New Thunderball art, Popeye?

Post by **Dr. No** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:09 am

The new cover for Thunderball reminded me of another sailor. Popeye

The old cover was just as bad, it reminded me a Perry Mason

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:18 am

Most of those covers are not only badly photoshopped but some had pics that didn't match with their films!

How do you go from this...

To that?

Post by **Dr. No** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:47 am

how about the book for YOLT

(the cover of the booklet)
It’s not a good picture, you might not be able to see what I mean. If you have the YOLT DVD (the one before the 2006 ultimate edition) you’ll find it when you open the case.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:09 am

I only had the SE DVDs for TSWLM, FYEO, LTK, GE and DAD.

I feel like rating the d**n covers...

DN - It has Bond and Honey, could have been better arranged. 7/10
FRWL - Very bland. It doesn't represent the film for me, but it's not !@#$. 4/10
GE - I'm still surprised EON gave this a pass, it's not everyday you'd find a DVD cover featuring a woman's ass uncensored.

9/10
TB - Utterly tacky. I can't say anything else. 2/10
YOLT - Standard '90s cheap action cover you'd fine on a Steven Seagal film. Cheap. 3/10
OHMSS - Lazenby looks like Robert Mitchum here

6/10
DAF - James Bond in Vegas. Nothing spectacular. 5/10
LALD - Looks like Bond in 'Nam. Why?

4/10
TMWTGG - Same as above, delete 'Nam and insert China. 4/10
TSWLM - An obvious TMWTGG screencap pasted on submarines. Lazy. 3/10
MR - I like this one. It just captures the whole mood of the film. Moore in space and not acting like he's phased by the experience.

8/10
FYEO - Interesting shot, yet drab. 6/10
OP - HORRIBLE HORRIBLE! 1/10
AVTAK - Same as LALD. Insert Moore's face on a landmark, don't make anything interesting. Just keep it bland. Ugh. 2/10
TLD - Looks like a stupid video game cover. 1/10
LTK - Insert Dalton's face on... a random fogged up jungle?

2/10
GE - Standard, but at least doesn't devolve so drastically from the original cover.
TND - Same as TLD. Stupid video game cover.
TWINE - At least it tries to look somewhat interesting. 6/10
DAD - Ugly CGI galore. 2/10

At least the 2006 releases restored the original fonts from the posters. God, did they have terrible title designs on these lousy covers. They looked like title designs you'd find on a Jean Claude Van Dam collection.

Very very cheap.

Worst Title Design.

Worst Photoshopped Cover.

Worst Bond Cover Ever.

Post by **Kristatos** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:28 pm

stockslivevan wrote:LALD - Looks like Bond in 'Nam. Why? 4/10
TMWTGG - Same as above, delete 'Nam and insert China. 4/10

If you do that, you get "Looks like Bond in China. Why?". To which the obvious answer is "because he actually was in China in that movie".

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:06 am

Kristatos wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:LALD - Looks like Bond in 'Nam. Why? 4/10
TMWTGG - Same as above, delete 'Nam and insert China. 4/10
If you do that, you get "Looks like Bond in China. Why?". To which the obvious answer is "because he actually was in China in that movie".

Okay I wasn't clear enough, the cover looked practically the same as LALD, except Bond was in his correct setting.

Hell, Most of the Moore covers are the same ala 2006 covers.

I wish both editions were much more original than cheap.

Post by **Dr. No** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:18 am

Here is a good picture of the cover

Can you spot what is wrong?

Post by **Dr. No** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:19 am

wow! thats larger than life! how the hell did that happen?

Anyway there it is

Post by **Dr. No** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:27 am

stockslivevan wrote:
Kristatos wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:LALD - Looks like Bond in 'Nam. Why? 4/10
TMWTGG - Same as above, delete 'Nam and insert China. 4/10
If you do that, you get "Looks like Bond in China. Why?". To which the obvious answer is "because he actually was in China in that movie".
Okay I wasn't clear enough, the cover looked practically the same as LALD, except Bond was in his correct setting.

Hell, Most of the Moore covers are the same ala 2006 covers.

I wish both editions were much more original than cheap.

I agree they look cheap. I do like the new James Bond with the crest and pictures in dark gray of the 2006 cover. It's nice touch IMO. But I don't like how cheaply they put togtehr the packaging and booklets.

I kinda miss the old intros of the pre 2006 dvds. The generic Bond actor in the shadows is the same on every dvd, I though at first they were unique, but no. I guess that cost money.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:09 am

Well you can't argue what's in the packaging is brilliant. I remember gazing at how brilliantly cleaned up and brand new Dr. No looked!

It sure is worth it, even if the packaging is kinda cheap.

Post by **Dr. No** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:24 am

stockslivevan wrote:Well you can't argue what's in the packaging is brilliant. I remember gazing at how brilliantly cleaned up and brand new Dr. No looked! It sure is worth it, even if the packaging is kinda cheap.

Definitely! I recommend them to everyone wholeheartedly. I love what they did restoring them.

I have the very first Dr No DVD (& the 2000 SE ) and it look dirty and hard to see at times. In teh new edition I notced all of the things in the background, like the cruise ship docked near by!

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:32 am

Yes. I first noticed the change once the main titles came up. I remember how dark and dirty the old DVD showed and on the new one it was bright and crisp!

It is seeing them in great quality without any grain, digital grain and so on. I even did a DVD comparison with The Spy Who Loved Me. It makes me think: Gee, does that mean most of the DVDs pre-2005 are in bad quality? It's amazing how we all embraced this format in the early years, only to find them flawed and not crystal clear as they were said.

And now with Blu-Ray coming, I'm expecting something beyond that. I can't see how that's possible to go beyond Blu-Ray, but then again that's exactly what I said about the DVD.

Post by **Dr. No** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:47 am

I guess we could go back to the old 35mm film. If taken care of it still looks amazing.

I'm not going to rebuy these movies again. Atleast that what I tell myself now. These look great.
I looked at those new formats, christ they are expensive! Half a season of the Sopranos cost enough to make TOny proud. For 20 bond movies its going to be around $600!!!