Gladiator (2000)

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by HAVOKK

Well, maybe if they made enough off this release they would throw down the dough to do it again right? Raise the prices a little for the improved BD and please all the fans.. I for one would buy it again..

LOL, doubtful. They'll just make whatever money they can with it right now. Maybe when there's a new format with even more clarity, they will heed the criticism of this disc and do a new scan/transfer.

[HAVOKK]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

LOL, doubtful. They'll just make whatever money they can with it right now. Maybe when there's a new format with even more clarity, they will heed the criticism of this disc and do a new scan/transfer.

ehh, probably right.. If they where going to do it right, they would have done it before all the hype.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Petri Teittinen

Wasn't saying it was, just giving an example to explain the reasoning behind my score.

I understand...always see people on here that like to bash the review system so I wasn't sure what to expect, no worries

That is most certainly a good point. But what it you haven't seen the theatrical presentation? What if the theatre you saw it in was running a print way past its prime, had a dim lamp in the projector and the projectionist was drunk off his mind with cheap Mexican rum? Are reviewers supposed to have all movies in their home as pristine 35mm prints? I'm joking, of course, but surely you see my point about comparing to theatrical presentation. It's an admirable goal, for certain, and I went for it back in the day. But it's not a realistic goal.

Well by theatrical presentation I don't necessarily mean the exact way it WAS shown in a theater, I mean the way it was MEANT to be shown i.e. the actual print that was delivered to the theater. Once it is projected, then of course other "forces" can affect the presentation, but those aren't intended to be a part of the print

Edit: And I realize that's a hard thing to judge since not every reviewer is probably able to recall the quality of every single one of their theatrical experiences (not to mention I'm sure there are several movies they review that they didn't see in theaters)...I think it just boils down to how many alternations went into the blu-ray transfer and to what degree that affected the original print (i.e. adding DNR, EE, etc etc). In the case of Gladiator, such additions unquestionably harmed the film's visuals.

[Petri Teittinen]

I really should be asleep by now (and I almost am), but one more post about a new transfer.

For best quality they should use original camera negatives - but that approach runs into a big problem. Namely, CGI and other post-production effects. Those do not exist in the original negative. So they'd have to dig up all the original effects footage and the original CGI data, maybe re-render CGI, then re-composite everything into the newly transferred footage. They'd basically be doing all the visual FX post-production again and nobody wants to foot that bill.

To save lots of moolah, they'd be wiser to use an archive film print from which all the prints going to theaters were struck. It's a generation or few removed from camera negatives but should look very good, provided it's been taken proper care of. Of course, they'd still have to visually match scenes from extended cut to the theatrical cut, but that's nothing compared to doing all vis-fx post-production again. And that's me off to bed.

[davcole]

I've not been the biggest fan of Gladiator, in fact it's only been in the past couple of years i've begun to appreciate the film. When I saw it theatrically, I remember falling asleep a couple of times. Subsequent viewings didn't do alot to shake my initial feeling, however last year I saw it on Cinemax and began to appreciate it. No, I don't think it's great cinema, however it's a fair Hollywood film. I still think I get creeped out by the brother/sister relationship. Still and all, a decent if not great film.

I remember when I saw the film on Cinemax I thought to myself what a nice transfer it had. It was better than i'd seen on any of the DVD's i'd rented, so I was expecting a pretty stellar transfer on BD in it's proper aspect ratio. I've read so many of the reviews and looked at the screenshots and while there are some definite opinions to the absence of quality, figured I better take a look at it myself.

My opinion?

Count me in the disappointed category.

No, it doesn't look like an upscaled DVD, in fact there are some moments of sharpness in the film, in fact I can't say it looks all that soft, there is even some detail that shines through from time to time. What holds this transfer back is that it definitely looks "digital" and that's not a good thing. Don't get me wrong, you can see a Lowry transfer that doesn't look exactly film-like, but it always looks good. This one doesn't look that great. Yes, there is DNR and some definite edge-enhancement. I do believe as has been suggested that they used the 2000 transfer and added the extended edition material which looks much better into the master. One thing for sure a missed opportunity.

I was really curious about the audio and while that's gotten pretty good reviews, I can't go there. Yes, there are some really powerful moments of this sountrack, but where was the inner detail? Honestly this track sounded harsh, congested to me, I didn't sense any openess in the mix. I really expected Zimmer's best score to shine through but it felt restrained. Oh, why did I have to boost the DTSMA track about 5 clicks over standard? I got a feeling that Paramount may have "dialnormed" this one as I suspect Warner did with "Watchmen" and what I suspect Disney does with their DTSMA titles. One thing for sure I was underwhelmed.

Not an ideal way to launch a "Sapphire Series".

[maidenbrain]

Glad I rented first. Will NOT buy.

While the use of DNR isn't nearly as awful as I expected from early reviews, edge enhancement is off the charts. Compare the bulk of the movie to a few of the deleted scenes (e.g. the one where Commodus (sp?) executes the two soldiers that told him Maximus was dead), and you will see what could have been. A few weeks ago I caught the Gladiator trailer in 1080i on one of those trailers shows on HDNet and it looked pretty bad. My wife, worriedly, asked if the BD would look better. I said, duh, it has to. The answer is actually: yes, but not nearly enough.

BTW, I have 52" Samsung LCD and I get that some people won't notice the bad (whether because of a smaller screen or because beauty is in the eye of the beholder). I say, more power to them. Unfortunately, I'm not one of them.

[HAVOKK]

Originally Posted by maidenbrain

Glad I rented first. Will NOT buy.

While the use of DNR isn't nearly as awful as I expected from early reviews, edge enhancement is off the charts. Compare the bulk of the movie to a few of the deleted scenes (e.g. the one where Commodus (sp?) executes the two soldiers that told him Maximus was dead), and you will see what could have been. A few weeks ago I caught the Gladiator trailer in 1080i on one of those trailers shows on HDNet and it looked pretty bad. My wife, worriedly, asked if the BD would look better. I said, duh, it has to. The answer is actually: yes, but not nearly enough.

BTW, I have 52" Samsung LCD and I get that some people won't notice the bad (whether because of a smaller screen or because beauty is in the eye of the beholder). I say, more power to them. Unfortunately, I'm not one of them.

I totally agree.. Shouldnt there come a point where they say to themselves "this is begining to look crappier than the original"

Edge Enhancement is doing no good, infact its doing negative work on the film when its turned up to that extent..

[tacomaprime]

Is it me, or was the regular dvd more "bassy" At first I thought maybe the 3.0 firmware update on the ps3 had turned on something like dynamic control, but all my setting are still in tact. Then I thought something was wrong with my sub, so I popped in transformers, U571 and hitman, and there is definitely not something wrong with the sub. There is bass, during battle scenes, when the cart hits the wall just below comedus. Just could have sworn it was a little more bassy then it is.

[mr.hidef]

Sooner or later this WILL get back to them, and they will probably fix it......I smell a re-release.......already.

[tacomaprime]

Since the main thread seems to be about the video and whether or not paramount plans on re releasing this brand new release, I thought a seperate thread about the audio would be ok.

Is it me, or was the regular dvd with the dts 6.1 soundtrack more "bassy". At first I thought maybe the 3.0 firmware update on the ps3 had turned on something like dynamic control, but all my setting are still in tact. Then I thought something was wrong with my sub, so I popped in transformers, U571 and hitman, and there is definitely not something wrong with the sub. There is bass, during battle scenes, when the cart hits the wall just below comedus. Just could have sworn it was a little more bassy then it is.

[MaCruz]

Just finished the movie. PQ is VERY GOOD, but they can do better. Still worth $17.99. One of my favorite movies!

[Elvis]

Wow a 3.0 on the PQ hmmm....and Patton was given a 5.0. Lets see Patton was bashed by the DNR police just as this one was. I think you better go change your grade on the Patton review now.

Bottom Line: IMHO the reviewer had nowhere to go with this.......he was damed if he did and damed if he didnt so he took the middle ground and threw up a three. If we could just find the "Bits" Patton review.

[MrRoy]

Originally Posted by macruz19

Just finished the movie. PQ is VERY GOOD, but they can do better. Still worth $17.99. One of my favorite movies!

I agree. There are times where it looks incredible, other times just good and there are times where you know it isn't right.

For people that say it is terrible, I think it is your equipment. Get a better television .

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Deezer1986

I decided to hold off on purchasing this to see what happens. Oh well, I could've used the savings anyway. I'm already getting too much this month anyway. And while Gladiator would be cool to own and I would enjoy it very much, it's not that "Oh my gosh I've gotta have it I'm going to murder this kitten!" title for me.

i'm holding off too.but keep in mind paramounts track record isn't good so far.they did noting with startrek,fox did noting with patton.i doubt anything will be done with this title.maybe next year.
besides all this fuss will die soon and be forgotten.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Wow a 3.0 on the PQ hmmm....and Patton was given a 5.0. Lets see Patton was bashed by the DNR police just as this one was. I think you better go change your grade on the Patton review now.

Bottom Line: IMHO the reviewer had nowhere to go with this.......he was damed if he did and damed if he didnt so he took the middle ground and threw up a three. If we could just find the "Bits" Patton review.

I haven't seen the Patton Blu-ray. Does it have a bunch of edge enhancement? The issue with Gladiator isn't just DNR, it's the combination of DNR, EE, and overprocessed colors.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by MrRoy

I agree. There are times where it looks incredible, other times just good and there are times where you know it isn't right.

For people that say it is terrible, I think it is your equipment. Get a better television .

Just an observation... but it's usually the best equipment that shows up any flaws. It's usually poor equipment that doesn't as it is not capable of doing so. So if this release is as bad as it is said to be, then it is you that should be buying some better equipment.

Just an observation!!!

[banned user105]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Wow a 3.0 on the PQ hmmm....and Patton was given a 5.0. Lets see Patton was bashed by the DNR police just as this one was. I think you better go change your grade on the Patton review now.

Dude, you are unbelievably ignorant. DNR isn't a universal panacea. A reviewer is allowed to think it works for some movies but not for others. Stop being so narrow-minded.

Originally Posted by MrRoy

For people that say it is terrible, I think it is your equipment. Get a better television .

I have a top-of-the-line Sony Bravia and it still looks like ass.

So no.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

I haven't seen the Patton Blu-ray. Does it have a bunch of edge enhancement? The issue with Gladiator isn't just DNR, it's the combination of DNR, EE, and overprocessed colors.

Go read the Review...its the release that set the DNR police all in a tizzy! Hey Bill where is your Patton Review I cant seem to find it on your site anymore.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by doctorthodt

Dude, you are unbelievably ignorant. DNR isn't a universal panacea. A reviewer is allowed to think it works for some movies but not for others. Stop being so narrow-minded.

Oh ok....it works for some and not others? Hmm..... god what a great argument there! Attention..the so called over use of DNR works for some films and not others? Wow.....but I will leave it at that. Lets not get the arguemnt right one way or another lets just leave the reviews inconsistent so the buyer has no clue.

But whatever...

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Petri Teittinen

I really should be asleep by now (and I almost am), but one more post about a new transfer.

For best quality they should use original camera negatives - but that approach runs into a big problem. Namely, CGI and other post-production effects. Those do not exist in the original negative. So they'd have to dig up all the original effects footage and the original CGI data, maybe re-render CGI, then re-composite everything into the newly transferred footage. They'd basically be doing all the visual FX post-production again and nobody wants to foot that bill.

To save lots of moolah, they'd be wiser to use an archive film print from which all the prints going to theaters were struck. It's a generation or few removed from camera negatives but should look very good, provided it's been taken proper care of. Of course, they'd still have to visually match scenes from extended cut to the theatrical cut, but that's nothing compared to doing all vis-fx post-production again. And that's me off to bed.

so what your saying is hi-def is turning out to be a pain in the ass for the studio's