Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I believe they greenlit him to do pre-production on it. I don't think it's greenlit greenlit yet.

Well I hope it will be something interesting AND I hope it involves O'Bannon/Shusett and/or James Cameron with the script.

Sorry for the rant earlier. Im just getting a little tired of reading about movies that have been getting delayed. I think the studios owe us a positive announcement about now.

[Mr. Cinema]

The new "Predators" film should all but guarantee us we get a proper release of Ahnuld's "Predator" on BD.

[Mr. Cinema]

Looking at what's announced for December so far, there aren't any major catalog titles. I hope we still get some stuff announced. December looks bare right now. Terminator 4 and Lost: Season 5 are all that's got my attention. G.I. Joe should be a December release.

[Nick Graham]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

The new "Predators" film should all but guarantee us we get a proper release of Ahnuld's "Predator" on BD.

My fear is we'll still get the same, ancient, crappy transfer, only with the extras from the two-disc SE added in.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Well I hope it will be something interesting AND I hope it involves O'Bannon/Shusett and/or James Cameron with the script.

Call me an old so-and-so, but I'm really racking my brain as to how that could possibly come to pass.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Nick Graham

My fear is we'll still get the same, ancient, crappy transfer, only with the extras from the two-disc SE added in.

Except for some better compression by switching from MPEG2 to AVC, Predator isn't going to look any better...unless you're asking for DNR?

[Nick Graham]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Except for some better compression by switching from MPEG2 to AVC, Predator isn't going to look any better...unless you're asking for DNR?

Predator on Blu looked to me like it was sourced from the same transfer as the original non-anamorphic DVD, which was later repurposed for the anamorphic/DTS re-release, and finally the two disc edition. X-Files: Fight The Future is a similar case. My guess is The Siege is the same, though I have not seen that BD. After watching the amazing-looking-for-its-age Starman with my wife last night, you cannot tell me Predator couldn't be spruced up significantly for the 1080p, and I don't mean with excessive EE and DNR, or a Lowry style restoration for that matter.

Jeff/Bill, am I totally out in left field with this? It's not like Predator was shot on the cheap with 16mm.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Nick Graham

you cannot tell me Predator couldn't be spruced up significantly for the 1080p, and I don't mean with excessive EE and DNR, or a Lowry style restoration for that matter.

Jeff/Bill, am I totally out in left field with this? It's not like Predator was shot on the cheap with 16mm.

It did have big problems during shooting (production actually shut down for a time and VFX companies were changed from Boss Film to another studio). McTiernan actually wanted to shoot it anamorphic Panavision but was overruled. To put it simply, it was a mess of a shoot and what we have on Blu-ray is the probably as good as it's gonna get.

[JonBidinger]

Jeff, any word on how long the Terminator Salvation DC will be? McG said that there was 30-40 mins of cut scenes, this site and other places say 135 minutes vs the theatrical of 115, but the trade ad claims 118. If only three minutes were added to the film, why does it need a second disk rather than being seamlessly branched in?

[Dark Side]

Jeff, Do you know if the first Terminator going to get a Skynet release like the secound one? And why do studios make movies backwards like the Underworld movies

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Dark Side

Jeff, Do you know if the first Terminator going to get a Skynet release like the secound one? And why do studios make movies backwards like the Underworld movies

Terminator 1 is owned by MGM and T2 is owned by Lionsgate.

In otherwords, the movies can be released whenever they want.

[HeavyHitter]

Van Ling over at HTF mentioned some work was done on T1 and will be re-released at some point.

[Jeff Kleist]

Predator on Blu looked to me like it was sourced from the same transfer as the original non-anamorphic DVD, which was later repurposed for the anamorphic/DTS re-release, and finally the two disc edition. X-Files: Fight The Future is a similar case. My guess is The Siege is the same, though I have not seen that BD. After watching the amazing-looking-for-its-age Starman with my wife last night, you cannot tell me Predator couldn't be spruced up significantly for the 1080p, and I don't mean with excessive EE and DNR, or a Lowry style restoration for that matter.

As Peter said, it was a mess of a shoot. Add to that"..in the boonies on a fast schedule"
Action movies were not that high budget back then, typically earning back 3-4x their cost. In this cast it was done for $15 million, which for those keeping score is less money than Arnold would make for it today

Jeff, any word on how long the Terminator Salvation DC will be? McG said that there was 30-40 mins of cut scenes, this site and other places say 135 minutes vs the theatrical of 115, but the trade ad claims 118. If only three minutes were added to the film, why does it need a second disk rather than being seamlessly branched in?

I hope it's not just a blood and guts extra cut. Don't have any details, but remember he just said "on the DVD", he didn't say where. The second disc is because certain places get pissy about unrated cuts and it makes it easy to split them up (if that is indeed the case)

Jeff, Do you know if the first Terminator going to get a Skynet release like the secound one? And why do studios make movies backwards like the Underworld movies

Terminator is owned by 3 different companies in the US. There will be another Terminator disc, but not for awhile. No work will even be considered to be started until after Cameron locks Avatar

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

On the upside- All of the above will likely benefit in AV and supplements from the delay. So it's not all bad news

I'm interested in this. Can you say a little more about how this works? I can imagine how extra supplements could be added in the meantime, but what kind of work might be done on the AV?

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

On the upside- All of the above will likely benefit in AV and supplements from the delay. So it's not all bad news

Well, if Fox is somehow able to pull a Rabbit out of their hat and make Aliens look fantastic, Ill be very happy.

[Jeff Kleist]

new movie+tie-in=more time and money

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It did have big problems during shooting (production actually shut down for a time and VFX companies were changed from Boss Film to another studio). McTiernan actually wanted to shoot it anamorphic Panavision but was overruled. To put it simply, it was a mess of a shoot and what we have on Blu-ray is the probably as good as it's gonna get.

I also heard that several shots in the final film were optical extractions- that is, scenes had been shot on location with little or no coverage, so during editing they optically blew-up the frames and "create" coverage to help during the cutting of the film. Supposedly this helped "save" the film during the editing, but the obvious result would be any of those "new" optical shots would have a lot of grain and dirt due to the optical printing and generational loss.

Vincent

[Jeff Kleist]

Well, if Fox is somehow able to pull a Rabbit out of their hat and make Aliens look fantastic, Ill be very happy.

I've seen it projected in the last 3 years

That rabbit better be some kind of deity that can send them back in time to give them modern cameras, SFX, and quadruple their budget Aliens is ugly, grainy, low-res and awesome. That's just the way it is

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

Supposedly this helped "save" the film during the editing, but the obvious result would be any of those "new" optical shots would have a lot of grain and dirt due to the optical printing and generational loss.

Those shots would, of course, also suffer resolution loss, as a product of representing a smaller proportion of the film frame, as well.

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Those shots would, of course, also suffer resolution loss, as a product of representing a smaller proportion of the film frame, as well.

With the original film grain blown up in size in proportion to how zoomed in it is.