Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Beast]

Originally Posted by retablo

Disagree. Again, they won't ever take the brush strokes out of the Mona Lisa, because that's the way it was made. Should be the same with movies, as all art. It's not "opinion" if it was shot one way, it's FACT. And the fact is, Predator was always grainy. When you ZOOM in shots to make closeups, you get even more grain and loss of clarity, because it's a blow-up. Scrubbing that grain out is simply not correct with how it looked. And that's also a FACT. Your opinion, as you say, is how you PREFER it. But until you make films yourself and have a say in your own art, it's up to the director. But armchair directors will never learn, I guess.

Thank YOU for playing though, to give you back your snide remark.

Your analogy is flawed. Because you can buy pristine prints of the Mona Lisa.

You do realize when you buy a DVD or a BLU-Ray, you're not buying the original camera negative or test print, right? You're buying a print of the film. That's a fact, because that is exactly what you're buying. A copy.

Sure, nobody is going to go and remove the brushstrokes from the actual original Mona Lisa. Just like nobody is gonna remove the grain from the original camera negative and test print for Predator. So again, you see where your analogy comes off as flawed? But if DaVinci was somehow alive and wanted to retire the current version and release a new version.... he'd have everyright as the creator. We have no idea if the director wanted his film to look like how it originanlly turned out. For all we know, he hated the film stock he used.

[TylerDurden]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Filmmakers use grain the same way they do lighting - to create a mood and an atmosphere. Filmmakers also used grain to hide effects like wires and painted backdrops. Completely intentional. Just like when Hitchcock shot Psycho in black and white, or Scorsese shot Raging Bull, or Spielberg shot Schindler's List. These are all carefully planned, aesthetic choices.

Don't forget Ed Wood another wonderful b&w picture. And think if Citizen Kane had been shot in color. Would have changed the effect completely. I also agree that grain adds moodiness. Films like Downfall actually make the film appear like it is stock footage of WW2 which I believe is the intent of the director.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

The debate about grain is no different than the debate about colorizing black and white films. It will never end. People argue that the director's intent was to shoot the film in black and white so leave it in black and white. Then those who don't like to watch movies in black and white will argue that color film had been available at that time the director would have shot it in color and colorization is simply providing what the director would have done in the first place. Which is complete nonsense since color film has been around since the 20's and used for full length feature films since the 30's...and yet filmmakers continued to make movies in black and white more consistently than in color for another 20-25 years.

Filmmakers use grain the same way they do lighting - to create a mood and an atmosphere. Filmmakers also used grain to hide effects like wires and painted backdrops. Completely intentional. Just like when Hitchcock shot Psycho in black and white, or Scorsese shot Raging Bull, or Spielberg shot Schindler's List. These are all carefully planned, aesthetic choices.

If you prefer your movies colorized and DNR'd, fine. But the studios should at least offer both versions in every case.

Yeah, some people on this board seem to think that the director and cinematographer NEVER get what they want, and just settle for whatever film stock they can get, lol. Fact is, almost EVERY film is a compromise in many aspects - anyone who's ever worked on a film should know that. You work with what you've got. Most filmmakers would love to have more money, more time, etc... but that's the business. And the end result is the film they made. Period. It's no different really than Lucas changing Star Wars - he can do what he wants since he owns it, but I don't have to like it. It would be one thing if the director or DP approved this new transfer, but they weren't involved. Maybe they like it, maybe not. Bottom line is that it doesn't represent how the film was made and shown in its original form. Which is a travesty to the creation of art, even if it is a so-so movie like Predator.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Beast

You do realize when you buy a DVD or a BLU-Ray, you're not buying the original camera negative or test print, right? You're buying a print of the film. That's a fact, because that is exactly what you're buying. A copy.

Yes and what you should be getting is a copy that closest to its ORIGINAL form, which this isn't.

Originally Posted by Beast

But if DaVinci was somehow alive and wanted to retire the current version and release a new version.... he'd have everyright as the creator.

As creator, sure... but the director nor cinematographer had a say in this. They didn't approve the transfer. See the flaw there?

And I've never seen a digitally scrubbed version of the Mona Lisa, sorry.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by 42041

No it's not, because the choice is taken away from people who enjoy a natural presentation of films. If you hate grain, you have the option of getting a TV/player/video processor with a good denoising algorithm. I have no such option with degrained transfers.

Your choice is taken away from you every day. It's called living in the real world.

You may think life is like a Burger King commercial and you get it "Your Way, Right Away", but that's a fantasy.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Beast

Your choice is taken away from you every day. It's called living in the real world.

You may think life is like a Burger King commercial and you get it "Your Way, Right Away", but that's a fantasy.

And that supports your point how?

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by 42041

No it's not, because the choice is taken away from people who enjoy a natural presentation of films. If you hate grain, you have the option of getting a TV/player/video processor with a good denoising algorithm. I have no such option with degrained transfers.

Good evening,

Actually, it is a matter of choice and taste.

Some of the most impressive BD releases, that are universally praised for preserving the integrity of the film, such as North by Northwest and Repulsion, contain DNR corrections. So, the problem is not DNR/denoising but how DNR/denoising is used. And thus far this has clearly been the issue some studios have struggled with - proper use.

Additionally, unless there are extreme cases of DNR abuse, such as Patton (or, as it appears, this release), things really aren't as black and white as some will have you believe. Also, what does "natural presentation" mean -- and I do know what it means -- lack of DNR certainly isn't it. It is probably close to proper and or minimal use of DNR/denoising. So, naturally, again, the problem is that this has been a matter of choice and taste, plus lack of desire/funds to produce proper transfers that is affecting the quality of some of these releases, such as the one discussed in this thread.

To make it perfectly clear, yes, let's have BD releases that preserve the integrity of the film, but also let's be perfectly clear and honest about where and what the problem is.

Originally Posted by retablo

Bottom line is that it doesn't represent how the film was made and shown in its original form. Which is a travesty to the creation of art, even if it is a so-so movie like Predator.

Agreed.

Pro-B

[Nick666]

Originally Posted by Home Th3atre

this release finally shows the movie the way it looked when I saw it at the theater in 1987.

...

[42041]

Originally Posted by Home Th3atre

Maybe they added fake grain on the previous release to please the "purists" but this release finally shows the movie the way it looked when I saw it at the theater in 1987.

Your memory is fooling you, because that's quite impossible. I've never seen Predator on film, but I've seen other prints of similar vintage, and visible grain has been a noticeable part of the presentation. And Predator, by virtue of how and when it was made, is not a slick, glossy movie.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by Home Th3atre

Maybe they added fake grain on the previous release to please the "purists" but this release finally shows the movie the way it looked when I saw it at the theater in 1987.

That's funny, since Cliff just saw a 35mm print a few weeks ago and reported that the currently-available disc is accurate.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by 42041

Your memory is fooling you, because that's quite impossible. I've never seen Predator on film, but I've seen other prints of similar vintage, and visible grain has been a noticeable part of the presentation. And Predator, by virtue of how and when it was made, is not a slick, glossy movie.

You can't go by other films from the same period. There's a variety of factors at work.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Beast

You can't go by other films from the same period. There's a variety of factors at work.

PREDATOR HAD GRAIN, I have seen 35mm presentations of it on many occassions. It is swarming with grain.

[YodasFootPowder]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

The debate about grain is no different than the debate about colorizing black and white films. It will never end. People argue that the director's intent was to shoot the film in black and white so leave it in black and white. Then those who don't like to watch movies in black and white will argue that color film had been available at that time the director would have shot it in color and colorization is simply providing what the director would have done in the first place. Which is complete nonsense since color film has been around since the 20's and used for full length feature films since the 30's...and yet filmmakers continued to make movies in black and white more consistently than in color for another 20-25 years.

Filmmakers use grain the same way they do lighting - to create a mood and an atmosphere. Filmmakers also used grain to hide effects like wires and painted backdrops. Completely intentional. Just like when Hitchcock shot Psycho in black and white, or Scorsese shot Raging Bull, or Spielberg shot Schindler's List. These are all carefully planned, aesthetic choices.

If you prefer your movies colorized and DNR'd, fine. But the studios should at least offer both versions in every case.

Wasn't color film more expensive way back then? It seems to me black and white was probably used a lot at the time because color film was too expensive. That's certainly not because the director necessarily wanted it black and white to make an artistic statement or choice. If you ask me, if they had the money to shoot movies in color, most directors/film makers would have chosen that route back then.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Beast

You can't go by other films from the same period. There's a variety of factors at work.

And they work against Predator. It wasn't shot on some perfectly lit soundstage, it's loaded with opticals, it was probably shot on grainy high-speed 80s film.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

PREDATOR HAD GRAIN, I have seen 35mm presentations of it on many occassions. It is swarming with grain.

Never said it didn't. All flms do. But I don't recall it looking like crap, like the original release.

You have the original release, if you want the massive ammount of grain. Enjoy.

Again, there's really only one shot with a signifigant problem. And it's caused by the shirt.

The rest still has grain, just not tons. A nice balance is always preferred when possible.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by Beast

Never said it didn't. All flms do. But I don't recall it looking like crap, like the original release.

You have the original release, if you want the massive ammount of grain. Enjoy.

Again, there's really only one shot with a signifigant problem. And it's caused by the shirt.

The rest still has grain, just not tons. A nice balance is always preferred when possible.

I recall it looking like the original BD release on the numerous times I have seen it projected in 35MM beyond the initial 1987 release. Movies from that vintage are inherently grainy, but Predator was and is grainier than most.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Beast

Never said it didn't. All flms do. But I don't recall it looking like crap, like the original release.

You have the original release, if you want the massive ammount of grain. Enjoy.

Again, there's really only one shot with a signifigant problem. And it's caused by the shirt.

The rest still has grain, just not tons. A nice balance is always preferred when possible.

If anything the original blu has less grain then the 35mm presentations I have seem. Minority Report and War of the Worlds have a ton of grain as well, do you think they should be dnr'ed as well?

Predator was shot grainy and on cheap film stock, the original blu is very close to its source (and not all films have grain as one can shoot using digital cameras).

[Snikt]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if it's a movie I'm a fan of and i really enjoyed it, I'll buy it. I have plenty of movies with grain in them and I absolutely love them; X-Men Trilogy, Ghostbusters, DareDevil: DC, 28 Weeks Later, Pitch Black and yes I even owned the original Predator blu-ray. I'm sure there are a few movies I have that DNR has been applied to, but if it has, I'm not bothered by it.

I'm a fan of Predator, and I'll definitely pick this up day 1. Honestly, if I like the movie, i'll buy it.

[eco10530]

Originally Posted by bleauboy

Talked to the guy who has this said it was the best he has seen it. Still it is personal preference. He even posted some screen caps of the predator. there is no comparisons though.
http://img25.imageshack.us/f/p11ed.jpg/
http://img25.imageshack.us/f/p12f.jpg/
http://img810.imageshack.us/f/p13c.jpg/
http://img59.imageshack.us/f/p14b.jpg/
http://img819.imageshack.us/i/p15.jpg/
http://img52.imageshack.us/f/p16n.jpg/

wow all of these shots look blurry. No sale for me.

[iam1bearcat]

while i understand both sides of the argument here (i think...) the bottom line is this: some of you are putting way too much thought into Predator.

PREDATOR!
the movie about blowing sh!t up and sexual t-rex's!
about an invisible alien bounty hunter type that relentlessly kills!

instead of either just anxiously anticipating buying the new release or enjoying the current one you own / will own, you're on here going back and forth trying to get your point across. chances are your arguing has gone on past the run time of the freakin' film!

and that's just not right.
the film is about fun, killing, guns, and gore. can't we just leave it at that?