Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Abacab]

Originally Posted by bentvalve

08' Predator dropped to $9.99 at Amazon



Poll results as of now:

08' version 177
10' version 114
neither 70

Otherwise known as 70% against the new one, 30% for.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by mars396

Blu-ray is a product, kids. It is packaged and consumed. It is not some sort of permanent archive of film, anymore than VHS and DVD were. There is no reason why we cannot have an improved presentation of our favorite movies on such a temporary medium. If any of you think that Blu-ray is the final version of films-at-home that will ever exist, then I will use a word that has been seriously overused in this thread and say that you are ignorant.

Once again, your argument is flawed, as you equate "improvement" to DNR-altered presentation, and thus perceive the additional detail -- grain -- which a 1080p high-def transfer allows to be displayed more accurately than a standard-def transfer can as problematic. What most of the people who have spoken against DNR alteration have attempted to convey in this discussion is that "improved presentation" should equate "as close as possible to the original source".

Pro-B

[mars396]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Once again, your argument is flawed, as you equate "improvement" to DNR-altered presentation, and thus perceive the additional detail -- grain -- which a 1080p high-def transfer allows to be displayed more accurately than a standard-def transfer can as problematic. What most of the people who have spoken against DNR alteration have attempted to convey in this discussion is that "improved presentation" should equate "as close as possible to the original source".

Pro-B

There is no reason why we cannot have the best possible presentation of our favorite movies that Blu-ray is capable of. Blu-ray is NOT film.

[al cos.]

Originally Posted by mars396

What would you do if you got back the pictures of you and your kids on vacation, and those photos were all dark and grainy ? Would you say "yum, that looks so 'photograph-y': I love that look" or claim "yup! that's how I shot it - THAT'S the look I wanted" Or would you say "what a shit camera!" or "that jerk in Walgreeens RUINED my vacation photos!"
.

Wow, it's all settled now.

[Member-38928]

Originally Posted by Abacab

Otherwise known as 70% against the new one, 30% for.

Its 50% against the new one, 30% for, 20% for i'll watch something else or I will wait for the 3rd edition.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by mars396

Grain is an inherent flaw in filmstock. I will be called ignorant for that sentence.

Yep, you are ignorant. Here's what Mike Inchalik said

cinematographers use film grain as a part of their craft and make it an integral part of their storytelling.

http://www.hometheatermag.com/httalksto/906talks/

And here's what Martin Scorsese said

Movies viewed in the HD format boast a film-grain quality [and] Blu-ray allows the film to be seen as closely as possible to how it was intended to be.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...93dc77297ac82b

And Janusz Kaminski said he used a bleach bypass technique for Munich (and later Minority Report) "because it retains a good grain structure during the process."

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/feb06/munich/index.html

And Rodrigo Prieto, Director of Photography on Babel said

We were going for different textures, different film grain to represent one of the stories.

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/sear...abel_6630.html

Look, it works both ways...if you like the look of the new release of Predator, fine. That's your opinion. But to keep arguing as if you know what you're talking about in regards to what film grain is or how that it's a "flaw" or that filmmakers don't know how to control it or don't use it intentionally is just absurd.

[markbr]

I don't think Fox will do a third edition, the only way I can see them re-releasing it again is same transfer, but in a box set with the other Predators.

[SirMontyPython]

Different strokes for different folks....let's just all shut up and start complaining for THE ULTIMATE OF ULTIMATE REMASTERS where it satisfies EVERY group okay? I'm sick and tired of seeing all the complaints from both sides....we all want a GREAT remaster of Predator, and dammit I'm a fan too! I saw Predator when I was 7 years old!!! I saw Predator 2 when it came out too, right before a college rivaled basketball game!! I sat through AVP and AVP-R, wasn't satisfied too much with any of them, and anticipating on Predators, I even got the mail-in of the Invisible Predator with the silver helmet back in the day, etc etc etc....just everyone, why don't we concentrate on sending Fox a message telling them they royally screwed up on how the DNR makes everyone look WAXY and WEIRD! Weird's a good way to put all this, even though some of the details do come out, this is a 1987 film, FILM!! It's going to show age at 23 years, but I know it can always look better if they did it right!! Of course it's going to be grainy, and of course this MAY have what McTiernan had in mind, but then again he may have just wanted a good shot with what equipment he had, and I know it would be nice if Predator had the clarity of Avatar, but THAT JUST AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN! OY! After this I'm sure I'm not coming back to this thread so you can do with what you want with what I just said....I know what I said before about the possibility of the 2010 version being better in some retrospect, but as of now, I could care less....just glad there's an option to rent so I can compare between the two....

[Member-38928]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

And here's what Martin Scorsese said

Interesting, I cannot argue with Mr. Scorsese. I do not fully understand, so apparently SD DVD cannot get that "film-grain quality"

[stick99]

And here's what Martin Scorsese said



http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...93dc77297ac82b

Look, it works both ways...if you like the look of the new release of Predator, fine. That's your opinion. But to keep arguing as if you know what you're talking about in regards to what film grain is or how that it's a "flaw" or that filmmakers don't know how to control it or don't use it intentionally is just absurd.[/QUOTE]

+1
And p.s I bought this new one because somewhere I heard it was a longer uncut version. I think I bought a new copy to see the new Predator trailer, so I'm a dope. Having seen this film in the theatre and the Drive-in, yes I said that, this new version looks quite foreign to me.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Spike Killer

It used to be don't trust anyone over 30. Now it's don't trust anyone under 30 who owns a PS3.

Wow. It's sad. I am only in that category for 4 more months and 20 days. I think I want to cry.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Yep, you are ignorant.

if you like the look of the new release of Predator, fine. That's your opinion. But to keep arguing as if you know what you're talking about in regards to what film grain is or how that it's a "flaw" or that filmmakers don't know how to control it or don't use it intentionally is just absurd.

Originally Posted by mars396

Yes, there are some Directors that think grain makes their work look "film-like". I say they are holding on to what film used to have to look like, but no longer have to. They are not evolving with their industry.

There is no way I will ever believe that John McTiernan wouldn't have liked to have been able to present all his hard work in way that we can see it better.

Why don't today's films look like films from the 20s ?

Because filmstock and the technology of presenting films has improved.

I may not be as knowledgable about film as you, but I know what I see with my own eyes. Movies look better as the technology of presenting them improves. There is no need to hold on to the limitations of the past. Let's evolve.

[42041]

Originally Posted by mars396

Why don't today's films look like films from the 20s ?

Because filmstock and the technology of presenting films has improved.

I may not be as knowledgable about film as you, but I know what I see with my own eyes. Movies look better as the technology of presenting them improves. There is no need to hold on to the limitations of the past. Let's evolve.

Go out there and film a NEW movie with modern film stocks or digital cameras. Leave movies that have already been filmed alone.

[SleeperAgent]

I just think it's funny that the old one has jumped significantly in sales even though the new one dropped in price.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by 42041

Go out there and film a NEW movie with modern film stocks or digital cameras. Leave movies that have already been filmed alone.

no one has permanently altered Predator, nor destroyed the original film. It exists.

Blu-ray is merely a medium to watch films at home, on digital equipment, nothing more.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by mars396

no one has permanently altered Predator, nor destroyed the original film. It exists.

Blu-ray is merely a medium to watch films at home, on digital equipment, nothing more.

exactly it's just a medium ,they shouldn't be f@cking with what's on the medium. And they have. I'm sorry but you have shown yourself to be totally ignorant and uncaring of anything but what YOU want. one of the 3 trolls on this thread

[42041]

Originally Posted by mars396

no one has permanently altered Predator, nor destroyed the original film. It exists.

Blu-ray is merely a medium to watch films at home, on digital equipment, nothing more.

Yes, it exists, slowly decomposing in some vault where no one can watch it. If a tree falls in a forest where no one is around to hear it....

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by mars396

Why don't today's films look like films from the 20s ?

Because filmstock and the technology of presenting films has improved.

I may not be as knowledgable about film as you, but I know what I see with my own eyes. Movies look better as the technology of presenting them improves. There is no need to hold on to the limitations of the past. Let's evolve.

Evolve...you mean the way The Wrestler was intentionally shot on 16mm film to give it a grainier and grittier look because it suited the story better than a glossy HD look? Or the way Spielberg shot Schindler's List in black and white because it suited the story better? Or the way Scorsese shot the first half of Aviator using a process that emulated 2-strip technicolor of the 1920's? It's not about technology evolving. It's about how the filmmakers intentionally tell their stories - they use color, or black and white, or 16mm film, or HD, or whatever way they think best tells the story and sets the mood.

Have you seen Blade Runner on Blu-ray? Or 2001? Or Casablanca? They were all shot before Predator and they all look amazing with grain detail at a minimum. Why? Because that's how they were shot! That's how the directors' intentionally shot them. Predator's gritty, grainy look is not about flaws as you've been carrying on about. It was the intentional look designed by the Director of Photography, Donald McAlpine, and approved by John McTiernan. Check out McAlpine's filmography and then check out the reviews of movies he worked on that are out on DVD and Blu-ray and you'll notice a pattern of noticeable film grain being brought up in just about every one. That's his style. That's his decision. That's his intent. So please tell me again how film grain is a flaw.

[mars396]

OK OK OK

I thought we were having a discussion about a movie we all love, Predator.

I am being called ignorant, that I am ranting about things I know nothing about, and even a troll.

I have to tried explain it several different ways, and while I absolutely respect your position on preserving the original look of the film, you will never even a budge an inch to try and understand the other side.

Go enjoy your grainy Blu-rays; I will enjoy my "DNRed to Hell", "ruined the director's intent" Blu-ray.

Let's see which version of Aliens we get in October.

[SleeperAgent]

Originally Posted by mars396

OK OK OK

I thought we were having a discussion about a movie we all love, Predator.

I am being called ignorant, that I am ranting about things I know nothing about, and even a troll.

I have to tried explain it several different ways, but you will never even a budge an inch to try and understand the other side.

Go enjoy your grainy Blu-rays; I will enjoy my "DNRed to Hell", "ruined the director's intent" Blu-ray.

Let's see which version of Aliens we get in October.

Sir Ridley Scott would never let them ruin The Alien series.