Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Beast

Last time I checked, the Mona Lisa was an original.

We're not buying the original camera negative or check print. We're buying a copy.

So you think every COPY or print then should be smoothed out and not represent how the ORIGINAL looks? If you change it, then it's not correct to how it's SUPPOSED to look, plain and simple.

That's pretty fuzzy logic there, trying to make a point.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Peerless

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

I disagree, because when it came out in theaters, there weren't two choices. Only one - the way it originally looked and was SUPPOSED to look. There shouldn't be a "choice" when it comes to art created by someone else. That's the beauty of art.

Art is singular to the artist. Like I've said before, if we start changing it, then it's original value is lost. Even on a crappy film like Predator, it still matters.

I doubt very seriously if anyone on this board labored over something for a year, got it like you wanted it, only to have someone come in later and change it without your approval, you probably wouldn't be defending this new edition.

It's sad, really. We are slowly losing the integrity of 100 years of cinema.

[TitansFan4Life]

Originally Posted by Q!

I'm boiling it down to this, if you hate an over dosis of DNR, get the first release. If you hate a grainy but gritty look, go with the new.

I'll have to think about it.

http://www.darkrealmfox.com/film_rev...tment-edition/

I thought that explained things pretty well. The PQ is definietly better on the newer release, in my eyes at least. I don't mind grain, but that looked to grainy.

[SpotOn]

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.

Never claimed any involvement in the industry (just lucky enough to live in Southern California and have access to many insider and revival screenings).

I also think screenshots are indeed good ways to judge "EE and DNR". I did not write anything saying they are definitive because, of course they are not. Way too many factors come into play with motion to ever judge an entire transfer by screenshots. However, when EE and DNR do show up in screenshots they are a good indicator if the transfer will contain them. If one does not want to see Predator with a DNR'ed transfer, all of the available screenshots show a definite presence of it (and the bulk of them are not subtle, either).

[Peerless]

Originally Posted by retablo

I disagree, because when it came out in theaters, there weren't two choices. Only one - the way it originally looked and was SUPPOSED to look. There shouldn't be a "choice" when it comes to art created by someone else. That's the beauty of art.

Art is singular to the artist. Like I've said before, if we start changing it, then it's original value is lost. Even on a crappy film like Predator, it still matters.

I doubt very seriously if anyone on this board labored over something for a year, got it like you wanted it, only to have someone come in later and change it without your approval, you probably wouldn't be defending this new edition.

It's sad, really. We are slowly losing the integrity of 100 years of cinema.

Did you just say we shouldn't have a choice? Because it's art? How about all those remastered albums we all hear? Should we just stick to the original recordings?

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by retablo

I disagree, because when it came out in theaters, there weren't two choices. Only one - the way it originally looked and was SUPPOSED to look. There shouldn't be a "choice" when it comes to art created by someone else. That's the beauty of art.

Art is singular to the artist. Like I've said before, if we start changing it, then it's original value is lost. Even on a crappy film like Predator, it still matters.

I doubt very seriously if anyone on this board labored over something for a year, got it like you wanted it, only to have someone come in later and change it without your approval, you probably wouldn't be defending this new edition.

It's sad, really. We are slowly losing the integrity of 100 years of cinema.

You are saying this though dvds weren't full of dnr( which they were) and you didn't buy plenty of them( which you did)

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by persuazion

I cant wait to pick up this "shimmering mess"!

Weren't you the guy in the Gladiator thread trying to convince everyone how great it looked?

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

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.

I had to stop reading the post you quoted (sorry, but from them hitting enter and spacing it out, it was driving my eyes nuts!). But another example would be the subtitle placement on Sony titles. Also, I believe Penton said that WB took a look at that DTS/Dolby poll. Plus we obviously have an insiders discussion area where they examine what people have to say about certain things.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by drtre81

You are saying this though dvds weren't full of dnr( which they were) and you didn't buy plenty of them( which you did)

DVD's didn't have the capability to be transparent to the original master like Blu-ray though.... And I didn't see him say anywhere that DVD's didn't have DNR or that he didn't buy any. Maybe I missed it though.

[dcowboy7]

So McTiernan is in jail for lying to the FBI -ha-ha.

Yea we should "respect" his work yet he had no "respect" for the law.

Classic.

I was not even gonna get this but now i am just to add to the sales.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

So McTiernan is in jail for lying to the FBI -ha-ha.

Yea we should "respect" his work yet he had no "respect" for the law.

Yes, the same way you should respect Wacko Jacko for being the king of pop and not just a paedo.....

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

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.

Yep, that's why Universal should be allowed to colorize Psycho. What did Hitchcock know and who cares what he wanted? They should also add a music score to The Birds because Hitchcock was wrong to not have one. Studios should add music and sound effects and colorize all silent films because if the technology was available then, that's surely how they would have been made so why not?

Yes, films are a collaborative effort, but everyone who works on a film does their job to meet the needs, requirements and vision of the director. It's not like the Production Design team says, "Well, we gotta build this set so let's just make it look the way we want." They base their designs on the director's instructions and their final designs are approved by the director. Same goes for costumes, props, art direction, lighting, photography, acting. Everyone collaborates to achieve what the director ultimately wants (or as close as possible to get with the resources available).

To say the studio are entitled to alter what they want is a scary thought. Because where does it end? First, they colorize movies, then they remove grain...next they don't like Bogart's white jacket in Casablanca so they digitally alter it to black. Then they don't like that the Lion in The Wizard of Oz is just a man in a suit so they digitally remove him and add a CGI Lion.

Studios put up money for movies because that's what they do - they don't let the cinematographers make the business and marketing decisions, so why would anyone want the suits making creative decisions?

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by retablo

I disagree, because when it came out in theaters, there weren't two choices. Only one - the way it originally looked and was SUPPOSED to look.

How it looked when released in theaters is not automatically synonymous with how it was supposed to look. For all we know McTiernan would have shot the film on grain-free digital RED cameras if the technology was available at the time. I highly doubt the terribly noisy and soft shots scattered throughout the film (the team jumping from the helicopter, Dutch falling down the cliff, etc) for example were done that way intentionally, as they don't match the rest of the film whatsoever; more than likely, budget or technical restraints forced them to use poorer cameras for those shots. That's just one example of how the theatrical release isn't the end-all be-all of how the film was supposed to look.

[EidolonAlpha]

Anyone know if John Mctiernan has commented on the new DNR'd transfer? I'm sure he wouldn't be too happy to see what they've done to his movie.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by EidolonAlpha

Anyone know if John Mctiernan has commented on the new DNR'd transfer? I'm sure he wouldn't be too happy to see what they've done to his movie.

I would like to know his opinion. Surely, with all of the people in the thread who claim to be filmmakers and friends of Hollywood insiders can surely get an answer.

[QuasidodoJr]

Originally Posted by Robert George

A whole lot of text accusing me of being condescending.

Some directors actually use grit and grain to give their film a certain style. This movie was just filmed in the late 80's. It's not like they were using stone age technology here.

Watch some of Spielberg's films in the past decade, such as Minority Report or War of the Worlds. Both of these films are gritty and contain healthy levels of grain. Spielberg could have shot these films and made them look more digital. He chose not to. It was his artistic intent. Much like shooting a film in black and white, such as Good Night and Good Luck. Or does anyone think George Clooney filmed the movie without color because it wasn't in the budget?

I can list more examples with current films. How about 300. Zack Snyder ADDED grain in post production. Or maybe you haven't seen The Midnight Meat Train. It's only a 2 year old film but it has some of the most grain you'll see in any movie on blu-ray.

You would rather have the movie look stunning on your display. I prefer having them look the way they were meant to look. Not digitally processed. Different people have different sensibilities. I'm bothered by the overly clean look of DNR. Maybe you're not.

I'll close my whole lot of a text with a popular phrase from the 80's... some of you people need to relax and take a chill pill.

[csdot]

Originally Posted by EidolonAlpha

Anyone know if John Mctiernan has commented on the new DNR'd transfer? I'm sure he wouldn't be too happy to see what they've done to his movie.

i doubt hes seen it, hes in prison.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by EidolonAlpha

Anyone know if John Mctiernan has commented on the new DNR'd transfer?
I'm sure he wouldn't be too happy to see what they've done to his movie.

Originally Posted by csdot

i doubt hes seen it, hes in prison.

His prisonmate gf Bubba likes the new cut.

[PurpleJesus74]

Don't know if its been mentioned before,but i just checked bestbuy.com it looks like this is priced at $14.99.I'm gonna have to pick it up either way,especially if it comes with movie cash.

[skullman80]

Originally Posted by PurpleJesus74

Don't know if its been mentioned before,but i just checked bestbuy.com it looks like this is priced at $14.99.I'm gonna have to pick it up either way,especially if it comes with movie cash.

Just saw the same thing... gonna be tough to pass it up now. Bah.