Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[mars396]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

That was 100, you forgot to include your own.

suffice it to say, the word "ignorant" has been as overused in this thread as the DNR was in Predator UHE (if you swing that way)

or


the use of the word "ignorant" is as overly abundant and distracting as the grain in the 2008 Predator (if you swing that way)

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by mars396

OK folks, that was the 98th time the word "ignorant" was posted in this thread.

Should we give a prize to the person who posts the 100th ???


(I am thinking a box of Whole Grain Cereal would be an appropriate prize...)

Hey Mars, I understand,but an "In Your Face" comment is just going to result in a bristling response.

We represent the growing majority of the BD buyers. The videophiles cannot take that away from you. Yet, their positions are valid and defensible and acceptable to me. I understand them, but I don't agree with them. Their aesthetic concept of what a BD movie should be differs from ours. Neither of the concepts is wrong. We aren't ignorant, uninformed or uneducated and we too have the inclination to respond with a bristling retort when it is implied that we are. Just count to ten before you put the fingers on the keyboard



Relax. You belong here. If everybody felt the same way about these issues, this thread would have ended around page 32.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

We represent the growing majority of the BD buyers. The videophiles cannot take that away from you. Yet, their positions are valid and defensible and acceptable to me. I understand them, but I don't agree with them. Their aesthetic concept of what a BD movie should be differs from ours. Neither of the concepts is wrong.

With respect, I think your position is incorrect if your personal preference for how a movie should look is to the point where the image on the disc is altered to suit your tastes by the studio, as this alteration ruins the image quality and makes film look like video, which it should not as BD should look as close to the source as possible. It would be like me arguing that Avatar should have grain added to it on the BD release because I personally prefer a heavy grain look in movies, even though Avatar was shot digitally and therefore did not have any grain.

If you are simply stating a preference for how you want your movies to look like at home and choose to do so without affecting the rest of us by using DNR tools on your TV, I have no problem with that.

[Monkey]

Which version has review higher at Blu-ray.com? just curious


I'd prefer no plastic, no detail scrubbed away and minimal to no grain artifacts as possible in general for movies. However some movies it works but I'd rather see the picture than grain artifacts most of the time. Obviously we can't go back and re-shoot the Wizard of Oz's and take away the plague of flies over the emerald city or the "freckles" all over Dorothy's face and clothes.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

As previously noted...

Sales are sales. Why it is selling is irrelevant. The 2008 version is still available but is not to be found on the list.

The point is this. Showing nonsupport by not buying UHE is just not effective.

[Freekman]

I don't think most people will be buying the 2008 edition simply to boycott the UHE. The only true way to hurt Fox (even if it is insignificant) is to just not purchase any edition.

[mars396]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Hey Mars, I understand,but an "In Your Face" comment is just going to result in a bristling response.

Just count to ten before you put the fingers on the keyboard

Relax.

? ? ? ? ?

not sure where any of this is coming from: I was just injecting some humor into all of this nonsense.

There was no "In your Face" comment posted nor implied, just an observation that a certain word seems to be posted in this thread ALOT. Over a 100 times, and counting.

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Hey Mars, We represent the growing majority of the BD buyers. The videophiles cannot take that away from you. Yet, their positions are valid and defensible and acceptable to me. I understand them, but I don't agree with them. Their aesthetic concept of what a BD movie should be differs from ours. Neither of the concepts is wrong. We aren't ignorant, uninformed or uneducated.

But this, do I understand and agree with. However, I refer to the self-named film enthusiasts as "film buffs" or as they seem to prefer "film enthusiasts". "Videophiles" implies a love of video, which they clearly do not have. If anything, "videophile" better applies to us, as we embrace the technology and improvements that can be applied to home video presentations of films (which they practically equate to murdering children). "Videophiles", they certainly are not.

Ultimately, though, I prefer the terms "film enthusiasts" for those guys and "Blu-ray fans" for guys on this side of the arguement. And that's my 2¢

[sharkcohen]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Do you think if you showed both versions of Predator to a 1st time bluray or high def tv buyer who knew nothing about dnr,grain,directors intent or quality film like presentations,that they would choose the older version over the new one? Be honest now......

Nonsensical. People that don't know better should be educated.

[supercutz]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

It's not an ignorant statement. I know of plenty of people who play games and most (not all) of them hate film grain and often say something like, "Why can't the film be as clear as the PS3 games I play?" They view film grain as video noise/artifacts. Their lifelike games have no grain, so why should movies (in their eyes).

Man, I had several call me up yelling to me about the movie, 300. lol They were really pissed about that one.

Yes it is because I have a lot of PS3 owning friends too and none share your friends opinions/complaints.

Your friends =/= majority

[supercutz]

Originally Posted by sharkcohen

Nonsensical. People that don't know better should be educated.

Even if they are "educated", it won't necessarily mean they would prefer the grainy version. A lot of people, right or wrong, will still prefer the clean (ie scrubbed) version because it gives the illusion that it is improved image quality that justifies their pricey HDTV upgrade.

This is the same argument about P&S vs widescreen. Even after being educated, some consumers still hate the black bars and prefer the image to fill their screen. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter because we are arguing personal taste/preference.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by supercutz

Even if they are "educated", it won't necessarily mean they would prefer the grainy version. A lot of people, right or wrong, will still prefer the clean (ie scrubbed) version because it gives the illusion that it is improved image quality that justifies their pricey HDTV upgrade.

This is the same argument about P&S vs widescreen. Even after being educated, some consumers still hate the black bars and prefer the image to fill their screen. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter because we are arguing personal taste/preference.

Sounds my like trying to persuad their preference to a different liking than education. If you look at two and like one better, that's the end of it. No need to have some snob tell you to prefer a different on instead simply because they feel they are right.

"You sir, will love grain artifacts or else!! " "shame on you for not worshipping images that look like the sky is filled with a plague of flies"

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by singhcr

With respect, I think your position is incorrect if your personal preference for how a movie should look is to the point where the image on the disc is altered to suit your tastes by the studio, as this alteration ruins the image quality and makes film look like video, which it should not as BD should look as close to the source as possible. It would be like me arguing that Avatar should have grain added to it on the BD release because I personally prefer a heavy grain look in movies, even though Avatar was shot digitally and therefore did not have any grain.

If you are simply stating a preference for how you want your movies to look like at home and choose to do so without affecting the rest of us by using DNR tools on your TV, I have no problem with that.

Then, you should like the 2008 collector's edition which you can still purchase for $10 on Amazon.

However, check the difference in bitrate between the 2008 encode and the 2010 encode. Higher bitrate, more potential detail.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1259984

I watched the film in the theater in 1987. I rented and watched the 2008 Collector's Edition in May, 2008 when it was released. I own and have watched the UHE release twice so far. The UHE has far more detail than my recollection of the 2008 edition.

From my perspective, the film grain was a minor annoyance in the 2008 edition. But in the scene where the Predator removes his mask, the UHE edition just flat out decks the 2008 edition.

What "makes" this movie is pacing and the gradual reveal of the predator. When I was in the theater and the mask came off, I crushed the popcorn and whiteknuckled the softdrink. I will never have that same feeling no matter how often I watch the 2008 version. I came close watching the UHE. Why? Because their was MORE detail, not less.

[al cos.]

Eh, it's just the retired couple in 1993 who hates black bars and bought only fullscreen discs. They wanted to properly use their big expensive state of the art (square) TV too. If you want the movie altered from what it actually was, congratulations that's you.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by sharkcohen

Nonsensical. People that don't know better should be educated.

You forgot the emoticon.

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by persuazion

well I thought we were talking about "the masses". It was a question whether the masses who arent videophiles would like a plastic,waxy,dnr'd to death look or if they would prefer a more grainy accurate film representation......I asked which version you think a person who is new to blu and just wanted to show off their hd tv would find more appealing.......

I don't care about insecure d-bags who want to "show off". They can find a different way for others to see them as 'cool'. There are hundreds of other titles that were not filmed as grainy as Predator. Use one of those.

p.s. How many more new arguments are you going to start before this thread dies? Instead of constantly changing the subject, maybe you could sit down and enjoy your new Predator disc again and leave the people who understand and accept the nuts and bolts of filmmaking alone.

[720pDude]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Then, you should like the 2008 collector's edition which you can still purchase for $10 on Amazon.

However, check the difference in bitrate between the 2008 encode and the 2010 encode. Higher bitrate, more potential detail.


From my perspective, the film grain was a minor annoyance in the 2008 edition. But in the scene where the Predator removes his mask, the UHE edition just flat out decks the 2008 edition.

What "makes" this movie is pacing and the gradual reveal of the predator. When I was in the theater and the mask came off, I crushed the popcorn and whiteknuckled the softdrink. I will never have that same feeling no matter how often I watch the 2008 version. I came close watching the UHE. Why? Because their was MORE detail, not less.

You sir are a bright light shining among more than a few dim bulbs who dont get it. (The ones who tell us UHE fans we need to be educated)

[720pDude]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

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

It was the NEW Predators film that sent the studios back to remaster the original. Even if the 08 was perfect they would have STILL found a way to do a double dip and cash in..fortunately for me and others we won out with a VERY GOOD UHE!

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by SpotOn

I don't care about insecure d-bags who want to "show off". They can find a different way for others to see them as 'cool'. There are hundreds of other titles that were not filmed as grainy as Predator. Use one of those.

p.s. How many more new arguments are you going to start before this thread dies? Instead of constantly changing the subject, maybe you could sit down and enjoy your new Predator disc again and leave the people who understand and accept the nuts and bolts of filmmaking alone.

He doesn't need my help answering you but, most of the BD buyers just want to be entertained by the movies they buy. They don't care about the nuts and bolts of moviemaking.

[raygendreau]

I have a solution for those who have looked at screenshots and read the negative reviews, yet still wan't to see UHE and decide for themselves without showing support for it by buying it. Particularly since you have very little credibility if you have not popped UHE into your Oppo, PS3, et al and watched on your calibrated display as I have.

Pick up the phone, as I just did, and suggest that Netflix add UHE to their inventory. Rent both the 2008 and UHE editions and compare to your heart's content. Then buy one, buy both or buy none. At least at that point, you can critique UHE from firsthand experience.

If you have to compare it to the film print itself, well, good luck with that.

I'm going to rent the 2008 collector's edition to do just that since it has been a little more than two years since I last watched it.

Incredible. Over 200 pages for a 1987 catalog grade B movie, by a first time studio director, with a cast that had only one bonafide actor (Carl), that ran out of money 2/3ds of the way through the movie. A director that didn't even have the clout to specify location.

Whether you buy UHE or not, you owe it to yourself to drag out or borrow the DVD or earlier BD and watch it with the commentary and historian's text.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Incredible. Over 200 pages for a 1987 catalog grade B movie, by a first time studio director, with a cast that had only one bonafide actor (Carl), that ran out of money 2/3ds of the way through the movie. A director that didn't even have the clout to specify location.

I can explain why this is:

1) Has Arnold
2) Has lots of firearms
3) Former wrestlers make up a portion of the cast
4) Stan Winston designed The Predator
5) Most importantly, the film has a mini-gun

I think that explains it.