Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[philip74]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

When I'm the only poster here today that has actually seen multiple prints of it within the last few years my take on the situation has more accuracy then the countless posts made purely on speculation. You can cry about it all you like, but I'm judging from my own ocular experience while almost everybody else seem to have formed concrete views about DNR's superiority over a more faithful transfer.

If you have seen prints of the movie fairly recently, please share with us...

Wow that's another pretentious post
i'm not saying dnr is superior, only u feel that
your opinion is superior. Guess u were too ignorant
to even read my post.
As i don't own any bluray version of the movie i ordered
the new one. If i don't like it i can always sell it and
get the old one. Not really a major problem.
Not everyone treats their predator version like its Life
or death situation

[csdot]

Originally Posted by drtre81

Have you guys prefered every director cut over theatrical?

If not you're a hypocrite.

doesnt make you a hypocrite.
film is an artform. period.
however the artist (in the case director) intends their work to look is how it should be presented. period.
whether or not you prefer a directors cut is just as inconsequential as whether or not you prefer a studio remaster/restoration/whatever.
if you dont like the way its meant to look then you dont like the work.
if the director wants his movie to be dark, gritty, and grainy that is how it should look on bluray. if a director feels that 20 minutes of footage that were cut by the studio are integral to the film, thats how it should be presented on bluray. whether its the viewers preference or not means nothing. it certainly shouldnt be left up to the studios who just care about the money and not the craft.

im assuming you have no creative/artistic background at all otherwise this really shouldnt have to be explained.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by drtre81

I was talking about the director intention thing.

You ought to be more specific in the future as the debate has been about the video transfer.

On "the director intention thing", Director's Cuts are fine and while I don't enjoy all that I have seen, they are nice additions to what was previously available.

While I may not have preferred every director's cut I've seen, I also have not liked every movie I have ever seen. Still, I would not dare to tell Baz Luhrmann to light Moulin Rouge (a movie I did not like) less garishly, although I would have preferred it to look that way. So I don't see much of a difference in people "preferring" the waxy new Predator. It shows a disrespect to the artist, plain and simple.

Many posters have taken a blase "just don't but it, then" attitude, but I see it differently. Firstly, the 2008 will almost definitely go out of print, so TS for any new fans down the line who would have wanted the more faithful transfer. Also, it could easily start a trend for new releases in the future, hence no choice in the future.

BD should be the best possible copy of what we paid to see in the theater, as our Home Theaters are trying to replicate the same thing. Keep it faithful...

[LordoftheRings]

So, should I get it or not?

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by csdot

doesnt make you a hypocrite.
film is an artform. period.
however the artist (in the case director) intends their work to look is how it should be presented. period.
whether or not you prefer a directors cut is just as inconsequential as whether or not you prefer a studio remaster/restoration/whatever.
if you dont like the way its meant to look then you dont like the work.
if the director wants his movie to be dark, gritty, and grainy that is how it should look on bluray. if a director feels that 20 minutes of footage that were cut by the studio are integral to the film, thats how it should be presented on bluray. whether its the viewers preference or not means nothing. it certainly shouldnt be left up to the studios who just care about the money and not the craft.

im assuming you have no creative/artistic background at all otherwise this really shouldnt have to be explained.

No creative or artistic background? Based on my opinion being different than yours? Really? Grow up.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by philip74

Wow that's another pretentious post
i'm not saying dnr is superior, only u feel that
your opinion is superior. Guess u were too ignorant
to even read my post.
As i don't own any bluray version of the movie i ordered
the new one. If i don't like it i can always sell it and
get the old one. Not really a major problem.
Not everyone treats their predator version like its Life
or death situation

Sorry if you didn't notice, but I never posted that you were the one making the speculations I was commenting about, which is why I wrote "almost everyone else" instead of personalizing to you specifically.

You questioned my position on the topic and I explained it without ever saying you were one of the posters I mentioned.

[csdot]

no, based on the fact that you dont understand the concept of or have no respect for an artists intention. i dont think im the one who has to grow up.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by drtre81

It that how you get out of a losing argument?

Blame all humans?

No... No... No. It's not Blame All Humans. It's Kill All Humans.



Bender is very very disappointed in you.

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by csdot

...if the director wants his movie to be dark, gritty, and grainy that is how it should look on bluray. if a director feels that 20 minutes of footage that were cut by the studio are integral to the film, thats how it should be presented on bluray. whether its the viewers preference or not means nothing. it certainly shouldnt be left up to the studios who just care about the money and not the craft.

I don't see the director as the sole arbitrator. Films are very much a collaborative effort - the director doesn't do everything and isn't always right. Final decisions are usually made by the studio and as they put up the money, that's surely how it should be. If the studio considers that the look of the film should be altered they are perfectly entitled to do that.

[Robert George]

Originally Posted by QuasidodoJr

I'm sure he wasn't consulted in the least bit. The gritty, grainy image was how John McTiernan intended the film to look, though. To fit the mood of the film, the characters, the situation, etc.

And that's where the dilemma begins. Film purists like myself, and the others disappointed with the new shiny, digital look, would rather have the image on the disc looking how it was intended. Other consumers just want it to look really nice on their HD displays, because they spent a lot of money on it. Both sides can say the other is wrong, but, unfortunately, both have valid claims.

However, it appears to be making it increasingly difficult for the studios to make both sides happy. It's clearly not going to be cost effective to release two different versions of the film. So one side or the other is continually going to get the shaft.

That's why this thread has been in a such an uproar. Not necessarily because so many people adore Predator like it was their own child. But because it represents another catalog title, of many, that's choosing one side of the consumer base over the other.

You, like so many others here and on other forums, seem to be sure of a lot of things that you really have no idea of. That is, unless you have some connection with this production that you might want to share to give yourself some actual credibility.

You call yourself a "film purist". Fine, you care more about the medium than the message. I call myself a movie fan. I like good stories with interesting characters told in a captivating visual style. You or someone said McTiernan shot on film therefore his INTENT was for the movie to look like film (whatever that means). I submit that film is merely the physical medium used to make movies, that is, until recently. Cinematographers have for years been trying to overcome the limitations of the photochemical medium, one of which is excessive grain when using various production processes. Kinda funny now that digital photography is beginning to reach a technical point in development that it can approach film in terms of resolution, color, and grayscale that so many filmmakers are embracing the newer technology as it frees them from some of the previously unavoidable hindrances of the film medium.

Lastly, you think people that don't see the world through your own biases are only interested in making their TVs look good. On this, as most of your assumptions, you couldn't be more wrong. Some people, like me, look at the hardware of the HT system as a means to an end. That end is the most enjoyable presentation of a MOVIE possible within the limits of budget, technology, and environment.

Now, I'm not arguing that there has not been quite a lot of digital manipulation of the film elements for the movie in discussion. However, I will argue which Blu-ray version actually provides the more enjoyable viewing experience ON A VIDEO SYSTEM as I have actually seen both on the same system.

And that is my last point. Some of you seem to have lost sight of the simple fact that any time a piece of film is converted to the video domain, a huge change takes place. That is the nature of transferring a photochemical medium to an electronic form. Everything else in this discussion is just opinion.

[ScuseMe]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

So, should I get it or not?

Yes! No wait…..No! No wait……Get Both!

[csdot]

Originally Posted by ScuseMe

Yes! No wait…..No! No wait……Get Both!

honestly if you really love Predator, i would get both. i plan on picking up the new one eventually when its cheaper.

[The Blu Knight]

What people just aren't seeing or accepting is that neither of the releases are perfect. The original, while retaining grain and in that effect closer to the original theatrical presentation, director's intent, and film-like appearance, suffers from compression artifacts as a result of an MPEG-2 codec. The new release offers a cleaner, brighter picture without compression issues as a result of a different transfer and codec, but goes too far with DNR at times resulting in occasional loss of detail and waxiness. Take that and the fact that the new release has extras and movie cash for Predators and the old one doesn't into account and decide what is more important to you and which release is right for you.

[jw]

excellent advice

Maybe a mod should come in and start warning people that the fighting is getting out of hand and that there will be consequences if the personal attacks continue.

Take that into consideration when insulting others and saying they cant read, etc.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

No, I have not been able to watch the new edition, but I believe screenshots to be a prfectly accurate way to judge EE and DNR on transfers and have done so with Ultimate Hunter. Even if there is a difference when watching it in motion, nothing is going to change that pool of jell-o Arnold is swimming in after the waterfall.

If you are involved with film as you say you are you of all people should know this is NOT the way to judge a film transfer.

It's precisely that attitude that drives people (like Cliff and myself) crazy, because such things occur on a shot by shot basis (sometimes frame by frame) and are NOT indicitive of an entire feature.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by jw

excellent advice


Take that into consideration when insulting others and saying they cant read, etc.

Or saying they have no creative or artistic background or ability.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

If you are involved with film as you say you are you of all people should know this is NOT the way to judge a film transfer.

It's precisely that attitude that drives people (like Cliff and myself) crazy, because such things occur on a shot by shot basis (sometimes frame by frame) and are NOT indicitive of an entire feature.

That's why Cliff hasn't commented much since the screen scap war started. He wants to actually view the new transfer before condemning it.

[Peerless]

Great post, Robert George.

When people talk about film grain, and its value, it kinda reminds me of audio.
Audio engineers also tried to move entirely to digital, only to find out they didn't like it, they prefered the "imperfect" analog way to do recordings.
It's the same with grain. It's doesn't provide a "perfect" picture, but there's something about it that makes it pleasing. The organic feel of it, i don't know.
We, as humans (thus imperfect beings) tend to like imperfect things... go figure.

Saving Private Ryan is the best looking grainy movie i've ever seen. And its exceptionally well encoded. If they re-released DNRed... I would hate it, and probably post all my rage in this forum... because the present release is top notch. That's not the case with Predator...

The studio gave us a choice. That's pretty cool, IMHO.

[philip74]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

Sorry if you didn't notice, but I never posted that you were the one making the speculations I was commenting about, which is why I wrote "almost everyone else" instead of personalizing to you specifically.

You questioned my position on the topic and I explained it without ever saying you were one of the posters I mentioned.

well actually i questioned why you stated that studios are monitoring dvd forums? do you have any actual knowledge of that? i certainly don't feel
that big studios really know what customers want or would even invest their
work time into reading forum posts that' what i questioned, because
you seemed so certain in that belief.
as for predator, i understand your "artistic" fears. i think everybody can agree
that both version are not perfect. although for a movie that age and the cheap production value probably the best we will ever see it!?
i will personally only make a judgement once i have actually seen the new dvd. some arnold screenshots really look waxy and horible, but when i look
at the fanpage comparison screenhots i must say that i actually like the
newer version more, from the few pics i see there.
like i said, far from perfect, but better looking than the original.
as for studios like fox using more dnr on older movies, i guess the customer
will ultimately decide what he likes more. if noone purchases remasters
like the new predator, they will probably stop pulling such stunts, because
studios are all about money and the market regulates that.
artistic value always comes second and especially nowadays with studios
being major corporations that care about numbers.
as for the artistic side: who knows whats going on in mctiernans head!!??
isn't he is jail? maybe the grain was a result of the cheap film used?
maybe he would be the happiest guy in the world seing the new version
with "improved" picture quality maybe its closer to his original vision
thats all just assumptions and we'll probably never know!
i personally feel there have been much worse visual presentations of predator
and this remaster won't be the end of the world

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by philip74

well actually i questioned why you stated that studios are monitoring dvd forums? do you have any actual knowledge of that? i certainly don't feel
that big studios really know what customers want or would even invest their
work time into reading forum posts that' what i questioned, because
you seemed so certain in that belief.
as for predator, i understand your "artistic" fears. i think everybody can agree
that both version are not perfect. although for a movie that age and the cheap production value probably the best we will ever see it!?
i will personally only make a judgement once i have actually seen the new dvd. some arnold screenshots really look waxy and horible, but when i look
at the fanpage comparison screenhots i must say that i actually like the
newer version more, from the few pics i see there.
like i said, far from perfect, but better looking than the original.
as for studios like fox using more dnr on older movies, i guess the customer
will ultimately decide what he likes more. if noone purchases remasters
like the new predator, they will probably stop pulling such stunts, because
studios are all about money and the market regulates that.
artistic value always comes second and especially nowadays with studios
being major corporations that care about numbers.
as for the artistic side: who knows whats going on in mctiernans head!!??
isn't he is jail? maybe the grain was a result of the cheap film used?
maybe he would be the happiest guy in the world seing the new version
with "improved" picture quality maybe its closer to his original vision
thats all just assumptions and we'll probably never know!
i personally feel there have been much worse visual presentations of predator
and this remaster won't be the end of the world

Off the top of my head I'm reminded of this site's "Should Sony use DTS-HD Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD?" poll, but I bet others could show different examples.