Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » If you could see one in a theatre....
If you could see one in a theatre.... [message #298460] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 22:59
Mac  
After all the talk (heated and otherwise) of trailers and prints and
whatnot, I have a question: If you could see just one sparkling new print of
a Bond in a major theatre this weekend, which one would it be?

Rather surprisingly, I'd opt for ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE
--
--Mac
Re: If you could see one in a theatre.... [message #298461 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 00:05
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> After all the talk (heated and otherwise) of trailers and prints and
> whatnot, I have a question: If you could see just one sparkling new print of
> a Bond in a major theatre this weekend, which one would it be?
>
> Rather surprisingly, I'd opt for ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE

--- Having seen all of them in their original cinematic state, OHMSS is
definitely a good one to re-view. It looked great the first time I saw
it. Next up, it's kind of tough to decide, though I wouldn't go for
YOLT or DAF. Any of the other Connerys would be fine with me, but I
imagine TB would be best to re-view for a feeling of grandeur about it
that's lost on the small screen.

> --
> --Mac
Re: If you could see one in a theatre.... [message #298462 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 01:18
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> After all the talk (heated and otherwise) of trailers and prints and
> whatnot, I have a question: If you could see just one sparkling new print of
> a Bond in a major theatre this weekend, which one would it be?

For obvious reasons I'd skip all those I'd already seen at the cinema,
which you may be surprised to learn means only five: Moore's last four
and DAD. (I had a long period where my fandom waned, which ironically
led me to miss many entries in the series during their cinema run which
are now among my favourites, including, of course, the Dalton movies.)

Anyway, my choice would be YOLT. That may seem odd, since I'm not now
a fan of the film at all, and in fact have posted several times that
it's where I think the rot started to set in. However, when I was a
kid I loved it, and I think that seeing it on the big screen, with its
undeniable spectacle played out on the canvas for which it was
originally intended, would probably give me a warmly nostalgic glow
which I wouldn't get from seeing the same treatment being given to many
of the better entries in the series. Also, to hear Barry's score
properly restored and at full volume would be worth it in itself.

Funny thing, nostalgia.

Best

Phil
Re: If you could see one in a theatre.... [message #298465 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 02:53
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Mac wrote:
>
> > After all the talk (heated and otherwise) of trailers and prints and
> > whatnot, I have a question: If you could see just one sparkling new print of
> > a Bond in a major theatre this weekend, which one would it be?
>
> For obvious reasons I'd skip all those I'd already seen at the cinema,
> which you may be surprised to learn means only five: Moore's last four
> and DAD. (I had a long period where my fandom waned, which ironically
> led me to miss many entries in the series during their cinema run which
> are now among my favourites, including, of course, the Dalton movies.)

--- What!? I've been dealing with a Bond neophyte all this time who
thinks he can tell me a thing or two about the franchise? You're not a
real Bondphile unless you've seen all the films in their original
cinema presentation. Ok, my first two were reissued as a double bill
just a couple of years after their original run, but it still counts
because they were still shown on a big screen and still relatively
within the same time frame. TV, VHS and DVD viewings distort the purity
of that inimitable virgin 007 experience with each film on that silver
screen. And that distortion is akin to somethng like being given
well-worn hand-me-downs. Pshaw on your own lofty academic views
flogged at me on what you deem to be what Bond is all about,
flaw-ridden that they are by the very fact that you've been deprived of
the full score [as in 20] of cinematic, panoramic Bond. Overdramatic
enough?

> Anyway, my choice would be YOLT. That may seem odd, since I'm not now
> a fan of the film at all, and in fact have posted several times that
> it's where I think the rot started to set in. However, when I was a
> kid I loved it, and I think that seeing it on the big screen, with its
> undeniable spectacle played out on the canvas for which it was
> originally intended, would probably give me a warmly nostalgic glow
> which I wouldn't get from seeing the same treatment being given to many
> of the better entries in the series. Also, to hear Barry's score
> properly restored and at full volume would be worth it in itself.

--- If the story had been better and it had a more convincing Blofeld,
then I'd agree with you. It's especially those two shortcomings that I
couldn't go with the idea of re-viewing YOLT on the big screen. But
yes, for the specatacle and the lush scoring of the film, they alone
would make re-viewing it in a big way worth it.

> Funny thing, nostalgia.

--- Yes, it sure has been an endless hilarious source of verbal
fistocuffs, hasn't it?

>
> Best
>
> Phil
Re: If you could see one in a theatre.... [message #298466 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 03:10
phil.gerrard1  
WQ wrote:

> Overdramatic enough?

More than. You almost had me there for a moment.

(I did, however, read all but three of the Fleming novels back-to-back
at the age of eleven, before I'd even seen a single Bond film, and yes,
my parents were slightly worried, probably rightly so.)

Neophyte? I suspect I'm more like a born-again religious believer:
they're often even more combative when they come back to the fold.

Best

Phil
Re: If you could see one in a theatre.... [message #298470 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 07:22
ahk  
phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

>Anyway, my choice would be YOLT. That may seem odd, since I'm not now
>a fan of the film at all, and in fact have posted several times that
>it's where I think the rot started to set in. However, when I was a
>kid I loved it, and I think that seeing it on the big screen, with its
>undeniable spectacle played out on the canvas for which it was
>originally intended, would probably give me a warmly nostalgic glow
>which I wouldn't get from seeing the same treatment being given to many
>of the better entries in the series. Also, to hear Barry's score
>properly restored and at full volume would be worth it in itself.

You know, I think I agree with you. The cinematography is certainly
beautiful, certainly during the Little Nellie flying sequence, even though
the script was awful and Connory wasn't making an effort.

When I was a kid, I had Live and Let Die on Viewmaster, whatever that 3D toy
was called. The tiny slides were mounted on a rotating disk, and you looked
at two at a time for a 3D effect.
Re: If you could see one in a theatre.... [message #298472 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 09:00
Zeki  
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:4hfteeF1r9lumU1 [at] individual.net...
> After all the talk (heated and otherwise) of trailers and prints and
> whatnot, I have a question: If you could see just one sparkling new print
> of
> a Bond in a major theatre this weekend, which one would it be?

Thunderball. First widescreen movie I saw as a kid in the cinema.

Regards
Re: If you could see one in a theatre.... [message #298474 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 12:42
David A McIntee  
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:4hfteeF1r9lumU1 [at] individual.net...
> After all the talk (heated and otherwise) of trailers and prints and
> whatnot, I have a question: If you could see just one sparkling new print
of
> a Bond in a major theatre this weekend, which one would it be?
>
> Rather surprisingly, I'd opt for ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE

Unsurprisingly, so would I

But, to be honest, I'd go see any of them if one turned up at our local
fleapit, especially if it's before TSWLM, since I've seen all of them since
that one at the cinema.

--
Redemption 07 - B5 B7 and Beyond, 23-25 February 2007.
http://www.smof.com/redemption

"If the murder of twelve innocent people can help to save one human life, it
will have been worth it!" [Dr Alfred Necessiter]

Book At Bedtime: Atlantis [David Gribbins]

http://www.livejournal.com/~lonemagpie
Re: If you could see one in a theatre.... [message #298475 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 13:56
suave harv  
Seen every one at the flicks since LALD, (possible exception Octopussy). So
I'd go for the volcano one too. It begs to be seen biiiiig.
Re: If you could see one in a theatre.... [message #298488 ] Mi, 12 Juli 2006 17:04
Eric Grayson  
Having just viewed most of YOLT on a big screen just two weeks ago, I
can tell you that it is the one Bond film that loses the most on video.
The photography (Freddie "Lawrence of Arabia" Young) is absolutely
stunning beyond words... it's just so sharp you feel like you could
march into the picture.

TB also loses a lot on a small screen. Surprisingly, GF, DN, and FRWL
don't really lose as much.

OTOH, DAF has a lovely sequence in the desert early on that has a
yellow pallette outside the range of NTSC video... it's never been
reproduced properly on the big screen.

Eric


In article <1152579212.216312.14750 [at] m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, WQ
<wq [at] email.com> wrote:

> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> > Mac wrote:
> >
> > > After all the talk (heated and otherwise) of trailers and prints and
> > > whatnot, I have a question: If you could see just one sparkling new print
> > > of
> > > a Bond in a major theatre this weekend, which one would it be?
> >
> > For obvious reasons I'd skip all those I'd already seen at the cinema,
> > which you may be surprised to learn means only five: Moore's last four
> > and DAD. (I had a long period where my fandom waned, which ironically
> > led me to miss many entries in the series during their cinema run which
> > are now among my favourites, including, of course, the Dalton movies.)
>
> --- What!? I've been dealing with a Bond neophyte all this time who
> thinks he can tell me a thing or two about the franchise? You're not a
> real Bondphile unless you've seen all the films in their original
> cinema presentation. Ok, my first two were reissued as a double bill
> just a couple of years after their original run, but it still counts
> because they were still shown on a big screen and still relatively
> within the same time frame. TV, VHS and DVD viewings distort the purity
> of that inimitable virgin 007 experience with each film on that silver
> screen. And that distortion is akin to somethng like being given
> well-worn hand-me-downs. Pshaw on your own lofty academic views
> flogged at me on what you deem to be what Bond is all about,
> flaw-ridden that they are by the very fact that you've been deprived of
> the full score [as in 20] of cinematic, panoramic Bond. Overdramatic
> enough?
>
> > Anyway, my choice would be YOLT. That may seem odd, since I'm not now
> > a fan of the film at all, and in fact have posted several times that
> > it's where I think the rot started to set in. However, when I was a
> > kid I loved it, and I think that seeing it on the big screen, with its
> > undeniable spectacle played out on the canvas for which it was
> > originally intended, would probably give me a warmly nostalgic glow
> > which I wouldn't get from seeing the same treatment being given to many
> > of the better entries in the series. Also, to hear Barry's score
> > properly restored and at full volume would be worth it in itself.
>
> --- If the story had been better and it had a more convincing Blofeld,
> then I'd agree with you. It's especially those two shortcomings that I
> couldn't go with the idea of re-viewing YOLT on the big screen. But
> yes, for the specatacle and the lush scoring of the film, they alone
> would make re-viewing it in a big way worth it.
>
> > Funny thing, nostalgia.
>
> --- Yes, it sure has been an endless hilarious source of verbal
> fistocuffs, hasn't it?
>
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Phil
>
Re: If you could see one in a theatre.... [message #300542 ] Do, 13 Juli 2006 21:35
gerard.morvan  
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
4hfteeF1r9lumU1 [at] individual.net...
> After all the talk (heated and otherwise) of trailers and prints and
> whatnot, I have a question: If you could see just one sparkling new print
> of
> a Bond in a major theatre this weekend, which one would it be?
>
> Rather surprisingly, I'd opt for ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE
> --
> --Mac
>
Same here, because, so far, it's the only Bond I've never been able to see
in a theater. Of course, it would have to be the complete movie, not the
shortened version.

Gérard Morvan

"Kentoc'h Mervel!"
Re: If you could see one in a theatre.... [message #300552 ] Fr, 14 Juli 2006 07:11
dgates  
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:59:56 +0100, "Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net>
wrote:

>After all the talk (heated and otherwise) of trailers and prints and
>whatnot, I have a question: If you could see just one sparkling new print of
>a Bond in a major theatre this weekend, which one would it be?
>
>Rather surprisingly, I'd opt for ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE


In the last 10 years, I've seen a few Bond movies in theaters -- Dr.
No, Goldfinger, Thunderball, and Live and Let Die. (Without a doubt,
I was most pleasantly surprised by Thunderball!)

I suppose my choice in your hypothetical depends on whether I'm trying
to convert a new fan or just going off to see it by myself.

I'm leaning toward From Russia With Love or the upcoming Casino Royale
:-)
Re: If you could see one in a theatre.... [message #300553 ] Fr, 14 Juli 2006 07:13
dgates  
On 10 Jul 2006 16:18:54 -0700, "phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com"
<phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote:

>Mac wrote:
>
>> After all the talk (heated and otherwise) of trailers and prints and
>> whatnot, I have a question: If you could see just one sparkling new print of
>> a Bond in a major theatre this weekend, which one would it be?
>
>For obvious reasons I'd skip all those I'd already seen at the cinema,
>which you may be surprised to learn means only five: Moore's last four
>and DAD. (I had a long period where my fandom waned, which ironically
>led me to miss many entries in the series during their cinema run which
>are now among my favourites, including, of course, the Dalton movies.)
>
>Anyway, my choice would be YOLT. That may seem odd, since I'm not now
>a fan of the film at all, and in fact have posted several times that
>it's where I think the rot started to set in. However, when I was a
>kid I loved it, and I think that seeing it on the big screen, with its
>undeniable spectacle played out on the canvas for which it was
>originally intended, would probably give me a warmly nostalgic glow
>which I wouldn't get from seeing the same treatment being given to many
>of the better entries in the series. Also, to hear Barry's score
>properly restored and at full volume would be worth it in itself.
>
>Funny thing, nostalgia.

I think you're onto something with the idea that YOLT would be pretty
impressive on a big screen. It's a little meandering, and never quite
gets a lot of momentum (maybe in the last 10 minutes), but it's still
a big movie, and would probably look and sound great.
Re: If you could see one in a theatre.... [message #300554 ] Fr, 14 Juli 2006 08:52
Blofelds Cat  
"dgates" <dgates [at] spamlinkline.com> wrote in message
news:7u9eb2tihv3ftku7o27tv7objprba0fl1i [at] 4ax.com...
> On 10 Jul 2006 16:18:54 -0700, "phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com"
> <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Mac wrote:
>>
>>> After all the talk (heated and otherwise) of trailers and prints and
>>> whatnot, I have a question: If you could see just one sparkling new
>>> print of
>>> a Bond in a major theatre this weekend, which one would it be?
>>
>>For obvious reasons I'd skip all those I'd already seen at the cinema,
>>which you may be surprised to learn means only five: Moore's last four
>>and DAD. (I had a long period where my fandom waned, which ironically
>>led me to miss many entries in the series during their cinema run which
>>are now among my favourites, including, of course, the Dalton movies.)
>>
>>Anyway, my choice would be YOLT. That may seem odd, since I'm not now
>>a fan of the film at all, and in fact have posted several times that
>>it's where I think the rot started to set in. However, when I was a
>>kid I loved it, and I think that seeing it on the big screen, with its
>>undeniable spectacle played out on the canvas for which it was
>>originally intended, would probably give me a warmly nostalgic glow
>>which I wouldn't get from seeing the same treatment being given to many
>>of the better entries in the series. Also, to hear Barry's score
>>properly restored and at full volume would be worth it in itself.
>>
>>Funny thing, nostalgia.
>
> I think you're onto something with the idea that YOLT would be pretty
> impressive on a big screen. It's a little meandering, and never quite
> gets a lot of momentum (maybe in the last 10 minutes), but it's still
> a big movie, and would probably look and sound great.

One of the benefits of Digital Cinema Projection will be a cinema's ability
to secure a 'print' of a film at very little cost. Films will be available
either as a set of encrypted discs or as a satellite download.

The associated cost of hard copy celluloid prints has traditionally meant
that only one or two prints of a given film might be in existence and it is
these prints which are physically shipped around the world. Once in the
Digital Cinema domain, it will be much simpler, faster and cheaper for
cinema's to be able to screen encore presentations of virtually any licensed
film they want and be able to make a profit.

This will mean that cinema's can indeed screen film festivals, such as a
season of OO7 films.

I doubt the multiplexes would bother with such festivals but for independent
cinema's it might be a positive option.

cheers.
Re: If you could see one in a theatre.... [message #300565 ] Fr, 14 Juli 2006 17:40
Mac  
Blofelds Cat wrote:

> This will mean that cinema's can indeed screen film festivals, such
> as a season of OO7 films.

Your words to God's ears, my friend.
--
--Mac
Re: If you could see one in a theatre.... [message #300589 ] So, 16 Juli 2006 04:44
Eric Grayson  
In article <4hps78FoigrU1 [at] individual.net>, Mac
<see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote:

> Blofelds Cat wrote:
>
> > This will mean that cinema's can indeed screen film festivals, such
> > as a season of OO7 films.
>
> Your words to God's ears, my friend.

The money system at the studios has to change.

Right now, it's $200-$400 to rent the films and you can get them
anytime you want (they screened Goldfinger here recently).

I can't see the studios asking less for a screening if it's digital.
When I've asked to screen the print of a collector, they royalty we pay
to the studio doesn't go down substantially.

The cost of a print is prohibitive, yes, but the studio's price point
is high enough not to justify a small theater doing things like this on
a regular basis. It's why you just don't see revival houses anymore.
People would rather stay home and watch it on DVD, even if the quality
(be it analog or digital) is better.

What we need to do is to get the studios to understand that theatrical
screenings are like paid advertising for the DVDs, and then price them
accordingly for rental. Then the studios should insist that there be
at least one fully trained and certified projectionist on staff at all
times, and we'd have something. (You need this for film or digital,
too... someone needs to be there to fix the projector if it breaks, and
all projectors break).

Right now we're in a period with too-expensive studios and the
exhibitors have retaliated by becoming excessively cheap. The upshot
is that showmanship has gone down the tubes, and that's the one thing
that makes going out to see a movie WORTHWHILE.

The studios would make more money if they cut their rental fees by 20%.
The break-even point for the theater chains would be lower and they
would not have to be so cheap, so they'd take more risks in booking
films.
The theater chains would make more money if they hired some
projectionists and ushers to keep the presentation moderately in focus
and the audience moderately under control.

Eric
Vorheriges Thema:Would a McClory project be welcomed by fans?
Nächstes Thema:WANTED - Thunderball Textless Titles from PAL UE DVD
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Mi Mai 23 03:55:42 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,07380 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered