Gladiator (2000)

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC

People miss things. They're human. Hell, I wonder how many people here would have missed this if it weren't blatantly plastered all over the forums.

Shit happens.

I was wondering the same thing

[BStecke]

Definitely staying away from this one. I'm fairly sensitive to digital tampering and I know the DNR and EE will bug the hell out of me. I find it very distracting in The Dark Knight, and most people praise that transfer to no end, so I know this will bug me. Ah well. Still looking forward to Braveheart.

[Buddy Christ]

Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC

People miss things. They're human. Hell, I wonder how many people here would have missed this if it weren't blatantly plastered all over the forums.

Shit happens.

I think at least the EE/DNR-ing and halo would have been noticed. Just would have gone down as a sub par release

[coolmilo]

I just read Bill Hunt's review of Gladiator/Braveheart and I've decided to skip Gladiator for now. This is a shame because Gladiator is one of my favorite films of all time. Hopefully Paramount/Universal will do the right thing and remaster Gladiator and replace the disks for those who purchase this flawed version the way Sony did with The Fifth Element. In the meantime I will spend my money on Braveheart (another favorite) and Hot Fuzz.

[SonOfArathorn]

I tried to back read but got lost in the madness. SO am I right in assuming that people are claiming that the theatrical version on the BD looks "terrible" but that the extended looks good? IF so I have no problem getting this because I would only watch the extended cut, or is there another issue? Can someone please tell me what the fuss is about?

[T DUB]

Originally Posted by SonOfArathorn

I tried to back read but got lost in the madness. SO am I right in assuming that people are claiming that the theatrical version on the BD looks "terrible" but that the extended looks good? IF so I have no problem getting this because I would only watch the extended cut, or is there another issue? Can someone please tell me what the fuss is about?

Only the scenes that are added in the extended cut look good, once it goes back to the theatrical cut you get a downgrade in quality so the movie fluctuates from scene to scene. Not good.

[42041]

Originally Posted by SonOfArathorn

I tried to back read but got lost in the madness. SO am I right in assuming that people are claiming that the theatrical version on the BD looks "terrible" but that the extended looks good? IF so I have no problem getting this because I would only watch the extended cut, or is there another issue? Can someone please tell me what the fuss is about?

The extended SCENES look good. The ones that were in the theatrical cut look not too far removed from a good upscaled DVD.

[SonOfArathorn]

I see, and is this confirmed? If so it seems like a monumental blunder on Paramount's part as Gladiator is (likely) the more demanded of the two releases, though for me Braveheart is the one I'd rather have. Still, how could they bungle this up?

[coolmilo]

Originally Posted by SonOfArathorn

I see, and is this confirmed? If so it seems like a monumental blunder on Paramount's part as Gladiator is (likely) the more demanded of the two releases, though for me Braveheart is the one I'd rather have. Still, how could they bungle this up?

Here is something that you can trust: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

[42041]

Originally Posted by SonOfArathorn

I see, and is this confirmed? If so it seems like a monumental blunder on Paramount's part as Gladiator is (likely) the more demanded of the two releases, though for me Braveheart is the one I'd rather have. Still, how could they bungle this up?

Depends on who you ask i suppose certainly nothing i'd have in my collection, but if there's a moral to this thread, it is that your mileage may vary. if you're one of those people who debates the difference between 720p and 1080p TVs, you'll probably find this release satisfactory. if you're looking to enjoy a top-shelf HD presentation, get Braveheart instead.

[SonOfArathorn]

Looks like I'll be getting Braveheart only, thanks for saving me the money I'd have wasted otherwise. Hope they do a new transfer, I know there's a lot of people who say see it for yourself but the last time I heard rumblings like this was over Gangs of New York, and that turned out to be a serious turd. I have learned my lesson, and will not be getting Gladiator.

[Jeff Kleist]

appreciate the time you put into this..... seems like a pretty detailed evaluation. Although it sounds like a re-work is going to happen.... it also sounds like this isn't really a terrible buy.

Don't count those chickens. I don't want anyone getting the wrong impression on what Bill said. Certainly that would be the optimal outcome

That's what happened with the Star Trek original cast films on Blu-ray, five of the six used decade old masters created for DVD instead of new ones.

They were new masters made in the last 2 years. They were just struck before Paramount's new mastering policies went into effect. Keep in mind that MOST studios, as late as 2007-8 were doing what they've always done with their masters for over a decade

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC

People miss things. They're human. Hell, I wonder how many people here would have missed this if it weren't blatantly plastered all over the forums.

Shit happens.

I may have not noticed some of the problems but know I now it is there I will notice it, and it will annoy me (albeit if the DNR is half as bad as we are told I think I would easily have noticed). The only blu I was looking forward to any time soon, and know I'll simply rent it (if that). Hopefully Australia has a different release to the problematic one.

[ment]

Originally Posted by MCT

this is really disappointing news. I'm not going to spend $22+change for a disc that, while not TERRIBLE looking, just isnt up to par by Blu Ray standards. People will say, "well, just buy it and judge it for yourself"....but when you have MULTIPLE sources confirming that its relatively shoddy work and you're purchasing at your own risk, I think I can recognize a giant red flag when I see one. Really sucks, because Gladiator is the main title I wanted. Now I have to wait until Paramount confirms they will, if not recall the title altogether, at least put out a new "anniversary edition" or something to that effect with a sparkling new transfer free of EE and DNR. Oh well.

I never really like the idea of buy and see..... you're bound to loose money. If one decide to sell it, it has to be sold at a heavily discounted price considering all the negative hype the product is getting during pre-release stage. It does not make good sense to lose money this way

So good for you by being a careful buyer like most of us. I'll just wait for the re-release if it gets a better review. Or wait for more feedbacks from early bird owners

[Buddy Christ]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Don't count those chickens. I don't want anyone getting the wrong impression on what Bill said. Certainly that would be the optimal outcome



They were new masters made in the last 2 years. They were just struck before Paramount's new mastering policies went into effect. Keep in mind that MOST studios, as late as 2007-8 were doing what they've always done with their masters for over a decade

Look who is up late?

Started a thread about Sapphire in general. Speculation on future releases. Paramount/Dreamworks only. Any thoughts?

[ment]

Originally Posted by maidenbrain

Check out today's "My Two Cents" at The Digital Bits.

This review is great and spot on.... its objective and fair in my opinion .....

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by ment

This review is great and spot on.... its objective and fair in my opinion .....

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

I never really check The Digital Bits...... not that I don't find them trustworthy, I just usually get their info passed on here or on AVS.....

I just think it's suspect that on whatever scale the review was using, Braveheart received an 18.5 and Gladiator received a 15.5


Is 15.5 "That" bad???? I understand people may have expected it to be right up there in the top tier etc.... and it's unfortunate that it's not..... but in the grand scheme of things..... it doesn't appear (based on the rating only) that it's a "Terrible" release, as many here are suggesting.

That's my $0.02

[space-monkey]

I just pray there's someone important at Paramount or Universal who didn't know how badly this was botched, and is as pissed as we are.

I'm not a huge Gladiator fan, but it WON BEST PICTURE. It deserves much, much better.

[ment]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I never really check The Digital Bits...... not that I don't find them trustworthy, I just usually get their info passed on here or on AVS.....

I just think it's suspect that on whatever scale the review was using, Braveheart received an 18.5 and Gladiator received a 15.5


Is 15.5 "That" bad???? I understand people may have expected it to be right up there in the top tier etc.... and it's unfortunate that it's not..... but in the grand scheme of things..... it doesn't appear (based on the rating only) that it's a "Terrible" release, as many here are suggesting.

That's my $0.02

true since these ratings are subjective to one's taste

thus my personal stand is to wait for more reviews when the product is officially out in the street. Which is just a few days anyway

plus ..... it wont hurt to wait til black friday

[Jeff Kleist]

Is 15.5 "That" bad???? I understand people may have expected it to be right up there in the top tier etc.... and it's unfortunate that it's not..... but in the grand scheme of things..... it doesn't appear (based on the rating only) that it's a "Terrible" release, as many here are suggesting.

On our scale, 10 is the best DVD. 20 is the best possible Blu-ray. 14-15 is as low as we've gone in my memory, because nothing has been that abysmal