Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by Johnothan Pedak

If you're showing Predator to children, DNR is the least of your problems.

Hey my parents took me to see The Shining when I was 2.....

[Pounder]

Originally Posted by Ceasar

Wow... this just happened to me last night and my wife looked at me and said "Listen, if you don't shut up and let us watch the movie in peace, I'm going to put on "Valentine's Day". I immediately refrained from saying one more word, and enjoyed the rest of "Predator UHE"."

NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! Throw away Valentine's Day.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by Johnothan Pedak

If you're showing Predator to children, DNR is the least of your problems.

Well, the new blu-ray does look like a CGI-animated Pixar fiilm.

[Sanfrog]

Originally Posted by persuazion

http://bluray.ign.com/articles/110/1103224p2.html
http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Pr...-Blu-ray.shtml
http://www.dvdtown.com/review/predator/blu-ray/8207/2
http://www.scifiblock.com/reviews/bl...-1987-2010.htm
http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/predator-ultimate-hunter-edition-blu-ray{this one tells you to snap your old Bluray in half lol}
http://www.movie-vault.com/reviews/p...dition-bluray/

anybody got anymore to add?

DVDReview and DVDAuthority both have very positive reviews on the PQ.

http://dvdreview.com/reviews/pages/3109.shtml

http://dvdauthority.com/reviews.asp?reviewid=6267

[DNinja]

I compared the two Blu-Rays yesterday and I really don't like either one. It's either dingy or a wax museum. I guess I will keep both. Dingy, dirty print for me so I don't cringe while watching it, and wax museum for when friends come over that think motion-plus is the second coming. Try the Ultimate Hunter Edition with image interpolation turned on. It's like watching "Predator: The Soap Opera."

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by Porkchop Express

He was clearly trying to put a bit of humor in this thread. I thought it was funny

Well to be true to his opinion, he should have looked in the mirror and decided to improve what he saw by smearing lotion all over the mirror.


No one ever ever suggested this or any movie needed to have artificial grain added. If you can't see of evident it is that the texture that is smoothed out by excessive DNR, it speaks more to your need for glasses, than your personal thoughts on movie aesthetics. As many here wish, I wish we had a few screengrabs of this master before the DNR was applied. to demonstrate to all of you just how much detail was lost.

I do take issue with anyone on the purists side calling people supporting excessive DNR idiots. If you really feel this way, prove you're not an idiot yourself by challenging their "idiotic" ideas. Name calling often makes you appear worse than the name you are using.

That being said, I have to ask supporters of excessive DNR which of the following beliefs they would call idiotic, or label the person professing them an idiot:

- Pan and Scan is superior to wide screen.
- HD doesn't offer much over SD
- Upgrading to Blu-ray from DVD isn't worth it
- All black and white films should be colorized
- All foreign films should be over dubbed with English tracks
- TV speakers are just as good as surround sound
- Streaming a movie on an Iphone is just as enjoyable as seeing it in the theater

Now if you ran into a person that said one of these things, as I have run into all of them. Would you call them an idiot or just simply say "Hey that's just their personal taste"? How would you feel if when upon disagreeing with one of these I called you a picky snob who takes all of this too seriously?

Because while a lot of us might disagree about how Predator should look, most of us would probably come to a consensus about the above list of beliefs.
and while most of us here might agree on the above being "wrong", the truth is, the majority of consumers out there agree with the list above being "right".

One side is hiding behind directors intent to validate their beliefs. and the other side is hiding behind the mass market to validate their beliefs.

So while I implore those against DNR to take a deep breath and be more respectful of those you think are "idiots" for disagreeing with you, I also implore people who are happy with this excessive DNR to look at that list above and find the one that angers you the most, and realize that's the same feeling people on the opposite side of the debate are feeling right now. I think there's some level of frustration you can empathize with if you tried.

I know some of you on both sides are merely scanning posts to find things to take out of context and refute. and there's no conversation to be had for the likes of you. While I did say name calling is bad, chances are you are a serious first class D-bag.







-

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by persuazion

http://bluray.ign.com/articles/110/1103224p2.html
http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Pr...-Blu-ray.shtml
http://www.dvdtown.com/review/predator/blu-ray/8207/2
http://www.scifiblock.com/reviews/bl...-1987-2010.htm
http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/predator-ultimate-hunter-edition-blu-ray{this one tells you to snap your old Bluray in half lol}
http://www.movie-vault.com/reviews/p...dition-bluray/

anybody got anymore to add?

IGN gave Gladiator a 10/10 for picture quality.
DVD Town gave Gladiator a 7/10.
As for the rest of the sites..... who?

Goodbye, credibility.

Meanwhile, reputable sites that people have actually heard of are trashing it.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by DNinja

I compared the two Blu-Rays yesterday and I really don't like either one. It's either dingy or a wax museum. I guess I will keep both. Dingy, dirty print for me so I don't cringe while watching it, and wax museum for when friends come over that think motion-plus is the second coming. Try the Ultimate Hunter Edition with image interpolation turned on. It's like watching "Predator: The Soap Opera."

I absolutely loathe motion-flow. When I got my new Sharp LCD in December the first thing I did was go through the menu and turn off all the digital processing junk. It literally took me about 5 minutes to go through all the options and turn them off. That's just an example of how most HDTV owners that have this stuff turned on out of the box and they never think to turn it off. So they get used to jaggies, waxy figures, and a picture that's far too bright. This is why IMO studios are using DNR and brightness boosting on titles such as the 2010 version of Predator. A large percentage of HDTV owners out there have this type of picture being displayed on their display because calibration simply never crosses their mind.

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by Cliff

[Show spoiler]I'm just gonna add a few last things now that I've watch the disc all the way through. Things have gotten pretty heated over this release and in all that heat I think the dividing line between sides got very wide and very specific.

For the record... While I have been very against this release, I'm also not someone who hates DNR for the sake of hating DNR. I can watch the Star Trek Blu-rays without my eyes bleeding and I once viewed Dark City without having an aneurysm. I understand that some noise reduction is generally always used and if used correctly and prudently can help to create a great experience. However, the yin to that yang is that I neither require nor ask for films to be noise reduced. I understand and appreciate the beauty of a film in its natural state and don't need it to be cleaned up and spit polished in order to classify something as a good transfer. Ghostbusters, to me, is a very good transfer. I also think First Blood is a good transfer. It's a paradox that isn't easy to explain. What I lack tolerance for though, is people who insist something like Ghostbusters be fixed because they incorrectly perceive it to be "broken."

In the case of Predator, I really feel like FOX overdid it in this release because of the sheer volume of so many misguided complaints about the original release's quality. As I stated two years ago, everyone complaining about the MPEG2 encode and the 25GB disc size were really complaining about the shooting conditions, editorial history, and technological limitations from when the film was produced. None of those things had anything to do with the disc's encoding and authoring and none of those things needed to be altered for this (or any release).

I have to give some credit to Spanbauer as he has created one of the most thought-out, accurate critiques of this disc and I (mostly) agree with him to a certain extent. When this new transfer works (and it occasionally does) it's pretty impressive. I was surprised they were able to get as much detail (or at least the appearance of detail) out of the source as they did... at times. The real problem though is that when this release goes wrong, it goes HORRIBLY wrong. I said this earlier, but the shots of Carl Weathers during the briefing look like something out of Final Fantasy. It's unreal, it's distracting and when you go back to the original disc you can really see how much detail they truly threw away. I feel comfortable saying that some of these shots are the worst noise reduction I've EVER seen on any release.

What Spanbauer gets very right in his assessment is that when the shots in the film are well lit and well shot, the new image can actually look quite pleasing. Unfortunately, there's a lot of shots that don't fit that criteria and the overprocessing actually makes them look MUCH WORSE than they originally did. A great example is the zoomed shot of Mac with the minigun firing into the jungle. The original disc shows that shot as a somewhat soft, slightly grainier shot than those on either side of it. You definitely notice it as you're watching, but the brain doesn't register it as anything too unusual. As presented on the new disc, that shot now looks completely unnatural and it actually killed my focus cold because there are so many things that just look so very wrong about it. They've actually added many far more distracting elements to the shot than were originally there. Similarly, many (not all, but many) of the shots as they trek through the jungle now have this weird motion artifacting that takes away the natural feel and fluidity of the shot.

What I disagree with Spanbauer about is the final assessment. While he feels the solid 75% of impressive shots (I wouldn't be quite that generous) is enough to overcome the dismal 25% and make this disc his preferred option. I feel that 25% is SOOO bad that it's far more damaging. On the older release, while the film was inconsistent, it was at least more consistent with itself. With the Ultimate Hunter, the gap in quality between the very best shots and the very worst is so vast, so obvious, and so jarring that I agree with Bill Hunt in calling this disc a disaster. It's a great example of fixing something until it's broken.

I also want to finally address the notion of grain lovers. I don't want to speak for everyone here, but I think the people some of you are labeling as 'Grain Lovers' (including maybe me) would be more aptly described as "Just Leave it the **** Aloners." The reason people fight so hard and so passionately for the preservation of film, the look of film, and the appreciation of film is because it's the only way everyone can truly be assured that what we're being sold is the best of the best. Once you remove that E-brake and start trying to 'improve and remaster,' you run the risk of ending up with a Predator or a French Connection. I don't want the studio to add MORE grain to Predator than was originally there, but I don't require LESS either. If you do, ask yourself what your end goal really is.

Thanks, Cliff. Your argument for preferring the original is a completely valid one, and I respect that we can both acknowledge we're seeing the same thing but come to opposing conclusions.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by detroitsportsfan

ign gave gladiator a 10/10 for picture quality.
Dvd town gave gladiator a 7/10.
As for the rest of the sites..... Who?

Goodbye, credibility.

Meanwhile, reputable sites that people have actually heard of are trashing it.

+1

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

Thanks, Cliff. Your argument for preferring the original is a completely valid one, and I respect that we can both acknowledge we're seeing the same thing but come to opposing conclusions.

It just so happens that Cliff is exactly right.

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Getting upset over the new Predator blu-ray is the same as a Star Wars geek getting upset over Greedo shooting first. I'm just a casual fan of Predator and Star Wars, but i'm not crying about how the films are supposed to be. Most casual fans seem to be happy with the new Predator blu-ray. If you are a die-hard fan of the movie or obsessed with the fine details of film, then I can understand why someone cannot even watch the new Predator blu-ray.

Look at it this way:
Let's say you and your friends (with wives and girlfriends and children, hypothetically) have a dinner party and have a movie night together. You put in the new Predator blu-ray. Everyone is watching it and enjoying it. But during and after the film, you are the only one whining about "how the film wasn't originally supposed to look like that on this new blu-ray. And you go on a rant about grain versus DNR."

Silence...Awkwardness...Elephant in the room.

No one cares about the DNR issue except for obsessive movie/blu-ray nuts!!!

My wife actually asked without prompting, while walking through the room and glancing at the screen. "Why do they look funny".

But then again, she has seen the original predator a few times.

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Well ALOT of people think its a step forward....

This immediately brings to mind the all-time mother quote, "And if everyone else was jumping off of a cliff, would you?"


...just because "ALOT" (evidence? source?) of people think something is good doesn't mean that it is, or that another option isn't viable.

[DNinja]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

That being said, I have to ask supporters of excessive DNR which of the following beliefs they would call idiotic, or label the person professing them an idiot:

- Pan and Scan is superior to wide screen.

I would definitely think someone is an idiot for thinking that chopping parts of a movie off to fit your screen is a good idea.

Originally Posted by Post Prod

- HD doesn't offer much over SD
- Upgrading to Blu-ray from DVD isn't worth it

Some people can't tell the difference or don't care. DVD is fine for them. It doesn't make them idiots.

Originally Posted by Post Prod

- All black and white films should be colorized
- All foreign films should be over dubbed with English tracks

As an extra I don't have a problem with this. As the only version of the movie available this is a horrible idea.

Originally Posted by Post Prod

- TV speakers are just as good as surround sound

Unless a person is deaf, they are an idiot for thinking this.

Originally Posted by Post Prod

- Streaming a movie on an Iphone is just as enjoyable as seeing it in the theater

There's nothing wrong with watching movies on the go, but I doubt anyone actually enjoys it as much as watching it on a larger screen.

[tilapiah6]

Originally Posted by Johnothan Pedak

If you're showing Predator to children, DNR is the least of your problems.

I chuckled over this. And I agree!

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Johnothan Pedak

If you're showing Predator to children, DNR is the least of your problems.

Dude, this is a f@cking training video for my children!!!! I have my 3 and 5 year olds watch this movie 2wice a day. Once in the morning and once in the evening. When those Ugly Motherf@ckers come down again going for more prey my children will be able to take them one on one no problems. You got to study your enemy and catalog his weakness.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

- Pan and Scan is superior to wide screen. DISAGREE
- HD doesn't offer much over SD QUESTIONABLE
- Upgrading to Blu-ray from DVD isn't worth it QUESTIONABLE
- All black and white films should be colorized DISAGREE
- All foreign films should be over dubbed with English tracks QUESTIONABLE (no for live-action, yes for animated foreign films)
- TV speakers are just as good as surround sound QUESTIONABLE
- Streaming a movie on an Iphone is just as enjoyable as seeing it in the theater QUESTIONABLE
-

The questionables from above can go both ways depending who you are - a blu-ray nut or an average joe with an HDTV.

No one should be screaming and calling names at each other. The DNR debate is nowhere at the same level as Pan & Scan and colorizing black&white films.

The DNR issue is more about blu-ray nuts versus average joes with HDTVs.

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by tilapiah6

I chuckled over this. And I agree!

I don't agree, rated R films can be fine, depends on the movie and the kid.

Unless when you say "Predator" you are referring to a nickname for your genitals. Then yes, I agree showing that to kids is a bad idea.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by aramis109

This immediately brings to mind the all-time mother quote, "And if everyone else was jumping off of a cliff, would you?"


...just because "ALOT" (evidence? source?) of people think something is good doesn't mean that it is, or that another option isn't viable.

nope.....I thought it looked good before I saw everybody chiming in.Its nice to see people agree with me though.

[DNinja]

Originally Posted by wormraper

dude, this is a f@cking training video for my children!!!! I have my 3 and 5 year olds watch this movie 2wice a day. Once in the morning and once in the evening. When those ugly motherf@ckers come down again going for more prey my children will be able to take them one on one no problems. You got to study your enemy and catalog his weakness.

lmao!