Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Beast]

Originally Posted by DaleDark

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

Of course, he has his own problems to worry about and probably is just glad to get the royalty check.

[TheOneWithThePrize]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

Cameron has abandoned Aliens. He's said time and time again that he's not interested in doing anything more with it.

I think Cameron was referring to the franchise as a whole (as in making another Alien film), not in this case where he would/should be overseeing that the forthcoming BD is faithful to his vision.

[Chaka]

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.

I think in many posts "grain" has been explained to death. At this point its matter of opinion and personal preferences on which way you want your movies to look. Some people see more detail in the new release. I stopped debating this point because its preference and what that person considers detail. If they decide that they see more with more contrast and brightly lit scenes then it makes perfect sense why one would think that. There is no right way to see a movie or how one should enjoy it. What I don't like is the revamping of a movie to cater to those that probably think that the special effects, pacing, action etc is subpar anyway. Predator is and never was your typical Sci-fi action movie. If this was rated by todays standards it would be PG-13 not R.

This is not about just removing grain or using DNR. Its about changing a movies presence.

[Sky_Captain85]

Decided to buy the 2008 edition. Although the PQ was never outstanding, it looks more natural than the new release.

[DaleDark]

Originally Posted by Beast

Of course, he has his own problems to worry about and probably is just glad to get the royalty check.

No doubt, but that hasn't stopped filmmakers from voicing their opinion, if they even have one. I'm just ammused by all the defence of the "artist's vision" going on in this thread, yet not a peep from anyone actually envolved w/ this film.

I'm also curious how many "purists" are watching Predator w/ the DD 4.0 track, seeing as that is how the sound designer intended the film to be heard - in pure analog dolby ultra stereo.

[goombatommy]

Hey folks - I'm a browser, not really a poster but I figured I'll chime in here for a second. At the end of the day, we are only the consumers and its up to us whether we like it or not. If Fox DNR'ed the hell out of it and people like it - so be it, let those people like it and enjoy it. After all, it was their $15 they paid. For those who prefer the original - so be it, let those people enjoy it. Again, it was their money.

I have both - and PERSONALLY, you know, my opinion because everyone is entitled to one - I enjoy the new Ultimate Hunter edition better. It's just visually better to my eyes as well as my wife's.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by goombatommy

Hey folks - I'm a browser, not really a poster but I figured I'll chime in here for a second. At the end of the day, we are only the consumers and its up to us whether we like it or not. If Fox DNR'ed the hell out of it and people like it - so be it, let those people like it and enjoy it. After all, it was their $15 they paid. For those who prefer the original - so be it, let those people enjoy it. Again, it was their money.

I have both - and PERSONALLY, you know, my opinion because everyone is entitled to one - I enjoy the new Ultimate Hunter edition better. It's just visually better to my eyes as well as my wife's.

No, all that does is mean more studios will put out mediocre editions of films that do not represent the film's original presentation. It is setting a terrible precedent for the future of blu-ray. It's not up for the people to have a choice how art is presented. It should presented as it was made, and only that way. Neither edition is great but at least the first release is closer.

[mayorofsmpleton]

A film, on the other hand, can be just as crowd pleasing, but it offers the viewer more: a look into our social or political consciousness, a firm stance for or against a debatable issue, the exposure of a harmful truth or a greater good. Both share the same conventions of plot and structure, but the big difference is this: a movie answers all of our questions, while a film tries to raise new ones."

I used to think this way but now I think it does a disservice to our perceptions of film as an art form and if anything can cause us to expect less of a picture purely because of it's "genre" etc.

It's this way of thinking that causes people to create different standards for film -- at least as an art form. It's now very common for people to give a free pass to poorly made action/popcorn/horror/comedy films.

How many people have gone to a slasher movie and given it a free pass on harsh criticism due to it being "a horror movie" etc -- despite the fact that the genre has been proven to be capable of delivering finely crafted works of fiction (The Blair Witch Project, The Exorcist, Halloween, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre).

I can't count the number of times I hear people say I should forgive bad films because of any number of reasons.. "It's a comedy" "it's an adam sandler movie" it's "a mindless action movie" "it's a slasher flick"

I can name several Adam Sandler movies that are miles above his bad work. I can think of several action films that are more than just action films (Cameron seems to have built a career out of this) -- and even slasher films that elevate above their genre brethren.

Just because a movie is a "popcorn" movie doesn't mean we should hold it to lower standards. One can very easily make a fully entertaining popcorn film with fun characters that doesn't take itself seriously (The Mummy '99) and then make a terrible popcorn film with the same elements in place (The Mummy Returns).

Based on the recent mindset of many in the "film is art" crowd... we've begun to lower the standards on what we expect -- especially from genre films.

I just finished Rob Zombie's Director's Cut of Hallween 2 and it's a perfect example of how expecting a mindless slasher flick can surprise you. The theatrical version is a mishmash of poorly executed stories involving a few people dealing with the aftermath of a horrific event. It lacks focus, insight and contains far too many references to a film-series it seems desperate to distance itself from (the original Halloween franchise).

The director's cut, however, is a disturbing and harsh look at how different people deal with the aftermath of a tragedy. While the "stalk/slash" element is fully at play what ultimately surfaces is fully unique vision that distances itself completely from the source material (Carpenter's '78 film) and shows some surprisingly interesting depths to the material.

If I were to give the movie a "pass" by calling it a slasher film and holding it to different standards I suppose I could have enjoyed the theatrical cut in all it's poorly conceived glory... but I felt as a film it fell short and completely dropped the ball. It's a mindless violent mess of a film that doesn't seem to know what it's trying to say about these characters.

The DC is, on the other hand, a surprisingly interesting character study and of a sad group of people that are all on a downward spiral to death and destruction. Both also work completely well at being "slasher" films and that is my point.

I don't think it's right to not expect quality or great things from certain films (summer blockbusters, 80's action/adventure/thrillers, slasher films) because when we lower expectations we're given mindless nonsense disguised as creativity when we know the genre is fully capable of much more. Any movie has the ability to have artistic merit -- even if it doesn't necessarily raise "serious" questions about society. Even gross-out comedies can have something important to say about how we behave as humans (There's Something About Mary)

It's this misguided mentality that caused critics to dump all over both Psycho ('68) and Halloween ('78) upon their initial releases -- within a year both were considered by the general public and critics to be phenomenal works of art and were on almost all of the major top 10 of the year lists.

These critics who couldn't tell they were good were stuck in the mindset of "film" is serious and they weren't able to read into the complexities that both of these fantastic films displayed.

So while Predator may not be considered "high art" as far as film goes... there can be a lot of discussion about what makes the film work. One of the things that does is the "ugly" look of it. It's not supposed to be bright and over-exposed. It needs to be in stark contract of a Michael Bay film. The grain inherent in the source material is entirely important to getting across the dirty/macho element at play here. The is a film about testosterone, blood, guns, sweat, dirt, animal instinct, primal urges, etc... It's supposed to look ugly.

Grain and dust/debris are different things.

Like Terminator/Aliens there is an inherent ugliness to the picture quality of Predator that the film-makers MEANT to be there. This transfer is a disgrace and if FOX has any sort of decency to film or the merits of they'll offer a new transfer with an exchange program. I don't care if it's not a "serious" film -- it deserves every bit of respect to at least be represented as it was intended. What a disgrace. Makes me worried for the ALIEN set (though as many mentioned... those appear to be in the can already -- and I'm fairly certain all 4 films were overseen by the original director's at least in SOME regard during the remastering process.

[KrugStillo]

I really thought we had moved on from this over-DNR'd thing. We even had a few releases that were redone (Gangs of New York, etc.) because of the bad scrub jobs ( that sounds filthy) they originally had. Why are we going backwards with this forward progression. I honestly believe that had Fox or whoever was acually involved in the new version had judiciously applied the DNR and not just dumped a whole bucket of it on there we would all be in agreement about a better looking disc. Sad.

[DaleDark]

*Throws up a flame shield for the poster saying good things about RZ's Halloween 2*

Good luck, pal.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by KrugStillo

I really thought we had moved on from this over-DNR'd thing. We even had a few releases that were redone (Gangs of New York, etc.) because of the bad scrub jobs ( that sounds filthy) they originally had. Why are we going backwards with this forward progression. I honestly believe that had Fox or whoever was acually involved in the new version had judiciously applied the DNR and not just dumped a whole bucket of it on there we would all be in agreement about a better looking disc. Sad.

Exactly. Fox could have easily done a middle of the road job on it, and it would have been fantastic.

[toddly6666]

Look at it this way, the original grained blu-ray maybe will now become a precious collector's item that will sell for big bucks on Ebay - all thanks to the DNR-version putting it out of print!

[Beast]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Look at it this way, the original grained blu-ray maybe will now become a precious collector's item that will sell for big bucks on Ebay - all thanks to the DNR-version putting it out of print!

It's not been discontinued.

[ridergroov1]

Originally Posted by DaleDark

No doubt, but that hasn't stopped filmmakers from voicing their opinion, if they even have one. I'm just ammused by all the defence of the "artist's vision" going on in this thread, yet not a peep from anyone actually envolved w/ this film.

I'm also curious how many "purists" are watching Predator w/ the DD 4.0 track, seeing as that is how the sound designer intended the film to be heard - in pure analog dolby ultra stereo.

I like your second comment. Makes me laugh.

You people gotta relax. If you like the original release and think the new one is terrible, don't buy it. STFU and keep watching the first release.

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau
Cameron has abandoned Aliens. He's said time and time again that he's not interested in doing anything more with it.
I think Cameron was referring to the franchise as a whole (as in making another Alien film), not in this case where he would/should be overseeing that the forthcoming BD is faithful to his vision.

You're right. This is pure misinformation. Cameron was discussing his involvement with the franchise and future sequels. He did not mean he's not interested in how his prior work is presented on BD or any other future home video releases.

He was involved in the QUAD release (I believe it was his decision not to do a major remaster at that point as he felt it looked "good" already) so I'd be surprised if he wasn't involved in the new BD release.

What I don't like is the revamping of a movie to cater to those that probably think that the special effects, pacing, action etc is subpar anyway. Predator is and never was your typical Sci-fi action movie.

This is not about just removing grain or using DNR. Its about changing a movies presence

Yes. What's frustrating is that most people wouldn't have complained about the "film-grain" anyway. If anything they shot themselves in the foot because they assume everyone wants things DNR and in actuality there are more "purists" out there who'd rather it stay original and are vocal than their are people who would complain about NOT DNR'ing the image. When's the last time there was a major loud complaint from the fanbase for a movie that had "too much" grain? I can't count the number of movies, however, that have controversial releases on BD that make the purists angry. I'm bothered each time I watch my "Silence of the Lambs" BD because there's just too much DNR applied.

What's bothersome is that when these changes are made and a whole generation is exposed to "this" version of a movie it changes perception of the art form. I recently spoke with a friend about The Exorcist being brought to BD and how exciting it would be to see the original film -- and she went on to say how much the "spider-walk" scene scares the hell out of her. Her only exposure to the film had been from "The Version You've Never Seen" which is fine -- but it's one of two very different cuts of the film -- and in that case both are very different in terms of pacing, tone, etc.

If Fox DNR'ed the hell out of it and people like it - so be it, let those people like it and enjoy it.. ..For those who prefer the original - so be it, let those people enjoy it.

Except we're not upset that they are "enjoying" it -- we're upset that we are unable to enjoy the original film as it was meant to be seen. The original BD release is sub-par because of mastering issues and true fans of the film were hoping for a quality release of the original source material. In other words... fans of the original film are stuck with either a poorly mastered version of the movie on a poorly mastered disc -- or an overly polished and DNR's version on a better disc. Predator wasn't meant to look polished and "pretty" and while it's great "some" people are liking the transfer -- for serious film fans and for fans of this particular film it's disappointing because no option has been given.

And as others have mentioned it only leads to further situations like this one down the line.

This is just like the "full-screen" only DVD issues that plagued the early years when people had to complain whenever a studio would make the moronic attempt to release a MAR only version of a new release or classic re-release. Not every movie is supposed to look like "Planet Earth" or "Transformers" and that's not what BD is supposed to be about... and each time something like this happens waves SHOULD be made otherwise the next film to get such treatment is only right around the corner. I can't wait until they jack up the contract on every darkly lit horror film so we can SEE everything so perfectly clearly. It will make "The Blair Witch Project" and all those overly dark and scary horror films so much more watchable!

This Predator issue is about as bad as the botched 5.1 mix done for Terminator's DVD/BD release. If you wanna screw with the presentation go ahead but leave the original version alone for those of us who don't need everything dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

[mayorofsmpleton]

You people gotta relax. If you like the original release and think the new one is terrible, don't buy it. STFU and keep watching the first release.

One could just as easily say the same to those who ARE enjoying the new release. We can very easily "not buy it" but we can't purchase a quality version of the original film.

The fact remains that the old release was marred by a poor encode and is lacking of a great deal of special features. Compression artifacts, etc. are also a problem. It's a poorly made disc -- so we're not complaining that the DNR fans have their version. We're complaining that a suitable version doesn't exist for those of us who value the film as it was originally portrayed.

[TheOneWithThePrize]

Originally Posted by rghuxley

Then they need to rename the link DEALS and call it AMAZON DEALS. That's friggin retarded.

At least Amazon caters to international customers, Best Buy does not.

[mayorofsmpleton]

*Throws up a flame shield for the poster saying good things about RZ's Halloween 2*
Good luck, pal.

Haha, as I said -- there are two very different versions of this film. The theatrical was easily on my "worst of the year" list. The DC may not be a fantastic film but there's at least more going on than in the theatrical version. My point wasn't to say good things about it. It's to say that when we lower standards we accept garbage as "okay" or "passable." when the same material can be capable of channeling greater themes than people give it credit for.

RZ's Halloween II has problems but his DC shows a willingness to examine characters and interesting themes from a perspective we haven't really seen before (in other words, the DC isn't merely more blood/gore cuts restored -- what's restored are a series of interesting character-driven scenes/plotlines -- and removed are a lot of the pointless stalk/slash elements that hurt the theatrical counterpart). The theatrical cut is a worthless run-of-the-mill stalk/slash movie with violence for the sake of violence. Neither cut is going to win any awards -- but if you can try to view the theatrical cut back to back with the DC to see just how much difference 12-15 minutes of editing, restructuring etc. can make in a film. Reminds me of Vincent Gallo's The Brown Bunny -- which was considered one of the worst films ever by some -- who later took a different notice of a significantly recut version of the same material. I hated Zombie's Halloween II last Aug. when I saw it in theaters. I saw it in a theater in Manhattan that was given "feedback" cards to give to the studio and I pretty much needed a pencil sharpener in order to get across everything I thought was wrong with it. I'd never imagine I would sit through RZ's Halloween II again and here I find myself having been surprisingly entertained by his DC version. For the record, I still think both cuts of Halloween '07 are pretty unwatchable. Danielle Harris makes it easy to get through them, however.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

One could just as easily say the same to those who ARE enjoying the new release. We can very easily "not buy it" but we can't purchase a quality version of the original film.

True, but that would be thread craping since the title is "Ultimate Hunter Edition JUNE 29th" just thought I just thought that was funny

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by KrugStillo

I really thought we had moved on from this over-DNR'd thing. We even had a few releases that were redone (Gangs of New York, etc.) because of the bad scrub jobs ( that sounds filthy) they originally had. Why are we going backwards with this forward progression. I honestly believe that had Fox or whoever was acually involved in the new version had judiciously applied the DNR and not just dumped a whole bucket of it on there we would all be in agreement about a better looking disc. Sad.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Just who I am. I do think that Fox spent a good amount of time and research to provide this new release. Lets think about this for a moment and who their target demographics are for Predators. The sales figures for Avatar in this harsh economical climate. The TV manufacturers to the retailers that have everything on torch mode. Crap settings like "natural motion" etc. Then slap on words like "Ultimate, collectors, special edition, remastered" and you have a winner. Reason why Disney Buena Vista rereleased Gangs of New York was because the demographics and the person buying this movie was totally different.