenes (which are nearly always interesting), commentaries, and perhaps an isolated score (sorely lacking on the Barry Bond films).

Not me. I would rather have the movie itself in my hot little hands as soon as possible. I'm totally willing to part with another $20.00 a year later to buy a DVD full of extras.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

They could also release two editions in DVD: first, a cheap extras-less edition four months after the film's release, and three months later an expensive but decent Special/Ultimate/Deluxe Edition.

[The Shark]

I'd rather that. The Special Features on the first edition are usually pretty crap, anyhow.

[jaguar007]

They could also release two editions in DVD: first, a cheap extras-less edition four months after the film's release, and three months later an expensive but decent Special/Ultimate/Deluxe Edition.

That is pretty much what they did for CR (longer than 3 mos.later) that people are so upset about. They rushed out a fairly normal DVD release and they took their time and about a year later they released a version that fans were asking for with all sorts of extras. Keep in mind, most people don't really care about the extras on DVDs. As major Bond geeks, we do, but the majority of the public won't really ever watch them. There are still rumors that eventually there will be another edition of QoS with more extras.

[Joe Bond]

QoS dvd was released without Sony (and it did include all featurettes and trailers, as well as DTS on the SD and a way better transfer, Sony's transfers are Hollywood's worst). They were cut loose because MGM shareholders voted them out.

I disagree. First off the initial Casino Roayle DVD had some worthwhile behind the scenes material where Quantum of Solace just had featurettes that came from the internet podcasts or released on the internet before the theatrical release. For that matter Bond girls Are Forever was included on the CR DVD and they could have included a similar documentary, The James Bond Story anyone, on the Quantum of Solace DVD if they didn't have that much material but they did not. The transfer of Casino Royale on the initial Blu-ray and DVD release was pretty much the same on the Collector's edition of both which was stellar in quality. Frankly, having a DTS track on a DVD really is not advantageous since it usually will sound similar to a Dobly Digital track but be louder and the Dolby Digital track on the initial CR DVD was great sounding and I doubt a DTS track would have improved things. Personally, I would rather have the movie available on Blu-ray/DVD as soon as possible rather then waiting longer for special features I may watch once if ever. At least they did not do what Fox is doing with the AVATAR DVD/Blu-ray release including no special features and spinning it as a benefit to the customer.

C'mon, even the old 1999/2000 Special Editions had better extras than Sony's releases (except the Casino Royale 3 disc set). I never understood why Sony makes a "2 Disc DVD set" including all the extras that could have perfectly fitted in one. And NO Trailers and NO spots. That annoys me a lot. I'm quite sure it doesn't take much time to search Trailers and Spots on the vault. And who cares about the other films releases? I'm buying a BOND movie, and I want BOND trailers, no "Rocky", "Pursuit of Happiness", "The Holiday", etc. I can search them all on Youtube or Imdb.
The Die Another Day 2 Disc Special Edition was a lot better than the Die Another Day Ultimate Edition and the Casino Royale Widescreen Edition, IMO.

Yes they did but the days where a Bond movie will get the amount of extra material that Die Another Day had on its initial DVD are pretty much over since MGM did the DVD for DAD and I was expecting QoS to have a similar package but MGM decided to go the double dipping route. The other question that could be another factor is the fact that the theatrical to DVD window is shrinking to the point where the time needed to get a lot of featurettes and commentary tracks onto the DVD may be harder to accomplish before the initial DVD release especially since they need to be completed and ready to ship to retailers by the retail order date which is usually 2 months before the actual release date. I am glad they put the special features from the initial CR DVD onto a second disc since it would have effected the video compression of the movie negatively and since it was selling for the same price as a single disc release I don't see why this would be an issue. Trailers and TV spots are nice to have but I don't find myself watching them that often since those are really something I don't expect to be included and I don't really care if they are not included.

Edited by Joe Bond, 19 March 2010 - 09:38 PM.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

They could also release two editions in DVD: first, a cheap extras-less edition four months after the film's release, and three months later an expensive but decent Special/Ultimate/Deluxe Edition.

That is pretty much what they did for CR (longer than 3 mos.later) that people are so upset about. They rushed out a fairly normal DVD release and they took their time and about a year later they released a version that fans were asking for with all sorts of extras. Keep in mind, most people don't really care about the extras on DVDs. As major Bond geeks, we do, but the majority of the public won't really ever watch them. There are still rumors that eventually there will be another edition of QoS with more extras.

The Casino Royale Deluxe Edition lacked many things: a) Deleted scenes such as Bond's and Vesper's bath in the Egean, More deleted footage of which we don't know about (Bond drinking the whisky in the Hotel Room, etc.), c)Textless Main Titles, d) Trailers & TV Spots, e) Screentests , f) More Documentaries dedicated to the Bond Films and the movie itself, etc.

But I prefer what they did for the SE Editions, they just released a one disc version with interesting extras instead of making a spur of the moment Two Disc edition with three things and then making you wait one or two years for a terrible expensive 8000 disc edition.}

And NO Booklet

[Syndicate]

Yet they forget that MGM first released several "basic" Bond films on DVD, then released the "Special Edition" and then the "Ultimate Edition" of the films on DVD.

Not just them, all movie studios have done that, coming out with a second version or a third version. Paramount have done that wirh Face/Off, Funny Face, Top Gun, Breakfast At Tiffany, The Untouchables, White Christmas, Star Trek Movies and Indiana Jones Movies. Warner Bros with The Lethal Weapon movies, Heat, Gone With The Wind, The Right Stuff, Rio Bravo, JFK, Dirty Harry movies and The Batman movies. Fox with Die Hard movies, The Siege, All About Eve, The Mark Of Zorro, An Affair To Remember, Entrapment, The Hustler, Speed, Star War movies and Tora! Tora! Tora!. Liongate with The Punisher, Transporter and Terminator 2 like 3 or 4 times. Universal with Midway, Rear Window, Scarface, Back To The Future movies, The Sting, Backdraft, The Deer Hunter, Casino and Imitation Of Life. Columbia Pictures with Donnie Brasco, The Replacement Killer, Bad Boys, In The Line Of Fire, It Happen One Night, The Firth Element, The Net and Spiderman 2. Disney and their subcompanies with Ransom, Con Air, Enemy Of The State, Pulp Fiction, Copland, Snow White, Peral Harbor, Nixon, Splash, Tarzan and Father of The Bride. MGM with The Great Escape, The Thomas Crown Affair, Platoon, A Fistful Of Dollar, The Good The Bad And The Ugly, A Bridge Too Far, Spaceball, Guys And Doll and In The Heat Of The Night.

They all do and we have to ask are selves do we that copy with all that special edition stuff, or which's is worth and which one is not at all.

[jaguar007]

Not just them, all movie studios have done that, coming out with a second version or a third version.

Thank you. my point exactly. Sony is not the only studio guilty of this. No matter what studio ends up with Bond, you can be guaranteed that that studio has done the double or triple DVD dip before.