Gladiator (2000)

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by ed4246

That, I think is the arguement. Some people don't think that it is ok that is looks GOOD. They think it should look exceptional.

IMO its the inconsistency that is bothersome. kind of like a tease that was my issue with it: "no, no please don't end, extended scene, no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

seriously thouogh, using the newer transfer for teh ext edition scenes, but the old transfer for the rest of the movie makes no sense. it would be like having 12 filet mignon steaks and 10 sirloins, but instead of using all 12 filets to serve 12 guests, using 10 sirloins and 2 of the filets

[jurassic_pork]

Originally Posted by Gremal

I'll turn the question around. You guys are upset because Paramount marketed it as "Sapphire Series" but would have been ok with it otherwise?

Seriously?

FYI

I don't think Sapphire Series has anything to do with picture or video quality...just movies that were spectacular (Oscar winners)....

[Barvan40]

I watched Braveheart first and was pleased with both PQ and AQ. The next evening I watched the theatrical version of Gladiator. PQ was well below what I expected, but the AQ was great. Last evening I watched the extended version and noticed the PQ of the added scenes was much better than rest, that is how the entire movie should have and could have looked if they had bothered remastering instead of using a lower quality master.

This is a sad beginning for the Sapphire Series.

[MyBlu-rayBrotherEd]

Originally Posted by jurassic_pork

FYI

I don't think Sapphire Series has anything to do with picture or video quality...just movies that were spectacular (Oscar winners)....

That isn't how they are advertising it.

[robertc88]

I've gotten much more cautious with catalog titles than I had been especially when I first bought in and and films I liked were available. No problem as if I liked the movie, I would buy it. Now I rent almost all catalogs before I buy.

I still cannot say I'm real disappointed with most of those purchases.

Some folks have taken an extra step here and instead of flat out buying this movie on BD they decided to rent it. After viewing probably more than once or at least parts of it multiple times, they like it and bought it thereafter and have the BEST AVAILABLE currently Gladiator on the market. They are happy with it but to some here even after they are still ridiculed after taking the time and effort, especially by some folks who haven't even watched the darn thing!

I know we will hear something from the studio sooner or later. I trust they are prepared with a statement regarding negative feedback they received on this movie, especially in comparion to Braveheart. It will read something like they weighed the option of a new transfer and the cost but thought what was released was much better than any other available current product on the market for this film. It was enjoyed by many for which they also got feedback to that effect.

I can send a letter but it will also include me not having any other BD in my player since I got it, I enjoy and it continue to do so, it is much better than the SD DVD I've done comparisons with and I'm happy to get the best available software of Gladiator on the market at this time.

[PrivatePixel]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Criticizing that is like criticizing Monet for not painting realistic landscapes.

This is a poor analogy (speaking as a former Art History student). The characteristics of impressionism, as defined by its composition, subject matter, use of light, etc. were deliberate and in contrast with coventional techniques employed and accepted by traditional institutions and its torchbearers.

In Gladiator, you've taken an existing painting, handed a chimpanzee a palette, then took the finished product and exhibited it to the masses as something the artist had originally intended.

If I was a director of home video at Paramount and received a barrage of angry rants, I'd wonder why even bother releasing BDs.

If the person responsible for overseeing this project has no pride or integrity in his/her work, then the job should be handed over to someone who does. (With their qualifications, I'm sure there are openings at the local BMV to be filled. )

Chef Gordon Ramsay made an interesting and poignant statement that could be applied to this scenario:

I get scared every day, twice a day: before lunch and before dinner. Customers vote with their feet. They don't ring you up and say, "By the way, I had a mediocre lunch. I'm not coming back." They just don't come back. They come back for that magic, that excitement, that level of perfection, and that's not easy to achieve. It's a fight to get there.

We ought to be very supportive of BD releases and stop whining like a bunch of little kids who didn't get the toy they wanted every time we see a frame that isn't reference quality.

I'm not paying for the upkeep of substandard fare; if you're not going to invest the time and resources into something worthwhile, you shouldn't expect a sale from me.

I live in a society where the shared mindset is tolerance and acceptance of diminished expectations. After all, why be the best when good enough will suffice?

When you have a film of this stature, with all of the accolades it has received, I expect a reference quality transfer; anything less is inadequate, and therefore, unacceptable.

[Wdm81]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

IMO its the inconsistency that is bothersome. kind of like a tease that was my issue with it: "no, no please don't end, extended scene, no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

seriously thouogh, using the newer transfer for teh ext edition scenes, but the old transfer for the rest of the movie makes no sense. it would be like having 12 filet mignon steaks and 10 sirloins, but instead of using all 12 filets to serve 12 guests, using 10 sirloins and 2 of the filets

Geez why you raggin' on sirloins...s'good shit

[Barvan40]

Originally Posted by jurassic_pork

FYI

I don't think Sapphire Series has anything to do with picture or video quality...just movies that were spectacular (Oscar winners)....

Here is what Paramount has to say about that:

Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures, said it’s “absolutely fitting that we’re presenting the best films in the Paramount library on the finest home entertainment format available.”

“Because of Blu-ray’s phenomenal capabilities,” he said, “the Sapphire Series will deliver the best pictures in the best picture.”

They missed by a mile on Gladiator being delivered in "the best picture."

[[1080-p]]

Originally Posted by Barvan40

I watched Braveheart first and was pleased with both PQ and AQ. The next evening I watched the theatrical version of Gladiator. PQ was well below what I expected, but the AQ was great. Last evening I watched the extended version and noticed the PQ of the added scenes was much better than rest, that is how the entire movie should have and could have looked if they had bothered remastering instead of using a lower quality master.

This is a sad beginning for the Sapphire Series.

actually its a step up lets party
compare to previous movies

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by PrivatePixel

This is a poor analogy (speaking as a former Art History student). The characteristics of impressionism, as defined by its composition, subject matter, use of light, etc. were deliberate and in contrast with coventional techniques employed and accepted by traditional institutions and its torchbearers.

In Gladiator, you've taken an existing painting, handed a chimpanzee a palette, then took the finished product and exhibited it to the masses as something the artist had originally intended.

This is exactly wrong. Scott intended the entire second half of the battle scene to be nearly psychedellic with heavy ghost/blur effect, and therefore my analogy stands. It was an impressionistic approach to producing a battle scene--at least that part of the scene--and it negatively impacted the realism and detail of the picture in a completely intentional, deliberate way. My analogy stands.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jurassic_pork

FYI

I don't think Sapphire Series has anything to do with picture or video quality...just movies that were spectacular (Oscar winners)....

Not according to the press release wherein they boast specifically about the best picture possible.

[gates70]

Originally Posted by [1080-p]

actually its a step up lets party
compare to previous movies

Not only is it a step up but there's nothing wrong with the PQ. Only Home Theater fanatics see something wrong with it. Show any regular Joe this Blu Ray and they'd be freaking out at how beautiful it is.

[Bullseye]

Okay I have just finished watching this on my 40" Samsung. This is not as bad as some people are making it out to be.

Is it perfect? No it could be better.
Is it a piece of crap? Absolutely not and no where near that bad. I agree with the 3/4 this forum has given it.

This movie for the first hour is filmed in very poor light and this movie was never going to be Speedracer. That is down to how the Director wanted to present the movie. Lighting has alot to do with how this movie looks.

This is a massive upgrade over DVD. If you can rent it first. But i am sure once you have rewatched the movie and you realise just how dark this movie is you will be pleasantly surprised.

Will watch in on the 50" with surround later.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Gremal

This is exactly wrong. Scott intended the entire second half of the battle scene to be nearly psychedellic with heavy ghost/blur effect, and therefore my analogy stands. It was an impressionistic approach to producing a battle scene--at least that part of the scene--and it negatively impacted the realism and detail of the picture in a completely intentional, deliberate way. My analogy stands.

You are not even addressing what he is talking about. You've missed his point entirely.

[Barvan40]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Purveyor of Fine Audio and Video

You may need to update your signature:

Purveyor of Fine Audio and will settle for Reduced Quality Video as long as the audio is awesome...

[Petri Teittinen]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Scott intended the entire second half of the battle scene to be nearly psychedellic with heavy ghost/blur effect

Where did he say that?

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

You are not even addressing what he is talking about. You've missed his point entirely.

On the contrary, he didn't address what I was talking about and missed my point entirely. I guess you did too, twice now.

[robertc88]

I'm not one to be naive to the fact that the size of the display, viewing distance, and the lighting environment viewed in does make all the difference in the world but I have never seen this amount of difference in opinion with any BD ever! And I still wish I had the opportunity to see exactly what folks are that deem this terrible!

I don't think I have really seen many differences of opinions from folks who have smallish displays and are viewing from about the same distance though.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

Okay I have just finished watching this on my 40" Samsung. This is not as bad as some people are making it out to be.

Is it perfect? No it could be better.
Is it a piece of crap? Absolutely not and no where near that bad. I agree with the 3/4 this forum has given it.

This movie for the first hour is filmed in very poor light and this movie was never going to be Speedracer. That is down to how the Director wanted to present the movie. Lighting has alot to do with how this movie looks.

This is a massive upgrade over DVD. If you can rent it first. But i am sure once you have rewatched the movie and you realise just how dark this movie is you will be pleasantly surprised.

Will watch in on the 50" with surround later.

Interestingly enough, I think it does look a bit like Speed Racer. That's not a good thing by the way.

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by Gremal

This is exactly wrong. Scott intended the entire second half of the battle scene to be nearly psychedellic with heavy ghost/blur effect, and therefore my analogy stands. It was an impressionistic approach to producing a battle scene--at least that part of the scene--and it negatively impacted the realism and detail of the picture in a completely intentional, deliberate way. My analogy stands.

Could not agree more. The second part of the battle scene was chaos. And the dissappearing arrows and fireballs where hardly noticeable. I like to watch my movies at 24FPS and not 1FPS LOL.