Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[ridergroov1]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Just got done watching the disc and there’s a short scene missing. The part during the camp attack where Poncho says to Blaine, “You’re bleeding man” and Blaine responds, “I ain’t got time to bleed,” then Poncho comes back with, “You got time to duck?” has been removed. Not sure why this is missing, but it’s gone in the new version.

Picked it up this morning. This statement is incorrect. You better double check this.

Checked it out for about ten minutes here and there in the movie. There are definitely some bad looking shots but there are also some improvements undoubtedly. Enough that I don't feel bad about spending 15 bucks on it. Actually interested to see it now more after having checked it out for myself. Carl Weathers definitely looks ghastly in the initial scene with Arnold so much so that I can't believe he didn't melt in a climate like that.

Check it out for yourself. You may be surprised.

[ridergroov1]

Originally Posted by anomynous

As an FYI, Best Buy had a 2 pack of Predator: Ultimate Hunter Dition & Predator 2 for $30

Yeah I saw that. They almost got me to bite on that but the second movie isn't all that worth it to me and wasn't positive they would have movie money in there although I would guess they do.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Cortiz

I don't know what the big issue is. This is a matter of opinion. Some people like grain, others don't. You are not going to convice one camp or the other. There are now two versions of the film so pick whichever makes you happier.

Which version looks "better" is a matter of opinion. Which version is more correct is not. The big issue is that some people were actually expecting an "all-new digital restoration" that improves upon the mediocre barebones mpeg2 disc in a meaningful way, not just pandering to the mentality that all films should look glossy HD video regardless of their origins.

[dmwiley]

After reading the site review, I'll wait until it goes down to under $10. Had a feeling it was going to be another sucky transfer. Too bad.

[Cortiz]

Originally Posted by 42041

Which version looks "better" is a matter of opinion. Which version is more correct is not. The big issue is that some people were actually expecting an "all-new digital restoration" that improves upon the mediocre barebones mpeg2 disc in a meaningful way, not just pandering to the mentality that all films should look glossy HD video regardless of their origins.

I'm sticking with my original statement. I'm not going to get draw into the "what's right and what's wrong argument" The whole thing is fruitless.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Bolty

I also think there is a flaw in the militant "grain is good!" crusade.

I like natural looking blu-rays and I am with you 90%, but when i was arguing the sham that was pan & scan and i told friends that widescreen/letterbox was the only way to go I had the ability to show them widescreen Ben Hur on Laserdisc and compare it to the P & S VHS version and explain "they have cut off 44% of the picture!!

They got it!

When I showed them a 5.1 soundtrack set-up vs listening to a movie from the TV speakers......

THey got it!

When I showed them a pristine Blu-ray picture vs a pristine DVD picture of the same movie.....

They got it!

BUT if I tried to show them that the original version of Predator is superior because it at least retains the natural film grain

They ain't going to get it!!

Let's say they re-do Gladiator and they do a perfect job (by our standards)
Then we show our friends why the new version with natural grain is better---we have a shot at making them see the light.

But in an extreme case like the first Predator release it won't work for casual Blu-ray viewers---whom we depend upon, after all, to support our passion and make it mainstream. And cheaper!!

Good points.

The grain issue in the case of Predator is a bit more abstract (artisitic if you will) in terms of grasping and less concrete I suppose for mainstream.

[MaCruz]

I think I'm going to buy it in the next 10 mins when I go to lunch.

[RedIsNotBlue]

Originally Posted by Beast

Exactly. And I like grain as much as the next people.

Unfortunatly, the original release suffers from as many problems as the new one.

Neither of them are perfect. But so far, other than the one extreme shot of Arnie, it's not bad.

How about the extreme close-up of Carl Weathers?

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...375&position=7

Yeesh...his freakin stache looks like someone just spray painted it on above his lip.

[anomynous]

Just got done wathcing it.


Definitely way over-blown issue. It looks decent enough

[42041]

Originally Posted by Bolty

BUT if I tried to show them that the original version of Predator is superior because it at least retains the natural film grain

They ain't going to get it!!

If some aspect of a film bothers them that much, they should feel free to watch another movie that better suits their taste.

But I'm more optimistic of the public's intelligence. When I saw The Wrestler, a super grainy 16mm production, I didn't see people getting up and walking out of the cinema demanding their money back.

[sharkcohen]

Originally Posted by Cortiz

I don't know what the big issue is. This is a matter of opinion. Some people like grain, others don't. You are not going to convice one camp or the other. There are now two versions of the film so pick whichever makes you happier.

This exemplifies the misconception of the issue on this board. People upset about DNR are not grain lovers. It isn't about the grain. Removal of the grain removes textures and detail, and that is what people are upset about. People don't love grain for the sake of the grain.

[Chaka]

I keep coming back to this thread and see post after post saying the 08 version is riddled with grain. Am I the only one that thinks its NOT that grainy? I really question those who keep saying 08 version + grain = bad if they ever seen other movies from the 80's. ALL 80's film had grain. All movies prior to 1920's were silent. Did the director want silent films? Probably not but that doesn't mean we should add sound. Same with color films or variations of technology at the time.

What people keep glossing over is that its not really about grain, removal of, DNR, EE etc. Its about the fact they altered the movie drastically with the "remastered" version. Dark scenes are now bright. You loose the gritty feeling. Its as drastic as changing the soundtrack or special effects. It clearly is not the same movie.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I keep coming back to this thread and see post after post saying the 08 version is riddled with grain. Am I the only one that thinks its NOT that grainy?

No, you're not. But I imagine you've also got a bunch of people with miscalibrated players and TVs applying sharpening to the image which exaggerates all the grain and compression issues of the first disc.

[Canada]

I was going to buy the Ultimate Hunter Edition sometime down the road but not after it's been DNR'ed to hell.

As the reviewer said I hope Fox doesn't DNR the Alien Quadrilogy box set much or at all.

It is funny to me how people were complaining about the amount of grain in the original disk, now some people are liking the old disk better.

To all the grain haters out there, Blu ray is not always about producing a crystal clear image. The idea of Blu ray is to produce a transfer as faithful to the original as possible.

[toddly6666]

I just bought this new edition out of curiousity to see what the big deal was.

As long as this new edition is better quality than the last DVD, then I'm happy.

I'll take a look later when I get home from work and see if this thing is watchable!

I avoided the Gladiator blu-ray for ages, and then I couldn't hold back, bought it, and I was pleased with the video quality of it. Is this the same scenario or worse than the Gladiator blu-ray?

[MaCruz]

I picked up the movie on my lunch break. Can't go wrong for $14.99 and a $10 movie ticket coupon. I'll watch it tonight and see what all the fuss is about.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by QuasidodoJr

Well, except now, the grain haters may cover you in wax instead!

He'll be waxed and feathered.

Even though his review is correct.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Bolty

What i think is very sad is the statement (in effect) of

"You are of course entittled to your opinion, BUT if you prefer the new version you're stupid and not a true film fan and don't understand film and etc"

When the choice is between these two very flawed versions---preferring one over the other says nothing about your film fan credentials.

This is not between a beautiful true to film transfer with some grain and a DNR grainless abomination and then some folks are preferring the grain scrubbed version.

This is between two flawed versions and some prefer a brighter less muddy picture with DNR and others prefer a very grainy 'truer to the theater' version that's nowhere near perfect by any stretch.

Problem is, people SHOULDN'T be entitled to their opinion. The movie is made ONE way. You either accept that or don't, and you either like the film for all its flaws or not. You don't get to choose to replace an actor you don't like, or change the script, so why should people get to choose how a film looks 23 years later? You didn't get 2 versions at the theater - a grainy gritty edition and a clean pretty edition... so why do people think it's okay to have 2 versions on blu?

Now how a film is made to look and how its presented on blu-ray are two different things, sure. And I agree neither version is definitive - but the original release is closer to the original vision of the film, grain and all.

I'm glad most of the reviewers are giving this a worse PQ rating than the original edition.

[sharkcohen]

Originally Posted by 42041

No, you're not. But I imagine you've also got a bunch of people with miscalibrated players and TVs applying sharpening to the image which exaggerates all the grain and compression issues of the first disc.

The 2008 release actually looks quite good and is not the grainfest some would lead others to believe. But then again I'm watching it on a calibrated display.

[dcowboy7]

The new shots look way better than the old:

http://www.avpgalaxy.net/website/art...ay-comparison/