They don't want to put the best titles in one set, so people will buy more than one.

I'm not 100% sure, as I don't have any of the Bond Criterion LDs, but I've read (in a Video Watchdog article by Tim Lucas) that after they were recalled, the movies were reissued as single CLV discs without any commentary track at all because EON demanded so many cuts that Criterion didn't want to go to the effort of such extensive editing (Criterion tried to get around the ban by issuing the deleted commentary tracks on cassette tapes that could be obtained separately, but even these were nixed). It's a shame, because a couple of the participants on the track passed away shortly after the recording sessions.

Hold out for the Amazon Box Set sale. You'll be able to pick them up for $550.

Hey, wait a minute.

For Your Eyes Only? Really? Teenagers? Sure there is that ice skater chick Bibi.. and if I remember correctly, he isn't the one putting the moves on her. the rest of the women in For Your Eyes Only are pretty mature - including Cassandra Harris's Pierce Brosnan's wife at the time. Carole Boquet didn't look that young, but she sure was sexy. Now in View to a Kill, Moore looked really old and tired. I really For Your Eyes Only.

Why were the Laserdiscs recalled?

I still haven't watched my all DVD's from the first DVD re release.

The commentary tracks on the Criterion laserdiscs are refreshingly candid compared to the average "he was great to work with" remarks you hear on commentaries these days. That very candidness guarantees they'll never see another commercial release. The VW (#57 March 2000) article cultshock mentions gives a good overview of the whole affair, but anyone who wants to can hear the tracks - all you need to do is listen to a movie. ;)

I have all three laserdiscs. There's really nothing terribly controversial in any of the commentaries, but the participants do make some decidedly un-PC comments about the Jamaican locals in Dr. No and one of the supporting actresses in From Russia With Love. The Goldfinger commentary has some remarks about Connery's lecherous behavior off-camera that I'm sure the actor's representatives objected to. I forget which track it was specifically, but one of them has comments about Harry Saltzman being a pain in the ass to work for, which was a big point of contention and one of the main reasons the tracks were pulled (in other words, he was pissed when he heard it).

The CAV laserdiscs were only on the market for a short time. Criterion recalled them and reissued the movies in CLV editions with no commentaries or any other bonus features.

Some of the same participants from those commentaries were later assembled for MGM's deluxe CAV box sets of Goldfinger and Thunderball, which had all-new (less controversial) commentaries. Those tracks were then ported to DVD.

There's also Terence Young claiming on the Dr. No commentary (about 33 mins in) that Chris Blackwell was "high as a kite on pot and something else" when meeting with Young to raise money to start Island Records - not that Blackwell would ever sue the shit out of anybody he thought he had half a reason to. :) Young later claims Fleming was drunk when they met, as well. It would seem that everyone Young met was either drunk, high, or half-naked. Off-the-cuff remarks like these - though not at all controversial and ultimately harmless - seem to get lawyers agitated.

Oh, right. This is what I was thinking of.

What do you mean by "set"? As far as I can tell from the initial post, there is no indication that these will be released like the initial DVDs as 3 separate volume sets then later released individually. Sounds like FOX intends to sell them each as individual titles (slightly foolish IMHO to a degree as they could probably get people to buy sets with some of the crummier entries included just to get their hands on the Blu-ray versions of others like Dr. No).

I see your argument, and where i do think there is some validity to it, ultimately it is a slippery slope fallacy. The Goldfinger story is chock full of what made Bond great. Colorful characters, amazing action, cool gadgets and a grand scale make this the best of the bond formula. The fact that the Hollywood system bastardized the formula later is not the fault of Goldfinger. That's like saying that Star Wars sucks because of all the shitty Sci Fi like Ice Pirates that we were forced to endure after it.

Where i would concur that the movie doesn't offer as much depth of character as say a From Russia with Love, the pacing is no better or worse than Dr No or Thunderball, which are also oddly paced.

I believe that Connery really hits stride in Goldfinger, and the film also offers what is unequivocally the best opening sequence in the entire franchise. The raw sexism, the evil henchman, the clever wit of Bond are all at their peak in this installment. There is an element of cheese to be sure, but to say that the cheese is not present in Dr No and every other Bond film is just short sighted and flat out wrong. If you are looking for films without cheese, the Bond franchise is the wrong place to be looking. I suggest Cititzen Kane or the first two Godfathers. I think i read a review somewhere about the new Indiana Jones movie which i think is applicable to this situation, expecting a Bond movie not to have an element of cheese is like "going into Burger King and ordering a nice cabernet."

To say that this movie does not hold up, but Dr No does is ridiculous. They are cut from the exact same cloth, just Goldfinger offers it up on a slightly grander scale and with an uglier chick. In my opinion, Goldfinger is the most fun Bond movie to watch because it is a symbol of where it all began and it hasn't been done that well since.

I'll hold off until they release the entire series on BD. The Ultimate box sets are fine upscaled for me. If I want to truly enjoy Bond I'll reread the Fleming novels, not watch the movies in HD.

I'll only buy GoldenEye. I want to be a Bond fan, I really do but they just don't hold up for me.

Although I am a huge Bond fan, I have already double-dipped on complete Bond DVD sets and triple-dipped on the original 6 titles.

I'm holding off for complete sets or at least a price drop.

I’ll definitely get Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Thunderball. I can hold off on the other 3 (Live and Let Die is my least favorite Bond film). I'll have no problem upgrading these, as I only have the 2001 box sets.

Same situation here. But the ones I have watched looked and sounded great!

Hope they don't fuck this one up by not carrying over all the prior supplemental material because these won't even be a consideration for me if that's the case. And if everything is done right I might bite, but only after the entire series is released. Even then it's a big maybe as it'll have to be a mighty noticeable difference in picture quality to top the ultimate editions when upscaled.

The first batch seem to be the ones that were properly remastered (most by Lowry) the first time round for the ultimate editions.

I hope they are spending the time to go and do the others properly and go back to the negatives. There are lots of dubbed words for American censorship (eg Diamonds are Forever) that would good to have restored, not to mention that remaining 30 seconds restored to "On her Majesty's Secret Service". They restored a chunk for the ultimate editions, but there is still a bit missing and some of whats there is out of order.

Bond on Blu Ray!!

I held off on the Ultimate Editions for the sole reason that I knew I'd get them on Blu Ray when they came out.

My favorite Bond film (the one that is, for my money, the best Bond film) - Licence to Kill! Right up there with it? Dr. No!

I'm in for all of them, except Die Another Day, Live and Let Die, and Moonraker. I'll make due with the standard DVD's on those for a while.

You're right, it's not fair for me to judge Goldfinger by pointing my finger at Moonraker. But I'm not pointing my finger at the other Bond films. Some of the other Bond films were made nigh unwatchable by the cheese that was first introduced in Goldfinger, but the cheese that's in Goldfinger is enough to have me mark it as a less than great entry on its own. Take, for example, right at the beginning where Bond is at the resort and is told he has a message. He slaps a girl's bottom, and the sound that emanates sounds like he just snapped the world's biggest rubber band. Or the scene where a henchman jumps into Bond's car and Bond pushes the ejector seat, and the seat comically hops two feet out of the car and lands on the ground. Perhaps the second could be justified by saying that the effect just wasn't well planned, but it's one of those things that takes me out of the film anytime I watch it.

Also, Goldfinger is perhaps the most boring of the major Bond villains. He's a fat dude in a golf suit who looks like he's perpetually sunburned. At no point do I ever feel like he's actually threatening (and that includes the famous "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!" scene).

I'll admit, it's been a while since I've seen Thunderball, but Dr. No has a much stronger structure than Goldfinger. Everything in Goldfinger feels rather amorphous. Dr. No has a very clear linear progression, and it has exotic locales and sexy, tough women. Plus the villain is infinitely more interesting and has a true sense of cold menace about him.

Goldfinger is the point where the classic image of Bond coalesced, you're right. The problem is, I found the tougher, rawer Bond of Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Casino Royale to be far more interesting. I like it when Bond is just a little ill-fitting in a designer suit, and when he's not afraid to get his hands dirty.

I don't expect Bond films to be utterly devoid of cheese, but the jump between From Russia With Love (still my favorite Bond film) and Goldfinger is vast. That being said, I do enjoy some of the lighter Bond movies, so please don't dismiss me and tell me to go watch Citizen Kane. I just think that Goldfinger is a less than great Bond movie. It's my least favorite Connery entry (yes, I prefer Diamonds Are Forever over Goldfinger), but I do respect it for solidfying the formula that almost all Bonds would follow afterwards. I just think that, as far as the "formula" entries go, a lot of the others had better elements to plug in than Goldfinger did.

I absolutely disagree. Dr. No, as I mentioned above, is a much sharper film than Goldfinger. It's got a cleaner storyline, cool exotic locales, one of the best Bond girls, and a great villain. Everything about it is memorable and enjoyable. From Russia With Love upped the ante and still stands up as a really great film. Goldfinger values spectacle over storytelling, and that's really where it comes undone. Russia proved you could have a globe spanning action film without sacrificing clarity and tension. At no point in Goldfinger did I ever feel that Bond was actually in trouble. Part of the problem is that Goldfinger is such an impotent villain, and part is that due to the way the film was made.

Anyway, I could go on, but I think we both know where the other is coming from at this point. Let's call it a friendly disagreement and leave it at that.

I"ve got to agree that Dr. No has a tighter script, better characters overall, a better cast, a better sense of pacing (the thing just flies by), and a much better villain than Goldfinger.

Plus, here's the problem with Goldfinger... What exactly does Bond do except get captured by Goldfinger? He doesn't save the day, he doesn't disarm the, errr (not wanting to spoil the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it) problem at the end. All he does is a sloppy job of spywork and gets rescued by someone else.

And Goldginger WAS the movie where the silly slapstick stuff and over the top gadgets got their start. I'd rate it in the bottom half of the series. Thunderball may have some pacing issues, but it's a much more exciting and entertaining movie, IMO.

I like Dr. No better than From Russia With Love largely because of the characters and actors as well as the location, but they are both in my top 5 Bond movies (along with Licence to Kill, Tomorrow Never Dies, and For Your Eyes Only).

I think there's something to like in all of the Bond movies, and they're all entertaining in one way or another, but the bottom group (which, IMO, includes Live and Let Die, Moonraker, Die Another Day, The Man With the Golden Gun, and Diamonds are Forever) is clearly inferior to the rest.

I found Thunderball to be boring as hell. I actually liked NSNA above it. Goldfinger and Russia are my favorite early Bond films.

I totally respect your stance on this. You clearly have a well thought out opinion, and i totally hear and understand your points. I guess ultimately it is a lot of the shortcomings that you dislike in Goldfinger that i enjoy. When you talk about the rubber band snap ass slap, where you think, "God that is a cheesy foley effect," I think, "Yeah! Bond can really slap an ass! Nobody can slap n ass like Connery!" That said, it's the 60s man, the Bond franchise is littered with bad sound effects, botched stunts and cheesy choreography. There are examples of this in every film.

I apologize if you felt dismissed by my Citizen Kane comment, i like to get a little snappy sometimes in my rebuttals, i meant no offense by it.

Ironically, From Russia with Love is my second favorite Bond movie for all of the same reasons you enjoy it, and i do think it is ultimately a better movie than Goldfinger technically. Goldfinger also was a departure for the bond franchise in that it was a first time outing for director Guy Hamilton, whose Bond movie credits are far from impressive. I also love Casino Royale and Dr No for the same reasons you do.

I see what you are saying about Goldfinger being a weak nemesis, but to be fair, he has Odd Job which i think is the main hurdle for Bond. Many of the great Bond villains lack that sense of threat for me, Karl Stromberg for example from Spy who Loved Me is a millionaire who is less than threatening, but he has Jaws and a tank of sharks which makes him a threat. Similarly, I can't be threatened by Largo from Thunderball, and let's not forget about Charles Gray's portrayal of Blofeld in Diamonds are forever who's performance, in my opinion, is much better suited for a lounge singer or possibly blackjack dealer. That said, i think flaws can be found in all of the Bond villains, I mean, do you really think the dance the Bond does with Frau Klebb and her deadly knife shoe is super threatening?

In the end I think the main flaw of the Goldfinger movie is Honor Blackman. I believe (a little sarcastically) that if she were better looking and more charismatic that a lot of the "pacing problems" that you speak of might dissipate. That said, the fact that you like Diamonds are Forever more than Goldfinger is appalling to me, but hey, to each his own i suppose.

I grew up watching Bond movies. i think my first Bond experience was when i was well under 10 years old, and perhaps that clouds my judgment. I do really love Goldfinger despite its flaws, and i do think it is my favorite of the Bond entries. That said, I like to settle on this being a friendly disagreement, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I am still discouraged by the fact that you prefer Diamonds are Forever though. That is insulting. I am completely taken out of that movie by the fact that Connery looks a lot like the unthreatening Godfinger character you hate so much.

I think From Russia With Love get everything right...Goldfinger starts off strong, but by the end it is just boring. I think the pacing problems start once the movie hits the U.S.