Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Robert George]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

What a sad show of ignorance on the matter trying to pass for wit...

Really? I consider his attempt at humor to not be that far off the mark for some of the ridiculous positions that some people are taking on this issue.

Extremism is always extremism, no matter which end of the spectrum.

[DetroitSportsFan]

DVD Talk review

Video

"If there's grain, we can kill it."

Look, if you managed to dig up this review, chances are that you've already stumbled across a slew of screenshot comparisons and long-winded rants about how badly mauled this re-release of Predator is on Blu-ray. If not...well, just click on these screenshots to get a sense of what passes for a remaster at Fox these days.

The smart money says those abysmal shots are all the review you really need.

Just to get this out of the way, Predator has never been a film that sparkled and gleamed. This is a movie I've owned on Laserdisc, DVD, and twice now on Blu-ray, and I'd be terrified to guess how many times I've caught it on cable. Up until now, in every single one of those presentations, black levels have always been all over the map, the weight of its film grain varies wildly from one shot to the next, and the movie even has trouble staying in focus. No matter how much money Fox chucked at a remaster, Predator is a movie that will never score a perfect rating on a DVD or Blu-ray review site.

When Fox first issued Predator on Blu-ray, there wasn't much of any attempt at cleaning it up. There was a little speckling. The grain inherent in the production of the film -- a stock that doesn't hold up well under low light...one that reportedly couldn't stomach the sweltering heat and humidity of this location shoot -- dominated the image. Fine detail rarely ranked any higher than mediocre. It just looked as if Fox dusted off whatever HD master they'd had sitting on the shelf for years and disinterestedly slapped it on Blu-ray. Even though I know this isn't a movie that'll ever be showcase material for my home theater rig, I couldn't shake the sense that Predator should still look at least a little better than that. Even worse, Fox dumped Predator onto a single-layer Blu-ray disc with an old MPEG-2 encode whose average bitrate hovered around the 19Mbps range. Those are almost the exact same tech specs I'd get from NBC with an antenna plugged straight into my TV, and broadcast HD quality obviously falls short of the benchmarks I've come to expect out of Blu-ray. The compression didn't bug me when I reviewed that initial Blu-ray disc a couple years ago, but I was using a 50" 768p display at the time. Having upgraded to a 60" 9G Kuro Elite since then, I can more clearly see the MPEG-2 encode on the original disc creak and groan.

Reviews for that initial Blu-ray release were mixed, with most of the complaints centered around how grainy the film is. Grain is not inherently a flaw. What detail you can discern in a movie captured on film...that's grain. In the same way that a pixel is the building block of a digital image, so too is grain when it comes to celluloid. The more the grain is filtered away, the less distinct...the less detailed the image will ultimately be. Fox responded to the griping and grousing about the initial gritty Blu-ray release of Predator by digitally pressure-washing away every last trace of grain. This no longer looks like a movie shot on film...it looks like low-rent video. By filtering out the grain, all sense of texture and detail has been drained away too. Edges are frequently smeary and indistinct, kind of like an oil painting. Arnie looks like he's been jabbed in the forehead with a barrel drum of Botox. Instead of being able to pick out individual fibers or subtle textures in clothing -- the sort of intricate details that typically shine on Blu-ray -- a muddy, monochromatic smudge takes its place. Rather than being able to discern the veins and texture on the foliage of the jungle, the overprocessed imagery makes it all look more like a bunch of rubber plants from the discount shelf at Michael's. As inconsistent as Predator has looked in the past, the movie still seemed to settle comfortably into its erratic appearance. This re-release has been scrubbed so raw that when the image falls slightly out of focus, it's so much more jarring now than it used to be. In shots that have always been extremely grainy -- such as Dutch tumbling off a cliff and into the dazzlingly blue water below -- the digital noise reduction is just cranked up that much more, and what's left can be almost completely indiscernable.

One of the frustrating things is that some of the tech specs here are what the initial release of Predator should've had in the first place: a high-bitrate AVC encode with the sort of expansive headroom a BD-50 disc has to offer. With that alone, I bet that early Blu-ray release would've been a lot more warmly received. I'm still impressed by how punchy the colors are compared to the duller, muddier transfers I've watched over and over again in years past. There are even a few scattered moments that genuinely struck me as looking terrific, despite all of this processing, although maybe that's just strictly by comparison. None of that matters. This is embarrassingly shoddy work and scrapes the bottom of the barrel as one of the worst presentations to claw its way to Blu-ray. You are one ugly mother****er.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/43615...unter-edition/

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by Robert George

Really? I consider his attempt at humor to not be that far off the mark for some of the ridiculous positions that some people are taking on this issue.

Extremism is always extremism, no matter which end of the spectrum.

That may be so, but extremism does not equal ignorance nor ungrounded arguments necessarily, and uneducated posts like the one I replied to are completely missing the point.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

That may be so, but extremism does not equal ignorance nor ungrounded arguments necessarily, and uneducated posts like the one I replied to are completely missing the point.

really ?

because everyone is complaining that Predator does not appear on their 21st Century digital HD screens exactly as it looked projected onto a movie theatre screen in 1987, and my entire point is that everything about home presentation represents a change, an IMPROVEMENT, to that original experience.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

DVD Talk review



http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/43615...unter-edition/

They also said Gladiator looked good and most viewers would be happy with it......

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by mars396

really ?

because everyone is complaining that Predator does not appear on their 105" digital plasma HD screens exactly as it looked on a movie theatre screen in 1987, and my entire point is that everything about home presentation represents a change, an IMPROVEMENT, to that original experience.

I thought your post was very funny and agree with what you're saying to an extent, and yes, a lot of BDs represent an improvement over film prints in the theaters - but only when done properly. I mean there are a ton of GREAT looking Blu-rays out there that look remarkably film-like and not "digital" which I think is the issue. If they would have improved this new Predator in certain areas (even with some tasteful, therapeutic DNR in areas needed), but kept the movie looking film-like so that it largely retained its original "soul" I don't think there would be an issue and that's what most people are complaining about.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I thought your post was very funny and agree with what you're saying to an extent, and yes, a lot of BDs represent an improvement over film prints in the theaters - but only when done properly. I mean there are a ton of GREAT looking Blu-rays out there that look remarkably film-like and not "digital" which I think is the issue. If they would have improved this new Predator in certain areas (even with some tasteful, therapeutic DNR in areas needed), but kept the movie looking film-like so that it largely retained its original "soul" I don't think there would be an issue and that's what most people are complaining about.

Nailed it.

[sonicyogurt]

Originally Posted by persuazion

They also said Gladiator looked good and most viewers would be happy with it......

Those were written by two completely different people.

[Peerless]

The eternal thread.
Forget about labels ("grain-lovers", "DNR-lovers") and let's just stick to what we trully are. Movie lovers.
People shouldn't be attacking each other. You shouldn't be mad about someone's prefference, no matter how right you are (or think you are).
I tried to give my personal opinion of what i thought about the release, soon after i was attacked, discredited. Others have been insulted, laughed at, etc...
This question goes to all the folks who aren't happy with this release:
Did you do something about it? I mean, attacking people aren't getting you anywere... Not all of you, but some of you know who you are and that you went a step too far with some comments... That's a bit unsettling.
Is there an email adress people can use to present their discontent to the studio? If so, please post it here so others can contribute.
Redirect your energy to the argument itself, not the argumentators.
It may not help a lot, but at least you'll be fighting the good fight.

[STARSCREAM]

Originally Posted by mars396

I demand that this (and any future Blu-rays) look and sound EXACTLY as it did in a movie theater in 1987 !!!!!!

DO NOT DARE touch a single frame of this – all the flickering hair, and sparkling black dots MUST still be seen in today’s HD Home Theatres ! The bottom portion of the screen must be angled and blurry, as it was in 1987, when the projector was not exactly perfectly aimed onto the screen.

The stop, pause, fast-forward, and rewind buttons must all be disabled, and it will only play on my Blu-ray player at specific times. If I am late, I miss the opening credits ! If I get a snack or use the bathroom, I miss that portion of the film ! That is how a film IS SUPPOSED to be seen !!!! That is the original intent of the Director and the DP !

I demand that an audible POP followed by the jerky back-and-forth image that occurred at each reel change. In fact, because I distinctly remember the exact pixel-by-pixel presentation I saw in 23 years ago, the second reel MUST MUST MUST be slightly out-of-focus. Then after the second POP and back-and-forth jerk, it is in focus for the rest of the presentation.

DO NOT in any way change the sound. IT MUST sound exactly as it did in that theatre in 1987. There should only be sound coming from the left front, and right front speakers. There MUST be the tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat of the projector in the rear channel. I want to hear the occaissional POP and crackling on the soundtrack EXACTLY as I heard it in 1987. In fact, I demand that there be an annoying low hum in the left speaker and the sound of the movie intermitantly go silent on the left side throughout the feature as THAT IS HOW I SAW IT IN 1987 ! As we are going for authenticity, I demand an optional 7.1 soundtrack with people talking, crunching popcorn, laughing at Arnold’s accent, and the squeak-squeak-squeak of the straws on the lids of sodas.

And anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot and hates film and is against the original intent of the director !

HAHAHAHA. Nice.

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by sonicyogurt

Those were written by two completely different people.

Well he dismissed the positive review that Dvdtown put up because the site gave Gladiator a 7/10 for pq....those were also written by two completely different people.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by mars396

really ?

because everyone is complaining that Predator does not appear on their 21st Century digital HD screens exactly as it looked projected onto a movie theatre screen in 1987, and my entire point is that everything about home presentation represents a change, an IMPROVEMENT, to that original experience.

Originally Posted by mars396

Please do enlighten me where I am wrong; I do not wish to live in such ignorance.

Home cinema should not be about "improvement" but about preservation.

People who complain about this and other releases do not want the movie to look and sound as bad as a worn-out print projected in the dingiest theatre of the 80's with a bunch of morons chewing popcorn to replicate the worst possible experience, but as good as a proper, pristine film print would look and sound when projected in the best possible conditions. Period.

Of course, to translate the look and sound of cinema to our screens at home may require some tinkering, because we are talking about quite different technologies here, and that's ok. For example, keeping all the grain from the film print visible on the digital transfer may not be the best idea, because grain is way more apparent on CRT and LCD light-emitting screens than on a theatre's light-reflecting screen, and size and viewing distance are a factor, too. So some grain removal is ok to really offer a watching experience as close as possible to the best film presentation.

But grain scrubbing to the extent shown on this release is way beyond that, transforming the movie image into something else entirely, a waxy, digitized, ugly travesty.

[Member-38928]

Not really a direct Predator question but this question popped in my mind last night.......I wonder if Arnold Schwarzenegger will ever get back into making movies (acting) again? He is a pretty young looking 63 year old , I am not sure when his CA governor job will be over, I think he is in is second term, no?

[mars396]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

Of course, to translate the look and sound of cinema to our screens at home may require some tinkering, because we are talking about quite different technologies here, and that's ok. For example, keeping all the grain from the film print visible on the digital transfer may not be the best idea, because grain is way more apparent on CRT and LCD light-emitting screens than on a theatre's light-reflecting screen, and size and viewing distance are a factor, too. So some grain removal is ok to really offer a watching experience as close as possible to the best film presentation.

Well then we agree 100% then - this is all I have been saying all along.

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

But grain scrubbing to the extent shown on this release is way beyond that, transforming the movie image into something else entirely, a waxy, digitized, ugly travesty.

Well, I just don't see it.

This week I watched the most incredibly beautiful version I have ever seen of one of my absolute favorite films of all time.

The picture from my Predator Blu-ray simply does not look like these screenshots being posted by the Anti-DNR extremists. They really look like the tint, color, sharpness, et all, was all tweaked with to get those horrible shots.


Maybe it is my tiny 37" screen

Maybe I have my HDTV 100% perfectly calibrated

or maybe it is just my untrained, ignorant eyes not knowing any better
if that is the case, then ignorance is indeed bliss.

[blufiend]

Originally Posted by bentvalve

Not really a direct Predator question but this question popped in my mind last night.......I wonder if Arnold Schwarzenegger will ever get back into making movies (acting) again? He is a pretty young looking 63 year old , I am not sure when his CA governor job will be over, I think he is in is second term, no?

Tom Arnold said something about them making True Lies 2 after he leaves office. I'm sure he will do something.

[sharkcohen]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

The shark jumping onto the Orca at the end of Jaws is another perfect example of "emotional logic."

You wouldn't think that if you've seen 20 foot white sharks leap out of the water just 30 feet from your boat. I have

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by sharkcohen

You wouldn't think that if you've seen 20 foot white sharks leap out of the water just 30 feet from your boat. I have

With the premeditated intent to sink your boat and eat you?

[42041]

Originally Posted by mars396

I demand that this (and any future Blu-rays) look and sound EXACTLY as it did in a movie theater in 1987 !!!!!!

Now you're on the right track
But most theaters are lousy places to see a movie and their deficiencies are not within the control of the filmmakers. The "improvements" I want in an HD format includes dust/scratch removal, going back to higher quality sources to bypass the generation loss of theatrical prints, the involvement of the director or the DP in creating a new "authorized" remaster, etc... not a quickie "cleanup" presumably authorized by studio bean counters that destroys the visual feel of the film and any semblance of an analog picture.

[ScuseMe]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I thought your post was very funny and agree with what you're saying to an extent, and yes, a lot of BDs represent an improvement over film prints in the theaters - but only when done properly. I mean there are a ton of GREAT looking Blu-rays out there that look remarkably film-like and not "digital" which I think is the issue. If they would have improved this new Predator in certain areas (even with some tasteful, therapeutic DNR in areas needed), but kept the movie looking film-like so that it largely retained its original "soul" I don't think there would be an issue and that's what most people are complaining about.

Amen

[sharkcohen]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

With the premeditated intent to sink your boat and eat you?

Good point. But, I'd hate to be see the aftermath of one mistakedly landing on the boat. 6000 pounds of flesh vs boat = boat loses