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
I only upgraded to Blu Rays because a great & big TV makes DVD's look like VHS.
For what it's worth, I've seen 4k, and yeah, it looks better than Blu Ray, but not by enough that I can care. Blu Ray is where it ends for me.
I used to watch on a 32 inch HDTV and DVDs looked just fine on that. But when I upgraded to a 65 inch 4KTV, yeah, those old glorious DVDs didn’t hold up.
Your friend with the cat?
That is the same expression I have on my face, when I see people talking shit about the Sylvester McCoy era of Doctor Who. Pity, mixed with the knowledge that they are wrong. ;)
Yes. I still live in the Medieval Age. I also use my telephone to make ... phone calls. :-B :-c
Agreed, seems like the TV would have to be massive for 1080p to suddenly not be good enough anymore.
This sounds as if you were my kind of man, Major! :-bd
It's not really a "con", the technology is objectively better, and the choice is yours.
Personally, I feel the improvements from DVD to BluRay were material, while the improvements from BluRay to 4K are not. This of course is based on the TV I have / am in the market for.
Certainly if I was in the market for a 108" OLED or something insane, 4K would be more tempting.
But all any of us really do is get the media we feel is worthwhile and stop when we want to stop, so in that regard, you and I are exactly the same.
Right. I was already VERY selective of what blu-rays I wanted to replace my DVDs, now even more so with 4K.
My rule is that I only go 4K if there’s a substantial upgrade in the new film transfer. I have the Criterion blu-ray of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, which is already reference grade quality so I don’t really see the need to upgrade 4K.
At this point, I think I only have a dozen or so 4K titles. I do know I’ll upgrade for Bond, so long as they include the original sound mixes.
My TV is 4K, but that's only because it was all they had when I was buying. My next player might be 4K, so I may end up getting a few (TLD, LTK, Highlander...), but my collection will mainly stand as is on Blu Ray.
Great minds, my friend.
I have films on DVD that haven’t had a BR release, and films on DVD that haven’t even had an official DVD release.
Yes, I don't even have a proper sound system because I can't afford thousands on it. But as I'm slightly hearing impaired, I probably wouldn't notice the difference all that much anyway. Heck, getting a 50" TV was like something I never thought I'd do, but the tv is pretty far from the sofa & I found it on sale at Cosco for $300 so I bit the proverbial bullet... DVD's don't look much like a real film experience on it, but Blu Rays definitely do. I streamed NTTD in 4K and it looked insanely clear- BETTER than theatrical. I don't need that level of clarity for the most part... especially on 20th Century movies.
I know folks that have spent upwards of 10 Gees on their home theatre system, but I'd have to take out a loan for that level ...
Thank you, seriously.
So, for like 15 years Bond has been working towards his death, but he needs to have a kid first, so he can leave her fatherless... but it's okay because he's saving the world from programmable nanobots that can be like smart RNA (Someone has watched too many episodes of Star Trek or Stargate)... and his cuckoo sort-of-brother has been driving him TO this all along, and the new love of his life can be dismissed over flimsy circumstantial evidence even though he has a history of having been played by creeps in the shadows before, but, okay.
A long time ago I felt TWINE was a bit contrived. Now it seems like a rather simple, straightforward plot.... ;)
I do understand about not being able to accept something in a movie.
To me one of the strange things about the modern World is how "mobile device" companies promote how "big" the screens are on their latest model are, and how you can watch movies on them, when in fact they are relatively tiny and pathetic by comparison with a TV screen. I imagine the many of the same people are buying the latest editions of both because they "must have it", but how do they reconcile the two in their minds if picture quality is so important to them?
All the Bond movies must be available on demand from some streaming service so why bother trying to keep up with player tech anymore?
Personally I don't feel the need to see every nostril hair and pimple on Daniel Craig's face, and am capable of arranging my furniture relative to the TV in such a way that I don't require a larger screen.
Yes, that's the frustrating thing about DAF for me, the tonal inconsistency
Nasty late 60s / early 70s action mixed with dreadful late 60s / early 70s camp humour
For me those things don't sit well together
Yes. I concur! My 24" 1080 screen was fine. More than fine, but we moved, and suddenly the screen was 10 feet away instead of 5. Not my choice.
Perhaps you need to think outside the box?
Furniture doesn't always have to sit close to the walls
Persuade them then, you might find they agree?
Or just sit them down and explain that...
"If you move the couch do you know what you'll give?
Odds are you will like what it is
When the film arrives would you be seen on the settee
By the merciless eyes of TV?
You can't deny the prize it may never fulfil you
It longs to thrill you
Are you willing to try?
The coldest blood runs through your veins
They know your name"