Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[retablo]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

It's really Episode I.

And that changes things... how?

You nitpick over a Roman numeral yet don't care if a movie is altered and totally scrubbed to a waxy oblivion... weird priorities. No wonder the world is tired of fanboys.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by retablo

And that changes things... how?

You nitpick over a Roman numeral yet don't care if a movie is altered and totally scrubbed to a waxy oblivion... weird priorities. No wonder the world is tired of fanboys.

At least it's relative as opposed to your movie/film "theory".

[anomynous]

Originally Posted by rexinnih

Does this also have the movie money?

I have no clue.

[MovieHermit]

After 2000 posts in this thread, heres my little input lol

Ill be buying it, its 20 bucks, I love predator, and now Ill have 2 different versions.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

At least it's relative as opposed to your movie/film "theory".

LOL how is that relative? Relative to what? I don't care if you subscribe to my theory or not... where have you been published as a film writer again?

[Ryan Peddle]

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!!

I could not have said it better myself. Many of my friends would never detect anything like DNR and EE. I personally one notice it in extreme situations. But there is a major flaw with Bluray in general. Most people think an old movie should look like movies of today. Slick, crystal clear, and full of sharp vivid colours. So as a movies studio/distrubitor, if you are going to sell 100,000 of a grainy version to the enthusiast crowd, but 1,000,000 to the J6P crowd...who should you cater to considering you are running a business based on profit.

[Inspector Toschi]

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.

This happened to my brother with his newer TV. When he bought and watched GhostBusters, he was appalled. I looked at the settings on his TV: Sharpness turned up high and brightness/contrast cranked up. Now these were factory settings, not his. But after I quickly calibrated his set, he couldn't believe how much better it looked. He's not a grain hater, but GB is a grainy film and with those settings... It's funny though, even though he's not tech savvy in this subject, he fully understands DNR and the effects of it.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Inspector Toschi

This happened to my brother with his newer TV. When he bought and watched GhostBusters, he was appalled. I looked at the settings on his TV: Sharpness turned up high and brightness/contrast cranked up. Now these were factory settings, not his. But after I quickly calibrated his set, he couldn't believe how much better it looked. He's not a grain hater, but GB is a grainy film and with those settings... It's funny though, even though he's not tech savvy in this subject, he fully understands DNR and the effects of it.

Excellent points. It's always best to keep the sharpness set to zero. I personally calibrated displays using DVE some time ago and have been happy every since.

[Kinsella5]

Originally Posted by rexinnih

Does this also have the movie money?

No, I don't believe the 2-pack contains the movie money. Was just at Best Buy and only the new Ultimate Edition appeared to have it. I picked it up for $9.99, I figure it has to be better than the previous Blu-ray release and the free movie cash to see Predators was worth it. Actually the movie cash allows you to see either Predators, A-Team, or Knight and Day.

[kdo]

Does anyone else think that "Neither" should not be a voting option on this thread? it sort of nullifies the question at hand... If anything, shouldn't a third voting option be something along the lines of "too close to call" or "they both have strengths and weaknesses" ???

[olivehead]

maybe someone who has followed this thread more closely than i can answer this question: has anyone yet mentioned that grain in film, especially in the mid-80s, wasn't necessarily, or even typically, a conscious choice of the filmakers? at that time, it seems that grain was common based on the film stock most in use at the time. in jim cameron's commentary on aliens, from 2003, he even mentions how surprised he was at just how much grain is present in the film, and goes on to explain that kodak (?) had recently changed its emulsion and that that amount of grain was the result. so it just makes me wonder whether cameron, mctiernan, and others would have chosen to have less grain in the end result, if that had been readily available in the film stock used at that time. my point is, i don't know if digitally "cleaning up" grain can be said to be a bad thing or violating the "filmaker's vision" in all cases. i haven't yet seen the new BD, and was debating getting it based on the lack of new features (other than the 11 min. doc), but now plan to get it just to see what this debate is all about. based on the screen shots i've seen, i'm thinking i will like the "new version," even though i probably won't get rid of my grainy original.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by kdo

Does anyone else think that "Neither" should not be a voting option on this thread? it sort of nullifies the question at hand... If anything, shouldn't a third voting option be something along the lines of "too close to call" or "they both have strengths and weaknesses" ???

Neither fits though. Cause neither are better. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.

[sharkcohen]

Originally Posted by olivehead

maybe someone who has followed this thread more closely than i can answer this question: has anyone yet mentioned that grain in film, especially in the mid-80s, wasn't necessarily, or even typically, a conscious choice of the filmakers? at that time, it seems that grain was common based on the film stock most in use at the time. in jim cameron's commentary on aliens, from 2003, he even mentions how surprised he was at just how much grain is present in the film, and goes on to explain that kodak (?) had recently changed its emulsion and that that amount of grain was the result. so it just makes me wonder whether cameron, mctiernan, and others would have chosen to have less grain in the end result, if that had been readily available in the film stock used at that time. my point is, i don't know if digitally "cleaning up" grain can be said to be a bad thing or violating the "filmaker's vision" in all cases. i haven't yet seen the new BD, and was debating getting it based on the lack of new features (other than the 11 min. doc), but now plan to get it just to see what this debate is all about. based on the screen shots i've seen, i'm thinking i will like the "new version," even though i probably won't get rid of my grainy original.

If you scrub out the grain, you scrub out the textures. Some people talk about loving grain or director's intent or film preservation, but the real issue is the loss of detail that DNR causes. This is an HD format, and I want all the detail possible, not some removed.

[KrugStillo]

Wow, this thread has been brutal.

I just have a simple statement. The Term High Definition means just that High Definition. Now regardless of whether a film is grainfest 2010 or not if you scrub it clean of all the grain you are then destroying the Definition part of the actual film. Hence, you can't call something High Definition unless it does in fact have a high level of definition (detail). Whether people like it or not grain (not noise) is detail, you remove too much of it and you are removing the detail (high definition) of the film. In that case the term HD means nothing. So let's just say that the new version of Predator is a clean remaster but not a High Definition transfer. Popping colors and smooth visuals do not equal High Definition. And since I'm into the concept of real HD I am in fact a bit disapointed at what we are supposed to accept as HD sometimes.

[tilapiah6]

Originally Posted by vidjunkie

You should add into the poll the option of buying both, just a thought.

and who cares which is better or worse, for $35 @ walmart you can get Commando\Predator combo and the new Ultimate Hunter Edition, now that is a damn good price IMO.

I got Commando and the Predator original release for around 6 bucks each on Black Friday.

And for the record, I personally thought the first one looked fine. After all, it was far superior to any other release of Predator in terms of PQ.

[42041]

Originally Posted by olivehead

maybe someone who has followed this thread more closely than i can answer this question: has anyone yet mentioned that grain in film, especially in the mid-80s, wasn't necessarily, or even typically, a conscious choice of the filmakers?

It's been mentioned. Though I disagree that it wasn't a "choice". The cinematographer knew what he was getting into, the grain isn't an accident. Every film is the product of technological limitations, budget constraints, etc... the final product is what it is. If the filmmaker is unhappy with how their film turned out, they can certainly choose to alter the movie, like what Ridley Scott did with Blade Runner. But I've heard nothing of filmmaker involvement with this transfer.

[Robert De Niro]

The original version rules and is pretty much perfect for an older movie. I really don't care to see Arnold swimming in vaseline. DNR sucks to hell anthraxed.

[PurpleJesus74]

Originally Posted by Kinsella5

No, I don't believe the 2-pack contains the movie money. Was just at Best Buy and only the new Ultimate Edition appeared to have it. I picked it up for $9.99, I figure it has to be better than the previous Blu-ray release and the free movie cash to see Predators was worth it. Actually the movie cash allows you to see either Predators, A-Team, or Knight and Day.

$9.99?.i thought it was supposed to be $14.99,thats a good deal.

[sharkcohen]

Originally Posted by krugstillo

wow, this thread has been brutal.

i just have a simple statement. The term high definition means just that high definition. Now regardless of whether a film is grainfest 2010 or not if you scrub it clean of all the grain you are then destroying the definition part of the actual film. Hence, you can't call something high definition unless it does in fact have a high level of definition (detail). Whether people like it or not grain (not noise) is detail, you remove too much of it and you are removing the detail (high definition) of the film. In that case the term hd means nothing. So let's just say that the new version of predator is a clean remaster but not a high definition transfer. Popping colors and smooth visuals do not equal high definition. And since i'm into the concept of real hd i am in fact a bit disapointed at what we are supposed to accept as hd sometimes.

+1

[DaleDark]

Originally Posted by 42041

It's been mentioned. Though I disagree that it wasn't a "choice". The cinematographer knew what he was getting into, the grain isn't an accident. Every film is the product of technological limitations, budget constraints, etc... the final product is what it is. If the filmmaker is unhappy with how their film turned out, they can certainly choose to alter the movie, like what Ridley Scott did with Blade Runner. But I've heard nothing of filmmaker involvement with this transfer.

.....nor have you heard so much as a grumble from McTiernan about either BD release.