Gladiator (2000)

[bandit29]

The video doesn't deserve more than a 3. Audio a 4.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

classic.

we should place bets on what the PQ rating will be. and set odds based on the betting! this could be fun!


3.5 4:1
3.0 5:1
2.5 4:1
2.0 3:1
etc

3.5...... anyone want to bet a Blu-ray? (j/k.... that's gotta be against forum rules )

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by [1080-p]

when it comes to blu-ray my standards are extremely high

I totally agree with you on this. Shame this is not reference quality but I did buy it I don't have the DVD anymore. I hope as Bill Hunt said Paramount will make this right and re-release and do an exchange.

[tilapiah6]

Originally Posted by sfmarine

I've got a PS3 80gig. It's odd...the first time it booted right up and I tried two other times and got the loading icon and it went black so I shut it off.

I have the PS3 Slim 120GB and I had that problem the first time I tried to load it.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by Gentso

I believe the only scenes that depend on CGI are the opening battle sequences.

No, the entire colliseum was CGI, and even the birds flying were too, I believe. It's been a while since I watched the "making of" supplement on the DVD, but it explains exactly how much CGI work went into Gladiator and it's a lot, affecting nearly every scene--some much more than others of course. I'm just wondering whether the CGI use is directly proportional to the PQ problems and whether the BD is actually letting us see this for the first time. But again, it's just a guess. I haven't popped the BD in my player.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by bandit29

The video doesn't deserve more than a 3. Audio a 4.

I'd give the video a 3.0 and the audio a 4.5 myself.

[jsub]

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare7/gladiator.htm

DVD Beaver gave this Bluray a good review.

As I said before, it doesn't look half as bad as you guys think (those who've been biased by the negativity here). Look at the screen caps in the article above. People here who want to make a point will obviously show you the worse image quality screen caps, when the rest of the movie doesn't necessarily look that bad.

Plus, its called a movie because everything is in motion. Nobody is going to pause the movie just to look for imperfections aside from crazy people on this forum.

------
Quote from the article:

Well, despite your opinions on the film or it's Oscar worthiness - this Paramount Blu-ray is in a class by itself with the supplements. It's raised the bar for this new format. It covers every nook and cranny of desirability with a plethora of extras and strong, if overly tampered, video. An unbelievable value for all that is included. I'd say this is possibly the best Blu-ray of the year for extras but I'm just going over the 'Sapphire Series' Braveheart now and it seems equally triumphant so far and free of enhancements! We still give this a full recommendation.

[banned user105]

Originally Posted by jsub

Plus, its called a movie because everything is in motion. Nobody is going to pause the movie just to look for imperfections aside from crazy people on this forum.

Evidently you haven't been reading the thread since everybody who has a problem with the movie says it looks crappy in motion too.

[Gentso]

Originally Posted by PoorSignal

Was the extended scenes shot in 2005 or some other year than the movie.
In the firing squad scene why is Pheonix's hair look much shorter and different..

No, it was shot in 1999 along with the rest of the film. It looks different because it was transferred from film to a digital medium in 2005, likely using a different program or technology altogether than the 2000 release, hence the difference. As far as haircuts go, I'm not sure. Perhaps that scene was done earlier or later in the shoot, but it definitely wasn't done in 2005. I wouldn't think that they would have made such a continuity error, but who knows. I saw the scene last night and didn't notice his hair being a vastly different length, but wasn't paying attention (to his hair).

[Gentso]

Originally Posted by Gremal

No, the entire colliseum was CGI, and even the birds flying were too, I believe. It's been a while since I watched the "making of" supplement on the DVD, but it explains exactly how much CGI work went into Gladiator and it's a lot, affecting nearly every scene--some much more than others of course. I'm just wondering whether the CGI use is directly proportional to the PQ problems and whether the BD is actually letting us see this for the first time. But again, it's just a guess. I haven't popped the BD in my player.

Well, yeah, I wasn't referring to the scenes that were obviously ALL CGI, just the ones that blended CG with live action. There is always processing done in post production on a computer so I don't know if this is what you're referring to (blood spatters, etc.).

[Bourne1]

Ehhh. I'm still buying it, especially for the bundled deal with Braveheart you get at BB. I don't have any problems double dipping on a movie that is on my top 5 list. I know what to expect watching it, but at the same time, I am still going to try and enjoy the movie; despite its flaws. I do plan on writing a letter to Paramount communicating my disappointment with the transfer.

Still it's amazing to me how a much older movie like the Godfather can have a better PQ than a recent film such as Gladiator. I'm glad to hear that the soundtrack is at least reference material.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Gremal

No, the entire colliseum was CGI, and even the birds flying were too, I believe. It's been a while since I watched the "making of" supplement on the DVD, but it explains exactly how much CGI work went into Gladiator and it's a lot, affecting nearly every scene--some much more than others of course. I'm just wondering whether the CGI use is directly proportional to the PQ problems and whether the BD is actually letting us see this for the first time. But again, it's just a guess. I haven't popped the BD in my player.

I'm no PQ expert or videophile, but i'll make this observation

Opening sequence: yes CGI was noticeable in the battle sequence, and colors and borders looked washed to me. Then in the same sequence, they'd cut to Richard Harris in the background (Caesar watching), a shot with no CGI and this shot was glaringly better in terms of colors and border definition. This may be significant, as its the same sequence, but just a non-CGI cut?

[ToExcited]

Originally Posted by robertc88

I don't think it took more than 15 seconds for this to load and get to the menu on both my LG390 or PS3. Something wrong somewhere if you have either and it doesn't do that.

The only thing I did was update my PS3 to 3.0 before I started watching gladitor. I will check the load time again tonight

[jsub]

Originally Posted by doctorthodt

Evidently you haven't been reading the thread since everybody who has a problem with the movie says it looks crappy in motion too.

All I see if a handful of individuals stirring up a sh*t storm by posting their customer complaint emails that will probably be throw into the trash before Paramount even reads em.

I watched the movie last night and I didn't think it looked crappy in motion. Admittedly, not the best PQ, but still enjoyable and great nonetheless. The same thing happened with another highly anticipated title: THE DARK KNIGHT.

If you need a refresher, just look into that megathread. A few guys from AVS didn't like the PQ and posted a few crappy image caps and all hell broke loose here. That movie was just fine by most people's standards. And all the complaining on this forum apparently did nothing to stop The Dark Knight from becoming the best selling Blu of all time.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by JRS03

Oh I so agree! I cant wait to compare this with his Patton review! Since in the DNR police jumped all over Patton and Martin gave Patton a 5 point rating.

Licking my chops for this one......

Originally Posted by surfdude12

classic.

we should place bets on what the PQ rating will be. and set odds based on the betting! this could be fun!


3.5 4:1
3.0 5:1
2.5 4:1
2.0 3:1
etc

EDIT: oops, LOL, i meant to have 3:1 for 3.0, and 4:1 for 3.5/2.5, 5:1 for 2.0/4.0, etc. there's why i shouldn't be in charge of the betting

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

I think it'll be 3.5 or 4.0. He's a pretty generous reviewer from what I've seen.

Originally Posted by JRS03

If its not a 4.5 then the review will be a sham because I watched both Patton and Gladiator last night and Gladiator looks almost as good.

This should be interesting. I love all of Martins reviews, even when I strongly disagree. He is just a darn good writer. Will he clash with Bill Hunt? Will he echoe the same feelings? Will he give it a 5 like Patton (which I disagree with Martin on)? It could go anywhere. The suspense is really fun.

[banned user105]

Originally Posted by jsub

Everybody?

Everybody WHO HAS A PROBLEM WITH THE MOVIE

thanks for reading

[jsub]

Originally Posted by Bourne1

Ehhh. I'm still buying it, especially for the bundled deal with Braveheart you get at BB. I don't have any problems double dipping on a movie that is on my top 5 list. I know what to expect watching it, but at the same time, I am still going to try and enjoy the movie; despite its flaws. I do plan on writing a letter to Paramount communicating my disappointment with the transfer.

Still it's amazing to me how a much older movie like the Godfather can have a better PQ than a recent film such as Gladiator. I'm glad to hear that the soundtrack is at least reference material.

This is hilarious. You don't even have the movie and haven't watched it, yet you're ready to write a complaint letter to Paramount.

[TheZoof]

http://community.whathifi.com/forums...howThread.aspx

Good review down the page... she says it looks much better than the DVD but doesn't have the pop of some Blu's.

Seems fair!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by doctorthodt

Why does everyone have so much riding on the review? It's just one guy's opinion.

Just for kicks. I wont base my purchase on a review, but some of them are fun as hell to read. I cant remember which film it was, but the reviewer tore it to shreds in a very humorous rant. It was a great read. He slaughtered it.

[benricci]

Originally Posted by Bourne1

I do plan on writing a letter to Paramount communicating my disappointment with the transfer.

Maybe, you know, watch the movie first before you start sending out complaint letters....just a thought.