Basic Instinct (1992) (Unrated Director's Cut)

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by RudyC

are we going to start the whole DNR debate like the predator blu allover again?

some people, like you, see dnr and EE and it ruins your experience...other people like me dont even notice that stuff and love the way the picture looks..
so lets just drop it.

It's not a question of "all over again"...it's an ongoing topic of discussion, and will remain one so long as distributors continue to release waxy transfers.

And maybe no one told you, but you're not my boss, and you don't get to tell me what to do. If you want to "drop it," fine...stay out of the discussion, simple as that. I, however, don't have to drop it. Since when did this become a place where people are only allowed to nod their heads when someone says "THIS LOOKS GREAT!" If I don't think it looks great - and even if I think it looks disappointing as hell - I'm allowed to say so. You don't want to be involved in that discussion, fine, don't reply. But I'm not bound by forum rules to be a yes-man for every mediocre transfer that nearsighted consumers choose to drool over.

But I guess we should go back to discussing Sharon Stone's snatch, as that was a subject far more worthy of a thread on the BD's technical transfer.

[OrchidClub]

Those screenshots look terrible to me. I mean yeah, Blu-rays ALWAYS look better in motion but the screenshots are practically scrubbed clean of all detail and texture.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by OrchidClub

Those screenshots look terrible to me. I mean yeah, Blu-rays ALWAYS look better in motion but the screenshots are practically scrubbed clean of all detail and texture.

Best part...in motion, the Basic Instinct transfer exhibits smearing and ghosting.

Apparently, the bar for "Incredible" and "Amazing" is pretty low.

[dwane5]

bout to pop this one in. its worth 5.99 whatever it looks like. blu ray.com gave it 4 stars. good for me.

[Oblivion138]

Take all early Blu-ray reviews with a grain of salt. Many reviewers were so mesmerized by HD in the early days of the format that they were prone to overlooking flaws that would be thoroughly dissected today. And sometimes, they didn't even have to overlook the flaws...they could just pretend they weren't there. The Basic Instinct review was from 2008...later that same year, Blu-ray.com's review for The Dark Knight would try to explain away all the edge enhancement on that film's transfer by acknowledging it, then claiming it wasn't actually edge enhancement. haha

[Mr.Poindexter]

Originally Posted by dwane5

bout to pop this one in. its worth 5.99 whatever it looks like. blu ray.com gave it 4 stars. good for me.

It still has Sharon Stone in it and that is 10 stars for me. It is a step up from the DVD. Unfortunately I was never able to get the D-Theater tape that was made but never released.

[dwane5]

well, as i watch it now, its not all that bad.i think its a 7 or an 8 on a 10 scale (PQ).

sharon needs to pluck her eye brows lol

the eco case has to go, it would look so much nicer in a white case.

[Oblivion138]

You've got much lower standards than I do, then. No transfer that features that level of DNR, with accompanying smears and ghosting, will ever get anything higher than a 5 out of 10 from me.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

You've got much lower standards than I do, then. No transfer that features that level of DNR, with accompanying smears and ghosting, will ever get anything higher than a 5 out of 10 from me.

Agreed. I own it and it's an old transfer that is too processed.

Hopefully, it will get a true remaster one day.

[Clark Kent]

It is an awful transfer, barely worth it over the DVD. The film needs a completely new scan from the OCN.

[hidef al]

I notice that Basic Instinct has two different colored titles on the spine. One has the word "Basic" in red and the other has it in white. Just wanted to share this.

[Liquid_Swords]

Did the original poster really say he was pausing and looking the detail of the newspaper? Somehow I think he was pausing another scene for "detail"

Edit oops looks like he admits he actually did lol

[javir]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

Take all early Blu-ray reviews with a grain of salt. Many reviewers were so mesmerized by HD in the early days of the format that they were prone to overlooking flaws that would be thoroughly dissected today. And sometimes, they didn't even have to overlook the flaws...they could just pretend they weren't there. The Basic Instinct review was from 2008...later that same year, Blu-ray.com's review for The Dark Knight would try to explain away all the edge enhancement on that film's transfer by acknowledging it, then claiming it wasn't actually edge enhancement. haha

they should redo some of the earlier reviews but that would take so much time and is not like no new titles are coming out to review. I guess they could get someone else to do the old reviews and then we can have the option to read both the original and the new one.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by hidef al

I notice that Basic Instinct has two different colored titles on the spine. One has the word "Basic" in red and the other has it in white. Just wanted to share this.

I guess the question I have to ask is... why do you own two of these? I get it for slipcovers, but this didn't have one.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by javir

they should redo some of the earlier reviews but that would take so much time and is not like no new titles are coming out to review. I guess they could get someone else to do the old reviews and then we can have the option to read both the original and the new one.

A general piece of advice would be to ignore almost any positive review from before 2009 or so. There is still merit in the negative reviews, as nothing has altered our viewpoint to make those bad, early Blu-rays any better. But most of the positive reviews would be much harsher now if the particular disc was released today. Standards have evolved as reviewers have come to expect more from the format.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

It is an awful transfer, barely worth it over the DVD. The film needs a completely new scan from the OCN.

BI:2 is worse. Say what you will about the film, but if you skip the scenes just with Lurch (whomever the man-meat is who "stars" in the film) and his cronies, Sharon Stone gives an amazing "Joan Crawford" tribute classical performance. And no matter what, it's a stunning looking film.

In the theater, you could see the texture of the walls in her apartment - leather wallpaper, LOL. It's a slick, gorgeous film - but the Blu-ray transfer (I believe it was one of the very early titles) simply sucks. It's the only BD I've ever truly been disappointed in.

Sharon waited a dozen years to make BI:2, maybe in another six or seven they'll make BI:3 with her flashing her tits in a wheelchair, and they'll remaster both these films properly.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by Liquid_Swords

Did the original poster really say he was pausing and looking the detail of the newspaper? Somehow I think he was pausing another scene for "detail"

What I find so interesting about the OP mentioning the newspaper is that the newspapers look like they're printed on wax paper, or vinyl, or something. It certainly doesn't look like paper anymore, as there's no texture left in the image.

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

A general piece of advice would be to ignore almost any positive review from before 2009 or so. There is still merit in the negative reviews, as nothing has altered our viewpoint to make those bad, early Blu-rays any better. But most of the positive reviews would be much harsher now if the particular disc was released today. Standards have evolved as reviewers have come to expect more from the format.

I wouldn't say ignore them altogether, but definitely pay much closer attention to the screenshots for positive reviews of that vintage. If there are no screenshots, find a reliable source that has screenshots. The Blu-ray.com review for Basic Instinct, however, does have screenshots, and those screenshots clearly show the heavy DNR that the review itself fails to mention.

But yes, those older reviews definitely have to be taken with a grain of salt, and a sharp eye on any available screenshots. Standards for HD images are much higher now than they were a few years ago, and negatives like DNR and EE have become much more roundly criticized. Basic Instinct's DNR would never go overlooked by any reviewer in 2011.

And even back then, some reviewers were much more discerning than others. The DVD Talk review for Basic Instinct, posted almost a year before the one here at Blu-ray.com, utilizes the phrase "DNR'ed into oblivion."

[hidef al]

Originally Posted by killowertz

I guess the question I have to ask is... why do you own two of these? I get it for slipcovers, but this didn't have one.

I will probably return one of them back to Walmart. Just wanted to show the two different spines. I know some members go crazy for this kind of stuff.

[RingTrick]

Originally Posted by Marcusarilius

Gratuitous? Common! That was essential to the plot!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvWfbIe4X_4

[toodeepuntilnow]

I feel dirty for owning and liking BI but it's a true guilty pleasure. I'm not overly concerned with top end PQ on this one.