Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

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.

Not the point of the list, again..
It wasn't to get everyones feedback on it like a set of bullet points. It was to illustrate, here are other things people would call "opinions" about film presentation. They are all by definition, no more/less matters of taste than the application of DNR. If you feel one item on the list is more important than another, that is also, a matter of your taste, but not a scientific fact.


My fear, with the bicker war going on is that people would skim the list and then just have a knee-jerk reaction of debating which item on the list is most important. It's all in the eye of the consumer. The point was for us to realize we do have common ground. and for people to ease up on calling others idiots, and/or calling people picky nerd snobs.

[persuazion]

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.

this site gave Patton a 5 out of 5 for pq.....I guess you are dismissing this sites opinion also then? I put them up because people are acting like EVERY single review on the internet is trashing it.......thats not true.What you want to call a reputable sight is up for debate.

[raygendreau]

Picked it up at Best Buy yesterday. A space saver with all the extras on the one disk. Grain lovers, go eat your Wheaties. PQ is acceptable considering a net cost of about $5.00 Just printed out my $10 Movie Money certificate and am patiently waiting for Predators on the 9th of July.

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by persuazion

this site gave Patton a 5 out of 5 for pq.....I guess you are dismissing this sites opinion also then? I put them up because people are acting like EVERY single review on the internet is trashing it.......thats not true.What you want to call a reputable sight is up for debate.

Fact is, people on both sides are using reviews, polls or perceived public opinion to validate their points. Yes online review sites are not exactly a scientific measurement of where one should fall in this debate. That being said, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone in the technical wing of the industry that would give this presentation or anything with excessive DNR a favorable review. That doesn't make their opinions more right, they're just people after-all. But a group that trends against such practices in general.

It's a matter of taste. and if they replaced the movie soundtrack with a new one composed by Dashboard Confessional, it's quality would also be a matter of taste.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

Not the point of the list, again..
It wasn't to get everyones feedback on it like a set of bullet points. It was to illustrate, here are other things people would call "opinions" about film presentation. They are all by definition, no more/less matters of taste than the application of DNR. If you feel one item on the list is more important than another, that is also, a matter of your taste, but not a scientific fact.


My fear, with the bicker war going on is that people would skim the list and then just have a knee-jerk reaction of debating which item on the list is most important. It's all in the eye of the consumer. The point was for us to realize we do have common ground. and for people to ease up on calling others idiots, and/or calling people picky nerd snobs.

Yeah, I know, but people love questionares and making bullet points!

I understand what you are talking about. "Freedom fighter in one country vs Terrorist in another" concept.

I have the same argument when it comes to how schools around the world teach history. Most countries teach history from the perspective of their own country. If I was in charge of teaching history, I would be teaching how many countries view their history, instead of just USA's perception of their history. For example, USA teaches Americans that we won WW2. Russia teaches Russians that they won WW2. It doesn't matter who won. What should be taught to children is that there are many perspectives from different countries and we should learn about all of them. The style of teaching has been the "everything is black & white / I'm right-You're wrong" style of teaching. The way history is taught right now is only reinforcing people to get all gung-ho/proud/ultra patriotic about one's own country, which further enforces violence and wars. People should be taught to be patriotic of the whole world, not just patriotic to their own country.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

Fact is, people on both sides are using reviews, polls or perceived public opinion to validate their points. Yes online review sites are not exactly a scientific measurement of where one should fall in this debate. That being said, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone in the technical wing of the industry that would give this presentation or anything with excessive DNR a favorable review. That doesn't make their opinions more right, they're just people after-all. But a group that trends against such practices in general.

It's a matter of taste. and if they replaced the movie soundtrack with a new one composed by Dashboard Confessional, it's quality would also be a matter of taste.

Yeah I guess it depends on what type of person you are......If I was somebody who analyzes the transfers to find any and all flaws and wants to uphold director's intent no matter what the cost....I would be more inclined to agree with the sites trashing it......now If I was just a normal movie watcher who thinks it looks great and its the best it has ever looked for home viewing so far.......I would agree with the "Joe6 pack" reviews.....which I do.

[tilapiah6]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

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.

There is a thing that children do not and cannot provide, and that's consent to watching something that's clearly designed for adult viewing. Now, I am referring to children that are very young, like 6, as my daughter is. She's incredibly smart, but no child should be subjected to seeing skinned people hanging from trees. Children haven't developed enough to have the mental capacity to distinguish between reality and fantasy enough to allow them to view things involving blood and gore. This is the very reason for a rating system.

Now, I agree that it depends on the movie. In this case, we're talking about a rather gruesome movie, so God help the small child that you allow to see this movie. The poor thing will likely have nightmares for weeks.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by JasonR

I would advise posters to post their opinion of this release, and not get into arguments. Continued posting and belittling on either side will be seen as trolling the thread.

How could anyone find any relevant information in all of this crap?

thank you!

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by tilapiah6

There is a thing that children do not and cannot provide, and that's consent to watching something that's clearly designed for adult viewing. Now, I am referring to children that are very young, like 6, as my daughter is. She's incredibly smart, but no child should be subjected to seeing skinned people hanging from trees. Children haven't developed enough to have the mental capacity to distinguish between reality and fantasy enough to allow them to view things involving blood and gore. This is the very reason for a rating system.

Now, I agree that it depends on the movie. In this case, we're talking about a rather gruesome movie, so God help the small child that you allow to see this movie. The poor thing will likely have nightmares for weeks.

I was 8 when I saw it with my Dad at the movies and I remember going home and playing "Predator" in the backyard with all my friends....I never once woke up screaming about skinned people....its not like its Flowers Of Flesh and Blood......it was just a blockbuster action filled 80's flick. I think alot of people dont really give their child enough credit when it comes to violent films.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by tilapiah6

Now, I agree that it depends on the movie. In this case, we're talking about a rather gruesome movie, so God help the small child that you allow to see this movie. The poor thing will likely have nightmares for weeks.

an interesting topic, but good for another thread. Let's get back to ripping and praising the Predator blu-ray!

All I meant when I said "(with wives and girlfriends and children, hypothetically)", I was trying to separate normal people (in relationships and/or with children) from the home theater fanatics (who would rather snuggle up to a Dark Night blu-ray batcycle limited edition exclusive instead of a woman).

[Porkchop Express]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

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.




-

I was only commenting on a joke. Thanks for the half page response about DNR

[persuazion]

We need one more to get to 90......whos it gonna be?

[Porkchop Express]

Originally Posted by persuazion

We need one more to get to 90......whos it gonna be?

[Nick666]

Originally Posted by tilapiah6

Now, I agree that it depends on the movie. In this case, we're talking about a rather gruesome movie, so God help the small child that you allow to see this movie. The poor thing will likely have nightmares for weeks.

I was about 6-7 years old when my father took me to see it. Its the first memory I have of watching a movie (specifically I remember Predator's hand checking out the scorpion, I even remember thinking to myself "wooow yee its a monster movie, thats the hand of a monster") . I was so happy when dad took me to see it a second time , and there was a third time also, it made such an impact on my dad, he wanted to see it multiple times. Those are some of the most cherrished memories in my childhood, and my dad is a part of them. No nightmares on my part or anything like that. It became my favourite movie .

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by porkchop express

90 is a good number....even if we never go further then that I feel that we fought the good fight.

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by Porkchop Express

I was only commenting on a joke. Thanks for the half page response about DNR

It's a shame if that's all you saw in my post.

and call me an old fuddy duddy, but I would support a government banning of emoticons.

[olivehead]

i watched most of the new blu ray last night. sorry, but it looks fine to me. i hesitate to use the word "good" given the nature of the debate thus far. but it is interesting to say the least to see this movie for the first time ever without the haze of grain. someone will i'm sure "correct" me on this, but it seems to me that with so much grain, how can you see all that detail that is supposedly obliterated by too much DNR? seems at worst, this version has traded some detail for color and contrast "improvements" (go easy on me fellas). personally, i'd love to see a version of aliens with this treatment (maybe toned down a notch), which on dvd is possibly the grainiest movie i've ever seen. all that grain is a product of the film stock at the time, i think, not director's intent or how the movie "is supposed to look." had either of those films been shot anamorphic in 1979 (alien) or 1982 (blade runner), i suspect you'd be seeing far less grain given the film stock at that earlier time. just once, i'd like to see aliens without all that grain, just for its own sake. that said, i wouldn't chunk my dvd as i acknowledge that that version is probably closer to the theatrical image than would be found on such a DNR'd version.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

It's a shame if that's all you saw in my post.

and call me an old fuddy duddy, but I would support a government banning of emoticons.

no......not the emoticons,what did they ever do to you?

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Yeah, I know, but people love questionares and making bullet points!

I understand what you are talking about. "Freedom fighter in one country vs Terrorist in another" concept.

I have the same argument when it comes to how schools around the world teach history. Most countries teach history from the perspective of their own country. If I was in charge of teaching history, I would be teaching how many countries view their history, instead of just USA's perception of their history. For example, USA teaches Americans that we won WW2. Russia teaches Russians that they won WW2. It doesn't matter who won. What should be taught to children is that there are many perspectives from different countries and we should learn about all of them. The style of teaching has been the "everything is black & white / I'm right-You're wrong" style of teaching. The way history is taught right now is only reinforcing people to get all gung-ho/proud/ultra patriotic about one's own country, which further enforces violence and wars. People should be taught to be patriotic of the whole world, not just patriotic to their own country.

Completely off topic, but you should check out the book "History Lessons" if you haven't yet. It sounds right up your alley. as it was mine.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by olivehead

i watched most of the new blu ray last night. sorry, but it looks fine to me. i hesitate to use the word "good" given the nature of the debate thus far. but it is interesting to say the least to see this movie for the first time ever without the haze of grain. some one will i'm sure "correct" me on this, but it seems to me that with so much grain, how can you see all that detail that is supposedly obliterated by too much DNR? seems at worst, this version has traded some detail for color and contrast "improvements" (go easy on me fellas). personally, i'd love to see a version of aliens with this treatment (maybe toned down a notch), which on dvd is possibly the grainiest movies i've ever seen. all that grain is a product of the film stock at the time, i think, not director's intent or how the movie "is supposed to look." just once, i'd like to see aliens without all that grain, just for its own sake. that said, i wouldn't chunk my dvd as i acknowledge that that version is probably closer to the theatrical image than would be such a DNR'd version on blu ray.

dont hesitate because of the comments in this thread.....if you think it looks GOOD, then stand up and shout it!