Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Snikt]

Come on Fox, give us an update for a re-release of Predtor

[Maggot]

Sure, the movie was never a technicolor feast, but the movie could certainly look a lot better than what we have if it were given the proper treatment for what Blu-ray requires and demands.

[Mat-the-Cat]

Originally Posted by Cliff

I saw a new 35mm print projected about a year ago...

No, it can't look "better" than what it looks like at its core. Any improvements between an old and new version will not be as great as people assume, short of digitally tweaking with excessive noise reduction and other manipulations. I've explained about a thousand different times why Predator looks as it does (and the information about the hows and whys of the editing tricks originally came from me), but it seems like people will never understand that not all films are created equally.

As for what treatment Blu-ray requires and demands... it requres and demands that films look as good as they can... not the other way around. Meaning, I love Blu-ray because it can offer me that best of what Predator is supposed to look like and not a Predator that suddenly looks like Corpse Bride simply because the Blu-ray technology allows for that.

That's the biggest misconception about the format. Blu-ray isn't a barometer for how good a movie should look, but a tool to allow it to do so to the best of its photography and stylistic ability.

I like what you said. It makes perfect sense.

If people want a movie to look like Transformers or Casino Royale they should go buy those movies not look for other movies to look like them.

[Antiochus]

Originally Posted by RadThad

Well Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown have been released overseas for a loooong time now and we still haven't seen any glimpse of a FIRST release in the States. So my point is, just because other countries are getting a release soon doesn't mean the US is too.

Different companies are holding rights to Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown in different countries, but Predator is Fox-MGM all over the world (at least in Russia).

[dspin]

Originally Posted by RadThad

Well Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown have been released overseas for a loooong time now and we still haven't seen any glimpse of a FIRST release in the States. So my point is, just because other countries are getting a release soon doesn't mean the US is too.

You gotta love it. US makes the movies, Europe gets a lot of the releases first. Don't figure

[Sith]

Originally Posted by Snikt

Hey guys, I've been paying attention to the development of the latest entry into the Predator series, "Predators." With this new film being released this July, do you guys think Fox will issue a new release of Predator?

I already own the previously released edition of Predator on Blu-Ray, but I'm hoping it will be re-issued with the extras included on the previous 2-disc DVD edition.

To me, it just makes sense. But what do you guys think?

I hate to say it, but the Predator blu ray I consider one of the worst pq blu rays out there. Right there with Gangs of New York.

[Ventura]

I have Predator on Blu and haven't watched it yet, but what has brought me here is having seen local Australian supplier Ezydvd list a re-authored Predator for release on 2nd June:

http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/813127

I couldn't give a hoot about the extras, but if they remaster the PQ and AQ, I'm all in. That said, and even after having read most of the comments in this thread, I don't think it's possible for a significant improvement to be made considering the source, but it would be nice to be wrong.

[Yautja]

Be nice if they came up with a re-release, hopefullt a nice steelbook or a nice metal slip case

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Sith

I hate to say it, but the Predator blu ray I consider one of the worst pq blu rays out there. Right there with Gangs of New York.

It might have what you call bad pq, but it does have a very good transfer.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by Cliff

That's why I hate those tier threads so much and think places like AVS are going to be the death of the format. A lot of people assume that if a disc doesn't have the same pizzazz and HD wow! factor as Up or Avatar that it's substandard or botched and needs a remastering and requires "proper treatment." I think if these same people had the opportunity to see these films on the big screen again and see exactly what these movies are 'supposed' to look like, they'd be very surprised. I actually also just saw a newer print of Commando last month and, if anything, I'd say the Blu-ray isn't quite grainy enough... yet there's a massive thread calling for a restoration.

+1000

The grain haters will never stop (ignorantly) b!tching, but the BD is stellar. If any of it's detractors have actually SEEN IT ON FILM, then I would love to know what their gripes about the transfer are, yet I have a sneaking suspicion that none of them have. As someone who has seen PREDATOR projected on film repeatedly, I can confidently say it won't look any better after a "remastering" (unless EE and DNR are your idea of an improvement).

[Twisted]

Originally Posted by csdot

i own blade runner. ive seen blade runner dozens of times in my life. if predator had been filmed with the same equipment/film and by the same crew as blade runner it would look just like blade runner but it wasnt. what about this do you not understand? blade runner and predator are both blu-rays that display the movies as they are.

You're wrong, EVERYTHING can look better when you edit a 35mm movie, espacelly a cheap release like Predator. The movie can absolutly look better than this. It's always a question of money: if the studio want to pay for the remasterisation of the sound and the picture. The original film negative format is largely better than what they extract for making this 25gb single layer blu-ray edition. It's exactly the same thing for the first DVD edition of the movie (who looks like a VHS) and later they use all the potentiel of the media with another release. In this case, they don't use the potentiel of the blu-ray, maybe for the sound, but not for the picture.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Cliff

That's the best way you could possibly put it (although I actually think it, by and large, has a very nice look to it- it's rough in spots, but a very filmic image).

I like it to, but I love the look of grain, and people who don't never seem to understand how one could. I also like the look of the da vinci code which is extremely soft (it was purposfully shot that way), and don't believe great means just razor sharp imagery.

[Aristide Massaccesi]

Originally Posted by Cliff

You see, I can say with complete and utter confidence... YOU ARE WRONG. 35mm film is simply the canvas on which the images are captured. What ends up there is dependent on many things. There's the camera used, the lenses used (which will alter the focal length), the lighting on set, the exposure of the camera, the film stock, the shot composition, the skill of the DP/operator, the INTENTION of the DP, any post production tweaking, and, in the case of Predator, a host of editorial manipulations that took what was shot and altered it. Wide shots were zoomed in to create medium shots. Medium shots were zoomed in to create close ups (both of which increased the grain visible in the final product).

Spherical (Flat 1.85), Anamorphic (Scope 2.39), and Super 35 (spherical capture in either a flat or scope ratio) are all 35mm processes but each has a different look. Blade Runner was shot Anamorphic Panavision on the Warner backlot under very controlled conditions. Predator was shot flat in the Mexican jungle. Can you really be that resistant to the idea that they would look different, despite both being 35mm?

You said:

How are you able to state this as fact without having seen the original film negative? As I said, I saw a new print about a year ago and the Blu-ray is an incredible representation of what I saw projected on a 35' screen IN 35MM. Do you have some evidence that the cut and finished 'negative' looks "largely better" than the 35mm print?

I said earlier that 35mm film is simply the canvas on which the images are captured. Blu-ray is no different. What you start with is hopefully what you end up with on the final disc. Some people seem to be unable to accept the fact that films look different from each other for a variety of reasons. Even shots within the same movie or even a single scene can have variances (as Predator does). Movies are art... they're not science. They're not perfect and people need to get over their hang ups that any film that doesn't meet their (unjustified or inexpert) expectation is flawed or botched. So before you go and tell somebody else that they're wrong... take a few extra minutes for yourself. Do some research and maybe learn a thing or two you may not have known and you might save yourself the hassle of creating a post where nothing in it was factual. I don't mean to be hard on you, but I have a low tolerance for people who tell other people that they're wrong and then back that statement up with absolutely no correct information.

A great post that should be required reading for everyone who's just getting into blu-ray and expects all films to look like Wall-E or Star Trek.

[richieb1971]

Its the marketing. Have you seen a billboard saying "Blu ray HD 1080p amazing picture and high definition sound". Of course you have. Even if you watch the trailers on Disney's movies it shouts it from the rooftops.

Yet, you watch Predator, its 1080p, it has HD audio, but it doesn't amaze like the adverts state. False advertising?

For myself, I expect the blu ray PQ grade to start at 4/5 and end at 5/5. I have witnessed some decent 4/5 movies and I think thats the benchmark all movies should be set. Predator is the worst PQ movie I have on blu, I'm not disappointed in it, but I wish for a better transfer just the same.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

Its the marketing. Have you seen a billboard saying "Blu ray HD 1080p amazing picture and high definition sound". Of course you have. Even if you watch the trailers on Disney's movies it shouts it from the rooftops.

Yet, you watch Predator, its 1080p, it has HD audio, but it doesn't amaze like the adverts state. False advertising?

For myself, I expect the blu ray PQ grade to start at 4/5 and end at 5/5. I have witnessed some decent 4/5 movies and I think thats the benchmark all movies should be set. Predator is the worst PQ movie I have on blu, I'm not disappointed in it, but I wish for a better transfer just the same.

To compare an 80's low budget master thats not been kept in pristine condition from the start, to say the dark knight for example lol thats a joke to think that way. Like someone else said unless you want EE/DNR and maybe you do, its a 99% chance this is the BEST THE MOVIE WILL LOOK.

Not every movie will look like pirates of the caribbean, sorry but movies aren't created equal, and sorry if thats a hard concept to grasp.

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Alright let me ask this question. When Schindler's list is released to Blu-ray, are you going to complain that it's not as colorful as Jurassic Park? Both movies were made in 1993 by the same filmmaker and both are 35mm productions. They should look identical, right?

OR... might this be an example of how two different films with very comparable technical specs can have distinctly different looks?

I personally do not disagree with your overall sentiment concerning transfers and working with whatever sources you have as a production house or studio but I still find it hard to believe that if Fox wanted to do a complete restoration to the best available source and then mastered it in 6k or 4k and THEN made a blu ray from that master that it wouldn't look better than the current edition.

Also, isn't safe to assume that the newly struck 35mm print you saw was obviously culled from the rumored to be damaged source that the blu is derived from...meaning that it doesn't matter if it looked faithful/similar to the blu edition because they are obviously culled from the same source?

Obviously, this is a grainy film with an odd production story behind it (Billy being a porn star and needing a body guard at all times on set NOT for his own protection but for the rest of the cast and crew comes to mind and still makes me chuckle) so I certainly do not expect a pristine and modernized look to magically appear out of thin air but I still think it could look better if it were restored and remastered even if only by a slight margin.

[drtre81]

lol look...

predator is a mpeg2 transfer....meaning a vc1 or avc transfer will look better.
predator is on a 25gig disk....meaning it could look better on a 50 gig.
even though it's 1:85:1 the bitrate is pretty low.

It can and will look better. Period.

[MTRodaba2468]

This is one of those titles I've been holding out on, since I'm almost positive that this title will be rereleased on Blu eventually.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by drtre81

lol look...

predator is a mpeg2 transfer....meaning a vc1 or avc transfer will look better.
predator is on a 25gig disk....meaning it could look better on a 50 gig.
even though it's 1:85:1 the bitrate is pretty low.

It can and will look better. Period.

What is wrong with the tranfer in your words?
just curious.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by drtre81

lol look...

predator is a mpeg2 transfer....meaning a vc1 or avc transfer will look better.
predator is on a 25gig disk....meaning it could look better on a 50 gig.
even though it's 1:85:1 the bitrate is pretty low.

It can and will look better. Period.

But how much better? Some people think that it will suddenly look like Blade Runner, if it's put on a BD-50 with a AVC encode. It might look better when it's remastered, but it probably won't be that much better.