Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Dragon Lee]

Originally Posted by wormraper

no offense, it doesn't matter what any of us THINK it would have turned out. But without McT's DIRECT supervision of a new transfer any alterations SHOULD NOT BE. it is not what should/could have been, but what IS

Absolutely, if Mc T was directly involved, it wouldve been great. But to be fair, no alterations were made. If ur suggesting that by scrubbing it clean and tweeking the colors is infact altering the director's vision, thats simply not true. Lets say that Mc T were involved and the transfer still turned out the way it did, what would u say then?

[42041]

Originally Posted by mars396

no one else can offer a solution ?

A solution? First you need a problem A handful of people unhappy about how a film looks is not that. You're never going to please everyone.
There is a version of the film somewhere out in analog-land that the filmmakers signed off on and sent to the lab to be printed. That is the DEFINITIVE version of predator. No second one is necessary. Bring that to the home theater in perfect 4K-transfer/high-bitrate AVC fidelity.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by wormraper

lol, most of the people I talk to don't know the difference, and once I educate them 90% of them say "oh really, ok, I understand" just like how pan n scan vs. widescreen went on in the day when people I know complained about black bars. the last 10% are the people I treat like ignorant children. slowly coddle and support them along till they are educated

OK here are some of my estimated stats:

50% of the people in my life see no need to own a movie at all. They catch a movie on whatever pan&scan SD channel it’s on and watch the last 20 minutes one day, and middle a few weeks later, and then someday the beginning. My wife does this. Pan & Scan ? Who cares, it’s the same movie! Drives me NUTS. How many times do I catch her watching the SD feed of an HD Channel ? I wait for the commercial and change it to the HD version. She is totally indifferent.
There is one guy, one of my brothers-in-law, who despises both the movie theatre and DVDs. He subscribes to every Premium Channel cable offers, and claims to be a film lover. He has seen A LOT more movies than me, and also loves grain. I put on a few minutes of Avatar for him to sample Blu-ray goodness, and he walked out of the room “I hate all this fake crap you watch” “It doesn’t even look like film!” But, he does hate SD and pan&scan, so he isn’t all bad.
These 50% (including my theatre-hating bro-in-law) consider the concept of owning movies a mental illness; a form of hoarding.


40% (estimated) buy DVDs.
One (my cousin-in-law) buys DVDs everytime he wants to see a movie. He figures, by the time he either buys a movie ticket, or rents a DVD and pays late fees, he can own it. He has A LOT of DVDs. I showed him a Blu-ray. He says “My eyes are so bad, I can’t see the difference. Not worth it for me.”
My brother’s wife buys him DVDs all the time. She never looks at the coverart to see if it is pan&scan or widescreen. Drives me NUTS. Sometimes, they start watching a new DVD, get halfway, and realize that they already own it; then they give it to me.
The people in this group are very happy with DVD, and see no need to upgrade to another format. I have shown them Blu-ray, but none of them thought it was enough of an upgrade to warrant the expense of new players and movies they already own. And most of these people have multiple players, including ones in their minivans, so Blu-ray is a hard sell to them.



9%(estimated) of the people I know get the concept of Blu-ray and want it presented as clear and bold as possible. They avoid catalog releases as they think “It wasn’t filmed in HD !!” I have educated them, but they still prefer their Blu-rays to look clear, and crisp, and vivid. This is the group I am in as well. (The exceptions, to me, of course are films like Grindhouse, 300, etc where the grain is part of the experience.)


1% are you guys. “Don’t change a single frame of this for home presentation: It must must MUST look like it did in the movie theatre. Even though it is compressed onto Blu-ray and being shown on a digital screen. It must approximate to the best of Blu-ray’s abilities the “film” look.

[al cos.]

Dear Diary...

[Volume11]

The comparison shots at AVS look absolutely horrendous and I can't fathom ANYONE defending the terrible and waxy images that dominate the UHE...

Seriously, why would anyone even try to debate that horrible transfer as being what the people want?

[mars396]

Originally Posted by Volume11

The comparison shots at AVS look absolutely horrendous and I can't fathom ANYONE defending the terrible and waxy images that dominate the UHE...

Seriously, why would anyone even try to debate that horrible transfer as being what the people want?

I apologize for re-posting this, but as this thread is at 203 pages, I will.


I really honestly tried to understand this hatred for Predator UHE.

I have watched it several times now.

In particular, I wanted to see these so-called "waxy" faces. I just do not see them on my 37" LCD. The General had stubble and pores, Carl Weathers was not melting, and Arnold's shirt looked like, well, a shirt. And I am not sitting too far away. I purposefully got off the couch and went a few inches from my LCD, and they all looked nice, and clear and beautiful. Yes, there are a fair number of shots that are out-of-focus. I do not believe the DNR did that. I think that without the grain to hide it, those out-of-focus shots were always there, just hidden.

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 artifically create these horrible shots.


Or perhaps, it is my equipment. And please, I am not trying to be a "martyr for the everyman", but a realist: I think now that Blu-ray has gone mainstream, that this was targeted to guys like me, with inexpensive equipment. I'd hate to see this release become the norm, because even though I prefer it, there are many (particularly here) who despise it.
I would prefer that we get a dual release per Blu-ray: one for the people with high-end equipment, and one for us Bottom Feeders. But, everyone is tired of me saying that, I am sure. And a lot of you are just tired of me, period.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Dragon Lee

Absolutely, if Mc T was directly involved, it wouldve been great. But to be fair, no alterations were made. If ur suggesting that by scrubbing it clean and tweeking the colors is infact altering the director's vision, thats simply not true. Lets say that Mc T were involved and the transfer still turned out the way it did, what would u say then?

actually unless told otherwise , scrubbing like it was DOES alter it. Film grain IS film. Literally. it's the same effect as if someone came in and started cutting pieces of the film out that they didn't like with a butcher knife and then smearing paste over cut out parts to hide the knife marks. If McT came in and personally approved it that's another story. Until then any altering is butchery

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by mars396

no one else can offer a solution ? (other than the standard copy-and-paste "That's the way is was, that's the way it should be now" attitude of most of this Forum)

this is said with all respect, but you have to understand that you're the vocal minority in a forum dedicated to enthusiasts. You've come into an area of film enthusiasts who are trying (for the most part) to stick to the "purist" guidelines as you put it. when you're throwing out theories that are a slap in the face those standards you've got to realize that you're going to get some serious disagreement here.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by wormraper

this is said with all respect, but you have to understand that you're the vocal minority in a forum dedicated to enthusiasts. You've come into an area of film enthusiasts who are trying (for the most part) to stick to the "purist" guidelines as you put it. when you're throwing out theories that are a slap in the face those standards you've got to realize that you're going to get some serious disagreement here.

I appreciate the honestly and certainly the respect.

But, respectfully, the last time I checked, the banner on the top of this page reads Bluray.com Forum not grainyfilms.com

Nothing I am posting (with some exceptions that I am deeply embarrased about, and was suspended for, and humbly apologized for) is meant as a slap in the face, but ideas for discussion. I am NOT trolling, I am trying to find the solution.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by mars396

I appreciate the honestly and certainly the respect.

But, respectfully, the last time I checked, the banner on the top of this page reads Bluray.com Forum not grainyfilms.com

Nothing I am posting (with some exceptions that I am deeply embarrased about, and was suspended for, and humbly apologized for) is meant as a slap in the face, but ideas for discussion. I am NOT trolling, I am trying to find the solution.

*sigh, it's NOT a grain loving view, it's a view that films should be seen and preserved in their original state. A film like Avatar shouldn't have grain added to it by a studio, I would be up in arms over that as much as them taking out the grain in predator. Blu-ray is nothing but a medium, a formless disc that takes on whatever content is put on that blank disc, nothing more.

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by mars396

I apologize for re-posting this, but as this thread is at 203 pages, I will.


I really honestly tried to understand this hatred for Predator UHE.

I have watched it several times now.

In particular, I wanted to see these so-called "waxy" faces. I just do not see them on my 37" LCD. The General had stubble and pores, Carl Weathers was not melting, and Arnold's shirt looked like, well, a shirt. And I am not sitting too far away. I purposefully got off the couch and went a few inches from my LCD, and they all looked nice, and clear and beautiful. Yes, there are a fair number of shots that are out-of-focus. I do not believe the DNR did that. I think that without the grain to hide it, those out-of-focus shots were always there, just hidden.

Again, it must be my equipment. And please, I am not trying to be a "martyr for the everyman", but a realist: I think now that Blu-ray has gone mainstream, that this was targeted to guys like me, with inexpensive equipment. I'd hate to see this release become the norm, because even though I prefer it, there are many (particularly here) who despise it.
I would prefer that we get a dual release per Blu-ray: one for the people with high-end equipment, and one for us Bottom Feeders. But, everyone is tired of me saying that, I am sure. And a lot of you are just tired of me, period.

Nonsense. Even on a 32' Vizio you will clearly be able to see the waxy and detail smeared DNR hackjob the UHE has been given.

And, as Wormy pointed out, it has nothing to do with liking or disliking grain but preserving the film in a respectable way concerning how it originally looked.

Likewise, grain is part of the image...some film stock, lenses and techniques (even in a digital PP style akin to 300) make it more apparent but grain IS part of the image...which is why DNR NEVER looks good...adding DNR smears the image, hence the waxy faces and loss of detail.

I really feel like you are playing the ultimate devil's advocate that has gone so far down the rabbit hole that you have no choice but to blindly defend your stance because changing it will make you look foolish. Look at those nasty screen shot comparisons over at AVS linked above. The difference is disgustingly apparent and the UHE looks far worse, period. It has nothing to do with loving grain or not loving it...

Also, no retailer in their right mind wants to carry confusing multiple editions of the same film. Its one thing to have a bare bones version and a director's cut or collector edition in special packaging but to have two separate releases featuring two separate encodes is too costly and confusing, and too much of a space hog...

Also, most TVs, even low end cheap ones offer some form of DNR that you manually control. If you like it so much you can use that tool and save everyone the trouble of multiple editions and anti-grain rants.

[al cos.]

Originally Posted by mars396

I am NOT trolling, I am trying to find the solution.

A solution has already been offered. Leave the movies alone. Now it's your turn to offer a better solution that is actually doable. (keeping in mind that at least some directors will never sign off on two separate transfers and they can't be released without their approval).

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by wormraper

*sigh, it's NOT a grain loving view, it's a view that films should be seen and preserved in their original state. A film like Avatar shouldn't have grain added to it by a studio, I would be up in arms over that as much as them taking out the grain in predator. Blu-ray is nothing but a medium, a formless disc that takes on whatever content is put on that blank disc, nothing more.

+1
The debate seems to only be about grain vs. no-grain and DNR. What really confuses and disappoints me about the UHE is the complete tonal change of the movie due to the "new" transfer's excessive over-brightening.

It's lamentable for all of the grain to be scrubbed away and have a 'motion-flow simulator' forced on the viewer, but it's unforgivable to have the 3rd act look like it takes place in broad daylight. WTF?

If people don't want grain, I understand (but disagree). If people don't like the way the movie was lit, watch a different movie and leave us Predator fans alone. Don't go around saying that kind of tinkering is necessary or some kind of improvement.

I have been a lifelong fan of John McTiernan's Predator, not Wal-Mart's Predator.

[supercutz]

The only REAL solution is to refuse to buy either version.

Truth is Predator could look a hell of a lot better than the 2008 or UHE versions. Both attempts by Fox are halfass so why reward them by buying their products. Predator has spawned an entire franchise that continues to grow to this day so the original deserves a hell of a lot better treatment than what Fox is committed to spend. The movie deserves a full restoration, nothing less.

Confession: I'm one of the tools that bought both versions upon their initial release because I'm a Predator fan so I admit I'm part of the problem. But for those that haven't yet and have more willpower than me, speak with your wallets. That's the only way for Fox to pay attention.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by mars396

But, respectfully, the last time I checked, the banner on the top of this page reads Bluray.com Forum not grainyfilms.com

As explained numerous times before, this isn't about grain. It's about detail. When the grain is removed, detail is removed.

If someone doesn't care about the extra detail that Blu-Ray can provide, they should save their money and stick to DVDs.

[720pDude]

Originally Posted by aramis109

So it's ok for you and those who agree with you to discuss it but for folks who disagree with it need to "stop complaining"?

Boy, you should write a chapter in "How to Win Friends and Influence People".

The travesty here is that if they would've just toned down the DNR they'd have a fantastic version- superior to the current UGH .... I mean UHE and the original 2008 release.

No..its the ***** ass whining saying inane crap to those who like this new one, like..hey dont know anything, they are grain haters, they are screwing us over by buying this and thats gonna keep fox from re issuing, etc...thats the ***** ass whining Im going against.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by 720pDude

No..its the ***** ass whining saying inane crap to those who like this new one, like..hey dont know anything, they are grain haters, they are screwing us over by buying this and thats gonna keep fox from re issuing, etc...thats the ***** ass whining Im going against.

It was ***** ass whining that got us the UHE transfer in the first place. Check the history.

[mars396]

OK thanks guys; positive and helpful.

Oh, and respectful, too - forgot that one.

This is the Best Forum on the Web !

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Are there any other solutions that are cost effective for the studios out there?

Be positive and creative please.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

It was ***** ass whining that got us the UHE transfer in the first place. Check the history.

It is more probable that the opening of Predators was more instrumental in the UHE release than any whining about the 2008 release. UHE is essentially a promo for Predators packaged with $10.00 movie money. Pop in the BD and the first up is the Predators trailer. There are no other coming attractions. Predators, which has been well received, in turn, is driving additional sales of Predator UHE which has been in the top 20 BD sales for the past two weeks. Week ending July 4 it was 13. Week ending July 11 it was 16. I suspect that Fox is happy with that result. I doubt that they even notice the non-support of the videophile minority.

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/top...ek-ended-71110

I think the only answer to this issue about purity is to convince the studios that it will be profitable to release a videophile edition. The Criterion Collection and the Sapphire Series seem to be attempts to address your preferences. At least the studios are responding quickly to issues such as the audio synch problem with SPR.

I am convinced that the "look" of the UHE edition is intentional. Some have pointed to the screenshot comparisons of Arnie and the General at the beginning of the disc. I believe that was caused more by bad makeup as confirmed by the director's commentary on the disk. He makes mention of the need to add layer upon layer of makeup to the General's face. He said the actor was miscast and too old for the part. Adding the extra makeup was how they tried to address that issue. I believe someone said the same commentary is on the DVD, but not the 2008 'bare bones' edition.

The studios are going to follow the money. The money comes from the mass market and thats growing just fine.

[TheZoof]

Watched the 2008 blu version last night with the wife. We had watched Predators on Monday night so she wanted to see the original again.

Man did it ever rock.