Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's a very valid point, and I'll probably end up buying the bastard just to do this myself.

That being said, people also have a strong tendency to defend their purchases far past their worth. As evidenced on this forum if anyone suggests it might be ok to own a BR player that isn't a PS3. I know I have a tendency to justify purchases, when deep down I know better.

[meehan]

The problem with the original release was the fact it was an MPEG2 transfer. There was a fair bit of noise and macroblocking going on in that transfer as well.

I honestly think an MPEG4 encode and some slight colour correction would have been more than sufficient for the new Blu-ray, not scrubbing away the films soul.

Forget the George Lucas' of the world; films should be preserved, not modernised. I don't want a nearly 25 year old film to look like it was shot yesterday. I want it as it was when released and there is absolutely no way on earth a film shot in the mid-eighties, primarily on location would look like this shiny/waxy manufactured HD nightmare.

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

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.

To say cost was rarely ever a factor when deciding whether to use colour is absurd. There are plenty of instances where actors, for example, have wished that a certain film had been in colour but the budget wouldn't allow it. Cost was always a factor and the creative filmmakers e.g. directors, rarely had much say in the matter. They were there for hire and the studios called the shots and made the major decisions.

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by meehan

I honestly think an MPEG4 encode and some slight colour correction would have been more than sufficient for the new Blu-ray, not scrubbing away the films soul.

Yes, it's a shame we have to tolerate the overzealous DNR if we want the improved encode and color/contrast. Still though, in more screenshots than not I find it to be the better of the two discs.

[Peerless]

Hi, guys.
Maybe we shouldn't be arguing "grain vs dnr", but rather "compression artefacts vs dnr".
In this case, the hunter edition wins, hands down.
Yes, it does seem a little weird and not faithful to the original master, but,
if Mr. Mctiernan had a choice, would he have used such a cheap stock film to begin with? I mean, it would always have grain, but the image itself would be closer to the remastered edition.
Never the less, people should be educated in order to differenciate grain, digital noise and compression artifacts.
Grain is always welcome (at least to me), but some people expect HD to be a clear, "perfect" picture...
Back to the topic, i'm not entirely displeased with this release (judging by most of the screenshots).
Detail seems almost intact and the gamma levels are a big step up.
It just seems a bit awkward, because we're used to that gritty Predator look.
Maybe (and that's just me), after the DNR, they should have applied small (maybe sharp) grain, to restore that "film look".
It would still be tweaking, but it would look more like an expensive "stock" film.

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

To say cost was rarely ever a factor when deciding whether to use colour is absurd. There are plenty of instances where actors, for example, have wished that a certain film had been in colour but the budget wouldn't allow it. Cost was always a factor and the creative filmmakers e.g. directors, rarely had much say in the matter. They were there for hire and the studios called the shots and made the major decisions.

Absolutly true. A good example is Night of the Living Dead. Romero wanted to shoot in color but couldn't afford it.

That being said, I still want what he shot, and not a re-colored version to compensate for what he originally wanted. Even when good intent is there, it's never the same as doing it for real, and for people that come to love the film it just becomes a massive distraction and never looks quite "right".

[meehan]

I just find this release a bit disheartening.

The original Predator release wasn't great because of the encode which created some digital noise and macroblocking and this version is the complete other end of the spectrum.

I don't think either release is doing the film justice.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

To say cost was rarely ever a factor when deciding whether to use colour is absurd. There are plenty of instances where actors, for example, have wished that a certain film had been in colour but the budget wouldn't allow it. Cost was always a factor and the creative filmmakers e.g. directors, rarely had much say in the matter. They were there for hire and the studios called the shots and made the major decisions.

Originally Posted by Post Prod

Absolutly true. A good example is Night of the Living Dead. Romero wanted to shoot in color but couldn't afford it.

That being said, I still want what he shot, and not a re-colored version to compensate for what he originally wanted. Even when good intent is there, it's never the same as doing it for real, and for people that come to love the film it just becomes a massive distraction and never looks quite "right".

I said "rarely," not "never." Of course there are instances where color film could not be afforded - Night of the Living Dead is a perfect example of that. But that also was not a studio-backed film. All the major studios could easily have afforded to make their movies in color. Certainly David O. Selznick could have made every one of his movies in color, but he specifically chose not to. And, again, if you do a little reading on film history, you'll find that most filmmakers of that era chose not to due to aesthetic and artistic reasons, not cost.

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

I said "rarely," not "never." Of course there are instances where color film could not be afforded - Night of the Living Dead is a perfect example of that. But that also was not a studio-backed film. All the major studios could easily have afforded to make their movies in color. Certainly David O. Selznick could have made every one of his movies in color, but he specifically chose not to. And, again, if you do a little reading on film history, you'll find that most filmmakers of that era chose not to due to aesthetic and artistic reasons, not cost.

I had fun watching your Clive Barker video!

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

I had fun watching your Clive Barker video!

Hey thanks!!

[ScuseMe]

Originally Posted by ridergroov1

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

Sorry you didn't follow what I'm saying - I totally agree with his spiel. That's why I gave his tirade about all this BS a +1.

It should be about the movie, not DNR, EE, grain, waxyness, or anything else. But it has; that's why I'm giving him props for saying so.

[42041]

Originally Posted by 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.

Isn't that always the case with these threads? If something doesn't look appealing, what sense would it make to run out and buy it? At best, I might add a disc like Gladiator somewhere on my Netflix queue, but here I've already got a perfectly serviceable, if not great, HD version so there's no point in even wasting a rental. I don't like glossy transfers.


This thread has taken on a very silly course with this whole black and white discussion. Does it MATTER what the director wanted? They probably wanted different actors for certain parts, a bigger budget, 70mm photography, etc, but they got what they got. If the filmmakers want to revisit it and make authorized changes, like Blade Runner or The French Connection, then that's their business, but it's certainly no business of some video mastering tech, and nothing has been said about the involvement of the filmmakers in the creation of this transfer.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by 42041

If the filmmakers want to revisit it and make authorized changes, like Blade Runner or The French Connection, then that's their business, but it's certainly no business of some video mastering tech, and nothing has been said about the involvement of the filmmakers in the creation of this transfer.

Page 60 And you're right about getting off topic with the black and white. My apologies for that...back on topic!

[Daredevil666]

Why do so many here talk over a few caps, without having seen the final disc ? I don't get it.

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

Why do so many here talk over a few caps, without having seen the final disc ? I don't get it.

Probably because a lot of people have been burned by shoddy releases, so they wait for a thorough review with screen caps.

It's kind of hard to watch a re-release like this without first buying it.

Not too many people will say "well those screencaps look like crap, let me go buy it and watch it see if it still looks like crap."

Although I just ordered a copy, so I guess I'm not many people.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's because it's coming from people who already purchased the original, don't want to double dip, so they keep bringing up that one shot to convince us...and themselves, that the version they own is superior.

If you don't feel like buying the new one that's fine. But stop trying to convince people that it looks crappy when all other shots shown actually look better. That screen cap of arnold looks equally crappy on the mpeg2 version.

[meehan]

Originally Posted by drtre81

It's because it's coming from people who already purchased the original, don't want to double dip, so they keep bringing up that one shot to convince us...and themselves, that the version they own is superior.

I don't think anyone is saying the original release is superior because it's not a great transfer. I think everyone was just hoping that it wouldn't turn out like it has and they're a little bit angry about it.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by meehan

I don't think anyone is saying the original release is superior because it's not a great transfer. I think everyone was just hoping that it wouldn't turn out like it has and they're a little bit angry about it.

I would like to see how many units are sold during its first couple weeks. Despite the terribly boosted contrast levels and DNR, I bet it will move more its first month than the MPEG-2 version did simply because they are a lot more players out there now then there were in 2006.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

Why do so many here talk over a few caps, without having seen the final disc ? I don't get it.

Screencaps shouldn't mean much to people who decided that this release was going to be good, just because the press release said it was "remastered". Their minds were already made up long before the caps came along.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by drtre81

It's because it's coming from people who already purchased the original, don't want to double dip, so they keep bringing up that one shot to convince us...and themselves, that the version they own is superior.

I don't own the original release. I've been waiting for a release with an updated video codec, rather than the mpeg-2 codec used with the original release. IMO, this is a difficult film to encode and that is made only more apparent by the use of an old codec.

Originally Posted by drtre81

If you don't feel like buying the new one that's fine. But stop trying to convince people that it looks crappy when all other shots shown actually look better.

I wanted to buy the new one and was looking forward to it. However after seeing all the screencaps it looks as if I'll have to wait even longer for a proper release. BTW, I can see the manipulation in every screenshot thus presented.