Back to the Future Trilogy 4K UHD (1985-1990)

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by r9800pro

I was so mad when I was watching Avengers: Endgame and they made fun of BttF...

I think it was with love, not malice.

[paulfootball]

Perfect time to add the Stoltz footage!

[WJWS Channel 13:Amity]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

Coming in 2020 Star Wars Saga , The Lord of The Rings and now Back to The Future Trilogy !! WOW I forgot today is OCT 21st

I have a feeling we are also going to need a bigger boat in 4K in 2020 as well.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

Back to the Future should be taught in film school how to make exposition fun. The movie grinds to a halt and the Doc gives a massive data dump where he explains the rules. Normally this would be a massive no-no but the exposition is given in such an engaging and compelling way you don't care.

Back to the Future can also be taught in film school about economical storytelling and setting things up to pay them off later. BttF is a Masterpiece.

What about this guy?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Poya

What about this guy?

He can buy his own copy.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Resettito

Doesn't feel that DNRed honestly. The current BDs are quite solid, there's a ton of grain still in there. But done right, this can look as if it was released yesterday so to speak. A fresh transfer PLEASE.

As I said in the comments section on the article, you must have a different set of Blu-rays to mine. BTTF not some smooth-faced abomination but they've gone to town on it nonetheless, the "grain" that's left behind from the processing looks more like sharpened video noise, there are blatant halos around contrasting edges and there's a grotty orange tint to skin tones. Blech. And the second and third films have been hammered harder with the DNR stick, looking smoother and pastier, with the dirt removal pass also removing some specular detail.

Originally Posted by Colson

The DCP copy of the first film, from before the Blu-ray work was done, it definitely my favorite way to watch the movie.

I'm stoked for these 4Ks...

Same here, it looks so much better than the awful Blu. It's soft for sure but it's about as natural as a 17-year-old telecine of an IP is going to get, and the colour loses that orange tint.

[Koringas]

Yessssss.

[motorheadache95]

Awesome, it'll be great to replace the Blu-Ray set, hopefully Universal gets them right, as they have more hits than misses with UHD (the opposite of the Blu-Ray era).

On a side note, I was thinking that my selective UHD repurchases kind of reward studios that did mediocre/bad work in past. This is a good example-- I'm excited when a new UHD comes out to replace a crappy Blu-Ray transfer (that I still bought to replace the DVD anyway). But then when they release, say, Braveheart or Gladiator, I'm kind of meh because I think the Sapphire Blu-Rays I have are good enough and I don't want to spend the money rebuying everything on a new format again. It kind of makes Universal especially look smart, like they knew to cheap out during the Blu-Ray era because then it would make their 4K releases on the next format be so much more stellar by comparison.

[chrislong2]

Originally Posted by Resettito

Doesn't feel that DNRed honestly. The current BDs are quite solid, there's a ton of grain still in there. But done right, this can look as if it was released yesterday so to speak. A fresh transfer PLEASE.

Well they're definitely DNR'd quite a lot, however IMO the hate thrown towards the blus is way too much. They DO look pretty good and honestly the excessive DNR doesn't bother me much for BTTF given the types of films they are (it's noticeably "unnatural" but it kind of works for me given the subject matter/types of movies they are). But I definitely wouldn't say they have a "ton of grain" at least not on the original blu's (I believe they did release a new version where there was more if memory serves me right).

What I do tend to tire of though is those that come out with such strong "NO DNR, give us lots and lots of grain" type talk every time a new release of ANY film is announced. Balance people, balance... The first BttF was by several accounts shot on a really grainy film-stock and they most probably should use some DNR on it both to help lessen the intensity of the grain and also to provide a more seamless feel with parts 2 and 3 given that this is a trilogy story.

DNR is not some inherently evil thing - it has a place when used correctly. While it's true sometimes it's used too much, sometimes it's not used enough too, but hardly anybody ever says that because everyone's just conditioned now to think "DNR BAD, grain good". While I like transfers to retain film grain, sometimes they go overboard that direction too particularly with some newer 4k scans. When the film grain is actually itself a distraction, then that's not a good thing IMO. To me, the ideal is to have a film have noticeable grain but it should be noticeable in a passive sense, where it's not jumping out at you. If the grain is so noticeable that it's distracting you from the film, there's too much grain and DNR is absolutely in order... Hopefully they will get this balance right for the 4k release of Back to the Future. Just my 2 cents (or 25 cents in the 50's)

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

Day one purchase.
Will pick up 1 and skip 2 and 3.
2 and 3 are entertaining but not something I need in 4K.

It's safe to assume this will be a Trilogy set, only.

[HDTV1080P]

I am glad to hear the Back to the Future trilogy is being released in 4K Ultra HD quality, it has been many decades since I watched the trilogy in theaters and on Laserdisc and DVD. The funny thing is I have not had the time to open up and watch the Back To The Future The Complete Adventures on the standard 1080P Blu-ray format (and now I will skip watching it and wait until 2020+ to see the coming 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray release). Hopefully the 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray release will also have some bonus features. According to the Blu-ray.com database this new 2020 release that is coming out is on 3 BD-100 discs and 3 BD-50 discs. Therefore it might be just the 3 movies in 4K and 1080P and perhaps only a small amount of extra features and no 64 page book. Losing the Back to the Future Complete Animated series on DVD is not a big deal, since one can purchase the Complete Animated series on DVD for only $12.15 from Amazon. Perhaps the complete Animated series will never see a 4K or standard 1080P Blu-ray release.

https://www.amazon.com/Back-Future-C...1787133&sr=8-1

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Solomon

I always preach that you should never purchase a movie on day one release when you can get it a lot cheaper a couple months after.

That practice doesn't tell the studios that people are serious when they say they want a specific movie on physical media. If something isn't profitable fast, then studios get concerned.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by chrislong2

When the film grain is actually itself a distraction, then that's not a good thing IMO. To me, the ideal is to have a film have noticeable grain but it should be noticeable in a passive sense, where it's not jumping out at you. If the grain is so noticeable that it's distracting you from the film, there's too much grain and DNR is absolutely in order... Hopefully they will get this balance right for the 4k release of Back to the Future. Just my 2 cents (or 25 cents in the 50's)

But that's the thing...these Blus don't even really resemble film. DNR, EE, color issues, and some contrast boosting. None individually admittingly 'severe' but all combined make it very bothersome. These look like they were shot on 720p video vs 35mm film. The UHD BDs will hopefully rectify this, and if so, I am willing to bet there will be people who will not like the organic look and will say they prefer the original BDs.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

But that's the thing...these Blus don't even really resemble film. DNR, EE, color issues, and some contrast boosting. None individually admittingly 'severe' but all combined make it very bothersome. These look like they were shot on 720p video vs 35mm film. The UHD BDs will hopefully rectify this, and if so, I am willing to bet there will be people who will not like the organic look and will say they prefer the original BDs.

Agreed on all counts. I mean, I'm someone who's gone on record to say that they don't mind the 'little off the top' attitude towards film grain on 4K, particularly when faced with Sony's ultra-grain on their older 35mm LightCannon™ HDR remasters, so chrislong will be pleased to note that I know where he's coming from.

But there are applications of "grain management" that are done with taste, restraint and respect...and then there's what was done to BTTF. As noted, it's not THE most hideous transfer I've ever seen on Blu but nor is it anywhere near "pretty good", them taking what was already a creaky old HD telecine and hitting it with plenty of extra processing to make it 'pop'.

As HH says, if this is handled right then they won't look anywhere near as jacked-up as what the Blu-rays do, the EE imparting a very false sense of extra sharpness that will no doubt fool the average goober into thinking that the UHD is "softer". (Ditto for the Star Wars OT, again with the proviso of it being handled correctly for 4K in the first place.)

[LegacyCosts]

Back to the future's 2 bd skin tones look like paste, its alarming.

[Hardback247]

I know it's not going to happen, but it would be nice if "To Be Continued..." from the VHS release was added back to the ending of BTTF 1.

[professorwho]

For those saying BTTF doesn't look DNR'd, explain this shot to me. Ignore the aspect ratio framing and colour timing and let's focus on the details.

- Why does Marty's face look more smooth on the BD, and show less detail?
- Why does the band member closest behind Marty have a face that's wax-like?
- Look at the guitar. Why is there a blotchy looking texture on it?

It's DNR'd. While the fan-made BD off of the DCP is an improvement over the official BD, it's still from a rather dated master. It shows that the old master wasn't great, and the BD attempted to "polish" it with digital manipulation that ultimately showed its age more.

[Phillip c. Niethe]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I think it was with love, not malice.

No, they were just to lazy to learn the physics of time travel in relation to actual physics in reality. So they just trashed on BTTF use of time travel and made up a whole lot of nonsense... Actual time travel doesn't work but using science's explanation of the structure of reality, if it did work then it would follow a set of rules that coincide with the physics of our universe. Quantum theory also has a version of travel which would be more in tune to the MCU version although they didn't do that justice either. BTTF is 10x better than MCU (time travel).. the EndGame Writers pulled a Moffat.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Phillip c. Niethe

No, they were just to lazy to learn the physics of time travel in relation to actual physics in reality. So they just trashed on BTTF use of time travel and made up a whole lot of nonsense... Actual time travel doesn't work but using science's explanation of the structure of reality, if it did work then it would follow a set of rules that coincide with the physics of our universe. Quantum theory also has a version of travel which would be more in tune to the MCU version although they didn't do that justice either. BTTF is 10x better than MCU (time travel).. the EndGame Writers pulled a Moffat.

Duuude... you're taking it way too seriously.

[Grim Reaper]

It's about damn time.