Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Snikt]

Originally Posted by 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?

+1. In total agreement.

It's also a movie about real nasty habits, expendable assests and boyscout bullsh-- LOL

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

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.

Black and white films continued to be made for decades for a very simple reason - colour film was far more expensive than black and white. Money is the main reason why films end up the way they are (including grainy films) not artistic intent. People place far too much emphasis nowadays on what they think was, or is, the director's intent.

[KarmaNL]

Originally Posted by Snikt

+1. In total agreement.

It's also a movie about real nasty habits, expendable assests and boyscout bullsh-- LOL

+1

Buy or don't buy. Simple as that.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by KarmaNL

+1

Buy or don't buy. Simple as that.

Not really that simple. Is every release nowadays going to have 2 releases: one that looks like the film is supposed to look (the original release) and a new scrubbed down, waxy fake-looking video game version? Heck of a way to kill off blu-ray as a format.

[Mobe1969]

My god that just looks horrible. Arnie's face looks like that intentionally creepy effect Tim Burton did in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. That was the intent of the director though so I appreciate it. What they have done here is an abomination. Personal taste be dammed honestly. Wrong is wrong. I refuse to watch commercial TV as it utterly violates directors intent with add breaks, station logos, crap popping up on the screen advertising other crap. That is wrong. Messing about with the directors intent is just idiotic.

[meehan]

The way I see it is quite simple.

Release the film as is with little to no DNR. If people don't like the grain, they can alter the DNR settings on their TVs or Blu-ray player.

At least that way the film isn't scrubbed of what it is actually made from!

[Inspector Toschi]

I definitely won't be picking this crap up. Ya, I'll wait for the actual reviews and comparisons, but at the moment this is looking like a major DNR disaster. Seeing as how I can pick up the first BD for ten bucks new, I think I'll do just that in a few hours. Pay less, see a better picture. Sounds great to me.

Honestly, all the old BD print needed was a new re-encode and a higher bitrate across a duel layered disc. But nope, they had to go mess it up with digital manipulation. I just watched The Running Man a few weeks ago. It was a budget Blu-ray from Lions Gate (7.50 Canadian) and it looked beautiful. No DNR or EE, with a natural layer of grain and detail. And yet a major studio like Fox wants me to pay 20 bucks for the filtered mess that this appears to be? You know the studio f'd up when the budget bin Blu-rays at Walmart are of higher quality.

[bogo5]

Originally Posted by 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?

agree, & its something diff. better for me to have 2 versions. some screens looked fantastic. all this toss off talk about directors intent, boo hoo. OHHH NOO its so important to stick with the DI. I'm upset now

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

Black and white films continued to be made for decades for a very simple reason - colour film was far more expensive than black and white. Money is the main reason why films end up the way they are (including grainy films) not artistic intent. People place far too much emphasis nowadays on what they think was, or is, the director's intent.

Black & white and purposely grainy movies are still made today for artistic reasons (and have been for the last several decades) as money has nothing to do with it and intent does (Spielberg, for example). You're the one who is seemingly presumptious about what a movie should look like.

[Post Prod]

The real sad thing about this release is that they did in fact go back to the source for a new master. The last release was flawed, and now with this one we "could" have had an amazing transfer. But we will never know exactly how much detail was taken away, how much we are missing with this DNR overuse. We have only previous versions to compare to, to imagine what could have been. I can tell how much shadow detail was lost already. If you look at the absence of grain in the new release, and still think a tremendous amount of detail wasn't scrubbed out from the new master in the process, I have some wonderful new HD DVD players to sell you.


and I think it's very selfish and lazy for those that prefer the waxy, grainless look, to not just do the de-noising themselves. It's fine if you like movies to look like that, but with a transfer like this, there is no option for people who prefer a natural presentation. How would they feel if Avatar came out with 10 times the amount of grain than it had in the theater?

Same goes for people that cry foul about movies that are not reformatted to fill a 16X9 screen for BR release.

[Stu123]

I encourage you all to use the 1920 x 1080 pictures i posted and put them onto your HDTV and flick one to the other you'll see theres improved contrast levels but picture detail has been lowered and all the changes you're seeing are false and painted on.My opinion is the original release is how it's meant to look.I'd like to know from some experts if they think they could make the original release look better with a proper remaster or wouldn't they be much of an improvement? surely they would.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

The real sad thing about this release is that they did in fact go back to the source for a new master. The last release was flawed, and now with this one we "could" have had an amazing transfer. But we will never know exactly how much detail was taken away, how much we are missing with this DNR overuse. We have only previous versions to compare to, to imagine what could have been. I can tell how much shadow detail was lost already. If you look at the absence of grain in the new release, and still think a tremendous amount of detail wasn't scrubbed out from the new master in the process, I have some wonderful new HD DVD players to sell you.


and I think it's very selfish and lazy for those that prefer the waxy, grainless look, to not just do the de-noising themselves. It's fine if you like movies to look like that, but with a transfer like this, there is no option for people who prefer a natural presentation. How would they feel if Avatar came out with 10 times the amount of grain than it had in the theater?

Same goes for people that cry foul about movies that are not reformatted to fill a 16X9 screen for BR release.

Just how was the first release flawed? There was very little dirt on the transfer and there was not a hint of EE or DNR. The MPEG-2 version is certainly closer to McTiernan's intent and there's no arguing that. In this new release the brightness/contrast is so cranked up that it looks like they cut down the canopy of trees above the actors. The film is supposed to look dark for a daytime film because of all the trees. Many of you here that think the new version is better seem to be missing that fact.

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Just how was the first release flawed? There was very little dirt on the transfer and there was not a hint of EE or DNR. The MPEG-2 version is certainly closely to McTiernan's intent and there's no arguing that. In this new release the brightness/contrast is so cranked up that it looks like they cut down the canopy of trees above the actors. The film is supposed to look dark for a daytime film because of all the trees. Many of you here that think the new version is better seem to be missing that fact.

not severely flawed, just a slight red tint and some slight macroblocking.

My main point is, I'm amazed at the amount of DNR on the new master, and also amazed it has as much detail as it does given the amount of DNR, compared to the previous release. So I can only assume how much more detail we would have now if they had left DNR out of the equation.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Cliff

People also place far too much emphasis on 23-year-old memories of moments that would have been insignificant to them at the time.

Cliff,

What's your thoughts about the new BD? I know you thought the original BD looked very similar to the Predator print you saw in the theater fairly recently if I recall.

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Black & white and purposely grainy movies are still made today for artistic reasons (and have been for the last several decades) as money has nothing to do with it and intent does (Spielberg, for example). You're the one who is seemingly presumptious about what a movie should look like.

I wasn't being presumptious about what a film should look like. I was replying to Dotpattern who was saying that directors have chosen to make black and white film since the 1920's and I was pointing out that all those thousands of black and white films made in the 30's, 40's 50's and even 60's, were for reasons of film negative and print cost plus extra lighting etc - not for artistic reasons. Black and white feature films today are almost extinct and it's only a small minority of films which aim for a grainy effect. During all those previous decades, cinematographers strived to avoid too much grain. Lets face it, grain is a by-product of film - not an end in itself.

[ScuseMe]

Originally Posted by 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?

+1 on that tirade!

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

I wasn't being presumptious about what a film should look like. I was replying to Dotpattern who was saying that directors have chosen to make black and white film since the 1920's and I was pointing out that all those thousands of black and white films made in the 30's, 40's 50's and even 60's, were for reasons of film negative and print cost plus extra lighting etc - not for artistic reasons. Black and white feature films today are almost extinct and it's only a small minority of films which aim for a grainy effect. During all those previous decades, cinematographers strived to avoid too much grain. Lets face it, grain is a by-product of film - not an end in itself.

And like I originally said, this line of thinking is nonsense. Yes, color film was more expensive than black and white film. Was it a deal breaker when making movies? In most cases, no. The difference in cost was a factor when it came to making documentaries or newsreels - get the cheapest film, shoot on the fly. But the reality is (and you would have to read up on the subject) studios and filmmakers preferred shooting in black and white (read up on Film Noir). The issue of color came down to "necessity." Filmmakers would ask, "will this story, this film, benefit from color?" If the story was to be a spectacle, like Gone With the Wind or The Adventures of Robin Hood, then the answer was yes. Ironically, if it were a story representing "real life," the answer was no.

You can find a lot of literature that includes interviews with filmmakers of that era and they all said that there were many, many factors involved in the decision to use color such as creating mood, creating spectacle, heighten the sense of fantasy (Wizard of Oz)...all things that go to intent...but cost (in Hollywood films) was rarely ever a factor.

[ridergroov1]

Originally Posted by ScuseMe

+1 on that tirade!

Great movie. Classic movie. If you don't care then why are you one this thread?

[Spanbauer]

It's scary how many people are basing their opinion of the entire disc on that one shot of Arnold, both here and at AVSFORUM. I think it's fairly obvious that's the worst shot in the movie, and no other frame has shown anything even remotely close to that level of waxiness. Those who have actually watched the disc in its entirety seem to think it's an acceptable presentation, but their opinions have been lost amongst the 400 posts commenting on that one shot of Arnold.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

I wasn't being presumptious about what a film should look like. I was replying to Dotpattern who was saying that directors have chosen to make black and white film since the 1920's and I was pointing out that all those thousands of black and white films made in the 30's, 40's 50's and even 60's, were for reasons of film negative and print cost plus extra lighting etc - not for artistic reasons. Black and white feature films today are almost extinct and it's only a small minority of films which aim for a grainy effect. During all those previous decades, cinematographers strived to avoid too much grain. Lets face it, grain is a by-product of film - not an end in itself.

But, there have been a number of films where grain was emphasized or added. There have also been filmmakers outspoken about not wanting grain removed (Landis, for just one example). What I am saying is at the end of the day, there needs to be approval on these BDs by the filmmaker or representative instead of just some technician who thinks he knows best. If the filmmaker or representative wanted the Predator BD to look how it does, I have no problem. That's all I'm saying.