Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[supercutz]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

If you say so, but I am one of the few who HAS seen it projected in theaters several times over the last decade and I can say with no trepidation that the 2008 bd is extraordinarily faithful to the prints I've seen.

But don't just take my word for it, do some research in the threads and you will see that I am not the only one making this claim. All of us agree that the 2008 transfer is not offensive, or "shitty" as you described it.

Funny how nobody wants to believe the people who have actually seen it on 35mm recently, but whatever...

If you are right then what's the problem? For those wanting to see the movie as it was originally made/intended to be seen, get the 2008 blu. For those that don't care for grain, get the UE. Why is this thread still going on and on like this. I guess another poster had it right when he said people like to argue for the sake of arguing.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by FendersRule

Some of you are just flat out incorrect and make this forum look terrible for an entusiast forum.

Anyone buying the new release and especially anyone backing up DNR should not be allowed to support this website and are completely at the wrong place. It is NOT the issue of personal choice, but an issue of reinforcing studios for continuing to ruin classics just because little kids around here want their classics looking like Avatar.

from me:

Originally Posted by mars396

I would compare preferring this version to preferring the Blu-rays of the Star Trek original series.
Yes, there was electronic manipulation to enhance the picture. Does that somehow change the quality of the film/show ? To me, no – it increases my enjoyment of it. I cannot and will not ever say anyone is “wrong” for not prefering the new enhanced HD Star Trek episodes, any more than I will tell someone they are stupid for marrying a woman I am not particularly attracted to. To each his own.

[Mike1981]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

Who is misrepresenting and what facts are they butchering?

Just because you don't notice the same things with movies (your Iron Man 2 statement) does not mean that other people don't. Many people who give a rip about things like photography and art do notice image quality, so its not really your place to call the argument silly.

Weather or not you think Predator is a B-grade picture is irrelevant. It has stood the test of time (23 years is pretty impressive by today's standards) and is a meaningful, nostalgic title to many of us here.

Relax.

I worked in film for a short time. I love movies. What I hate, are internent *******s.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by Mike1981

Relax.

I worked in film for a short time. I love movies. What I hate, are internent *******s.

That didn't answer my question.

[Mike1981]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

That didn't answer my question.

Oh God. One of those.

I'll bite; which question?

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by supercutz

If you are right then what's the problem? For those wanting to see the movie as it was originally made/intended to be seen, get the 2008 blu. For those that don't care for grain, get the UE. Why is this thread still going on and on like this. I guess another poster had it right when he said people like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Because 2008 will eventually go out of print. That is standard business procedure when a new version of a movie gets released.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by Mike1981

Oh God. One of those.

I'll bite; which question?

You said people are misrepresenting facts for pages and pages. I responded by asking which facts are being misrepresented and by who.

[Mike1981]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

You said people are misrepresenting facts for pages and pages. I responded by asking which facts are being misrepresented and by who.

Read the whole thread. In general, people seem to want to speak for what the director intended. People seem to not know what DNR does. People seem to take their opinion and express it as fact.

I can see both sides: Should blu-ray give the best possible picture? Or should it give a picture closest to how it was indended to be.

Either way, NEITHER release of this moive has done that. So to say one is wrong for liking one or the other is silly. The fact that it has gone on for over 100 pages is even sillier.

I'll go back to worrying about things that matter now.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by FendersRule

So many of these posts make me glad I am apart of the AVS forum and that I actually spend more time there. Some of you are just flat out incorrect and make this forum look terrible for an entusiast forum.

Anyone buying the new release and especially anyone backing up DNR should not be allowed to support this website and are completely at the wrong place. It is NOT the issue of personal choice, but an issue of reinforcing studios for continuing to ruin classics just because little kids around here want their classics looking like Avatar.

Honestly, it embarrasses me to be here sometimes with all the DNR fanboys who support studios doing such lousy ass tranfers to help bring blu-ray to the ground.

The poster that especially infered that Aliens should look like Predator really just ate the cake for me.

What's are demographics around here? 16 year old kids who have no clue about film and life?

Seriously, I hope you can all see my disgust. Will be visiting less often.

...says the person who spells like a 14 year old.

I'm with you on the DNR, but to hold AVS as an example of all places is just plain crazy.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by Mike1981

Read the whole thread. In general, people seem to want to speak for what the director intended. People seem to not know what DNR does. People seem to take their opinion and express it as fact.

I can see both sides: Should blu-ray give the best possible picture? Or should it give a picture closest to how it was indended to be.

Either way, NEITHER release of this moive has done that.

You say that with such assurance, yet the people who have seen it recently all attest to how good the 2008 bd is.

If someone saw something with their own eyes, then other people saw it with their own eyes (all at different locations and dates) and they all reported the same thing on separate occasions, its no longer an opinion. The people who have seen the 35mm prints recently(myself included) have been unanimous in their reporting that the 2008 is faithful to the actual movie.

People can (and already have) deny what we have said all along, but does it not strike anyone here as odd that we all report the same thing?

[retablo]

Originally Posted by mars396

I have seen all home versions of both films, and was not pleased with the amount of grain on the DVD my favortie movie of all time, Aliens. And yes, the Noise Reduction is set to 'off' on my HDTV.

This does not make me dumb, or naive, or uneducated. It is my personal enjoyment of one of my favorite films, and I really hope Aliens' PQ is as nice and clear.

You do realize, though, that the grain in Aliens WAS ALWAYS there. It was there in the theater, it's there on the original negative. You didn't notice it on VHS because the resolution was so low. So if you saw it in the theater at all, you saw a lot of grain.

People seem to think that grain was never present until DVD and now, especially, blu-ray. Because of the high resolution, you are finally seeing films like they were shot. That's how they looked then, that's how they are supposed to look. I don't mind a little DNR here and there, but not if it alters the look of the film and, thus, the feel of the film. Predator was turned from a dark and gritty (liek it was supposed to be) horror adventure into a bright, happy, and smooth video game looking thing. Doesn't give the same mood or feeling at all.

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

...says the person who spells like a 14 year old.

I'm with you on the DNR, but to hold AVS as an example of all places is just plain crazy.

Well you have to admit this place makes AVS look pretty good by comparison.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by FendersRule

This release affects us, because Fox can do the same incorrect treatment to other movies. How is that difficult to understand? Why are you even hear if you are support releases that are not an accurate representation of what they looked like in theaters? I'm greatly confused.

Amen, brother.

Get ready for more awful transfers.

[Mike1981]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

You say that with such assurance, yet the people who have seen it recently all attest to how good the 2008 bd is.

If someone saw something with their own eyes, then other people saw it with their own eyes (all at different locations and dates) and they all reported the same thing on separate occasions, its no longer an opinion. The people who have seen the 35mm prints recently(myself included) have been unanimous in their reporting that the 2008 is faithful to the actual movie.

People can (and already have) deny what we have said all along, but does it not strike anyone here as odd that we all report the same thing?

That is a completely illogical argument.

[Mike1981]

Originally Posted by FendersRule

You can't be anymore wrong with your weak dichotomization. First off, are you implying that the new edition is going for the "best possible picture" and the older one is just an "accurate picture". God this logic hurts, as I don't think I can bring myself down to explain it to you. What's wrong with having BOTH, which is the way it should be? You even implying that the newer one has a best possible picture with all the digital smudging is hilarious btw.

The 2008 is not only the most accurate by far, but it looks great and resembles film and the way it looked in theaters. The Ultimate Edition is blurry and looks like waxy fest central, and alters the source material. People just don't want this shit happening again now that the 2008 is going out of print. How is that difficult to understand? The people that are supporting the Ultimate Edition are just wrong, and should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm done with this thread. Some of you disgust me.

I never said this version was better; you took what I said and changed it to fit your needs.

Thanks though.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by Mike1981

That is a completely illogical argument.

How?
Specifics please...

[FendersRule]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

...says the person who spells like a 14 year old.

I'm with you on the DNR, but to hold AVS as an example of all places is just plain crazy.

Or the fact that I was lying in bed with an iPod touch with one eye open. I am fully ready to go with my flame control gear on now. AVS do have smarter people on the whole compared to Blu-ray.com. No doubt. Just look at this thread.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

How?
Specifics please...

He's not worth arguing with man - his arguments are circular, and his posts are just flippant dismissals without actually providing any content.

[Mike1981]

Originally Posted by FendersRule

Or the fact that I was lying in bed with an iPod touch with one eye open. I am fully ready to go with my flame control gear on now. AVS do have smarter people on the whole compared to Blu-ray.com. No doubt. Just look at this thread.

...I'm inclined to agree...

[Mike1981]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

He's not worth arguing with man - his arguments are circular, and his posts are just flippant dismissals without actually providing any content.

Because I am not arguing. I never took one side or the other.

Geez people. Treat people online like you would in real life.