Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[KrugStillo]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Just who I am. I do think that Fox spent a good amount of time and research to provide this new release. Lets think about this for a moment and who their target demographics are for Predators. The sales figures for Avatar in this harsh economical climate. The TV manufacturers to the retailers that have everything on torch mode. Crap settings like "natural motion" etc. Then slap on words like "Ultimate, collectors, special edition, remastered" and you have a winner. Reason why Disney Buena Vista rereleased Gangs of New York was because the demographics and the person buying this movie was totally different.

Valid point. Especially the part about GONY. I'll most likely be picking up this new version of Predator at some point because I no longer own the other and the new one has value added features. I just wish there were some standards like there was with THX back in the day. This way we would know that a certain standard was a seal of approval. All we get are a lot of what ifs and never any real answers. I guess that's the nature of the beast though.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

I used to think this way but now I think it does a disservice to our perceptions of film as an art form and if anything can cause us to expect less of a picture purely because of it's "genre" etc.

It's this way of thinking that causes people to create different standards for film -- at least as an art form. It's now very common for people to give a free pass to poorly made action/popcorn/horror/comedy films.

How many people have gone to a slasher movie and given it a free pass on harsh criticism due to it being "a horror movie" etc -- despite the fact that the genre has been proven to be capable of delivering finely crafted works of fiction (The Blair Witch Project, The Exorcist, Halloween, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre).

I can't count the number of times I hear people say I should forgive bad films because of any number of reasons.. "It's a comedy" "it's an adam sandler movie" it's "a mindless action movie" "it's a slasher flick"

Which is pretty much my point. Most summer movies don't TRY to be anything more than what they are. And that's fine. I don't really adhere to giving things a pass just because they are this or that, but it's nothing new. I'd compare it to, say, the 50s or 60s, where you had big studio films and "B" movies. Most summer films I'd compare to "B" movies - entertaining, but not really meant to be much more than they are.

But that's exactly what I'm saying. As for our perceptions to film, just the fact that we have genres already puts a hamper on that. There ARE different standards based on genre, always have been, and not just in film, but literature as well.

There are cases where a "B" movie is elevated to something more meaningful, but that's because it's trying to be more than just mindless entertainment. Something like "A-Team" this summer, for example, is what it is, and it wears its intention on its sleeve. Popcorn, nothing more. But I wouldn't put in the same class as a Bergman film, for example. Bergman tries to typically use symbolism to parallel our feelings/ideas/ideals, and many times are commentaries on real life. "A-Team" isn't a comment on anything except action, comedy, and fun.

Both are fine, but there IS a distinction, both in intent and execution.

[ridergroov1]

You guys will love this..

http://www.dvdtown.com/review/predator/blu-ray/8207/2

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by Bolty

What i think is very sad is the statement (in effect) of

"You are of course entittled to your opinion, BUT if you prefer the new version you're stupid and not a true film fan and don't understand film and etc"

When the choice is between these two very flawed versions---preferring one over the other says nothing about your film fan credentials.

This is not between a beautiful true to film transfer with some grain and a DNR grainless abomination and then some folks are preferring the grain scrubbed version.

This is between two flawed versions and some prefer a brighter less muddy picture with DNR and others prefer a very grainy 'truer to the theater' version that's nowhere near perfect by any stretch.

This is very true. Based on the screenshots, I prefer the new version. Many are jumping to the conclusion that preferring the new version means you love a DNR'd to death picture; no, I'm willing to tolerate the DNR in exchange for the better encode, contrast, and color.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by KrugStillo

Valid point. Especially the part about GONY. I'll most likely be picking up this new version of Predator at some point because I no longer own the other and the new one has value added features. I just wish there were some standards like there was with THX back in the day. This way we would know that a certain standard was a seal of approval. All we get are a lot of what ifs and never any real answers. I guess that's the nature of the beast though.

YES. Basically what Criterion has to offer but in a broader market.

[MR.0NE-TW0]

i'm just kinda curious i suppose i do own the '08 bare bones blu; got it from wal-mart for like 10 bucks a while back...can anyone tell me if this new copy is worth picking up?

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by MR.0NE-TW0

i'm just kinda curious i suppose i do own the '08 bare bones blu; got it from wal-mart for like 10 bucks a while back...can anyone tell me if this new copy is worth picking up?

Does DNR or digital smudging bother you? don't.
Does grain bother you? Do
Do you love special features? Do


I just got my copy, loathe the vdieo transfer, but hey, I got the special features now. and I guess if there is ever a time a roaming homicidal maniac strays into my house and says "SHOW ME PREDATOR IN HI DEF, but make it waxy", it will save my life.

Here's hoping an international distributor is able to get their hands on a pre-dnr master.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

Does DNR or digital smudging bother you? don't.
Does grain bother you? Do
Do you love special features? Do


I just got my copy, loathe the vdieo transfer, but hey, I got the special features now. and I guess if there is ever a time a roaming homicidal maniac strays into my house and says "SHOW ME PREDATOR IN HI DEF, but make it waxy", it will save my life.

Here's hoping an international distributor is able to get their hands on a pre-dnr master.

LOL so you don't like it but you bought it anyway... which will send the message to the studios to do more catalog titles like this. Wonderful.

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by retablo

LOL so you don't like it but you bought it anyway... which will send the message to the studios to do more catalog titles like this. Wonderful.

I never once claimed to be a sane individual.

[Beast]

I finally popped my copy in after watching Percy Jackson....

Wow. Mindblowing. The jungle is now so lush and vibrant. It looks like a nature documentary.

Not watching it straight through just yet, but that shocked me right off the bat. The screenshots don't do it justice. The old version was so washed out it looked like it was filmed on the backlot with fake trees covered in dust. This looks like you're deep in the actual jungle... surrounded by the splender and beauty of nature. The skinned bodys look like they're actually covered with blood, rather than some old dried meat at the butcher market. And the Predator himself is a beauty to behold in his full glory. Even the blood from our favorite manhunter seems to be more impressive in this version. I'm actually a bit surprised by ow it looks.

As for the human characters, I immediatly went to the often posted scene of Arnie in the Red shirt. Yes, it is probably the worst shot in the entire film. But the original was pretty bad also. Filmed in harsh light with what appears to be a filter, it's no surprise that the shot is problematic here. But outside of that scene, what seem to be calling "Wax", appears to be the sheen of sweat on all of our characters in every other shot.

It really does look quite impressive after all. And grain is still visable in the scenes outside of the one infamous one mentioned about. I would have made the purchase even if I hadn't gotten it for free. Could it have been better, sure. Somewhere in between the two versions would have been preferred. More of the natural grain retained, and a better image due to the higher bitrate. But frankly, I think it looks pretty damn good.

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by Beast

I finally popped my copy in after watching Percy Jackson....

Wow. Mindblowing. The jungle is now so lush and vibrant. It looks like a nature documentary.

Not watching it straight through just yet, but that shocked me right off the bat. The screenshots don't do it justice. The old version was so washed out it looked like it was filmed on the backlot with fake trees covered in dust. This looks like you're deep in the actual jungle... surrounded by the splender and beauty of nature. The skinned bodys look like they're actually covered with blood, rather than some old dried meat at the butcher market. And the Predator himself is a beauty to behold in his full glory. Even the blood from our favorite manhunter seems to be more impressive in this version. I'm actually a bit surprised by ow it looks.

As for the human characters, I immediatly went to the often posted scene of Arnie in the Red shirt. Yes, it is probably the worst shot in the entire film. But the original was pretty bad also. Filmed in harsh light with what appears to be a filter, it's no surprise that the shot is problematic here. But outside of that scene, what seem to be calling "Wax", appears to be the sheen of sweat on all of our characters in every other shot. It really does look quite impressive after all, and I would have made the purchase even if I hadn't gotten it for free. Could it have been better, sure. Somewhere in between the two versions would have been preferred. But frankly, I think it looks pretty damn good.

Those bastards sent me a bad disc!

Well at least you enjoy it, so cheers.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by MR.0NE-TW0

i'm just kinda curious i suppose i do own the '08 bare bones blu; got it from wal-mart for like 10 bucks a while back...can anyone tell me if this new copy is worth picking up?

ummm, well if you look at the majority of the past 1500 or so posts, you'll have your answer!

[Lincoln6Echo]

Originally Posted by MR.0NE-TW0

i'm just kinda curious i suppose i do own the '08 bare bones blu; got it from wal-mart for like 10 bucks a while back...can anyone tell me if this new copy is worth picking up?

Read thru this thread...it's got strong opinions on both sides.

But in short, the movie has been DNR'ed quite heavily which removed almost all grain, and created "waxey-looking" faces, but on the same hand, because the grainhas been removed, you can actually see more detail that was once covered up by the grain. There's a comparison screenshot of Arnie's face (linked to from this thread) at the base camp that shows how this phenomenon worked. Find that link and judge for yourself.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

Those bastards sent me a bad disc!

Well at least you enjoy it, so cheers.

*Chuckles*

I was waiting to see it for myself. Since you can really judge by frozen in time screenshots.

But damn if I wasn't somewhat blown away by what it looks like. I was actually kinda stunned.

The online screenshots do not do the jungle scenes justice. They look breathtaking.

[Lincoln6Echo]

Originally Posted by Beast

I finally popped my copy in after watching Percy Jackson....

Wow. Mindblowing. The jungle is now so lush and vibrant. It looks like a nature documentary.

Not watching it straight through just yet, but that shocked me right off the bat. The screenshots don't do it justice. The old version was so washed out it looked like it was filmed on the backlot with fake trees covered in dust. This looks like you're deep in the actual jungle... surrounded by the splender and beauty of nature. The skinned bodys look like they're actually covered with blood, rather than some old dried meat at the butcher market. And the Predator himself is a beauty to behold in his full glory. Even the blood from our favorite manhunter seems to be more impressive in this version. I'm actually a bit surprised by ow it looks.

As for the human characters, I immediatly went to the often posted scene of Arnie in the Red shirt. Yes, it is probably the worst shot in the entire film. But the original was pretty bad also. Filmed in harsh light with what appears to be a filter, it's no surprise that the shot is problematic here. But outside of that scene, what seem to be calling "Wax", appears to be the sheen of sweat on all of our characters in every other shot.

It really does look quite impressive after all. And grain is still visable in the scenes outside of the one infamous one mentioned about. I would have made the purchase even if I hadn't gotten it for free. Could it have been better, sure. Somewhere in between the two versions would have been preferred. More of the natural grain retained, and a better image due to the higher bitrate. But frankly, I think it looks pretty damn good.

You convinced me, I'll probably pick it up then.

How's the scene after Bill Duke kills the wild boar? That scene was always grainy as hell. Like it was shot on 8mm film.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Beast

I finally popped my copy in after watching Percy Jackson....

Wow. Mindblowing. The jungle is now so lush and vibrant. It looks like a nature documentary.

Not watching it straight through just yet, but that shocked me right off the bat. The screenshots don't do it justice. The old version was so washed out it looked like it was filmed on the backlot with fake trees covered in dust. This looks like you're deep in the actual jungle... surrounded by the splender and beauty of nature. The skinned bodys look like they're actually covered with blood, rather than some old dried meat at the butcher market. And the Predator himself is a beauty to behold in his full glory. Even the blood from our favorite manhunter seems to be more impressive in this version. I'm actually a bit surprised by ow it looks.

As for the human characters, I immediatly went to the often posted scene of Arnie in the Red shirt. Yes, it is probably the worst shot in the entire film. But the original was pretty bad also. Filmed in harsh light with what appears to be a filter, it's no surprise that the shot is problematic here. But outside of that scene, what seem to be calling "Wax", appears to be the sheen of sweat on all of our characters in every other shot.

It really does look quite impressive after all. And grain is still visable in the scenes outside of the one infamous one mentioned about. I would have made the purchase even if I hadn't gotten it for free. Could it have been better, sure. Somewhere in between the two versions would have been preferred. More of the natural grain retained, and a better image due to the higher bitrate. But frankly, I think it looks pretty damn good.

Well see this is where I think you just lost me and where matter of preference and opinion comes in. I personally thought the mpeg2 version of the jungle looked fantastic. STRIKING in fact. Where I wished there was more detail where some of the medium and closeups but after reading what some insiders have said regarding the editing process of this movie, I know it wasn't because of the master used.

Enjoy the movie.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

The new shots look way better than the old:

http://www.avpgalaxy.net/website/art...ay-comparison/

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

As stated yesterday, that's an Alien/Predator fanboy site, so its credibility is doubtful.

Ok since there appears some question, can anyone now with both versions say if these pics are true representations of each ?

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Lincoln6Echo

You convinced me, I'll probably pick it up then.

How's the scene after Bill Duke kills the wild boar? That scene was always grainy as hell. Like it was shot on 8mm film.

There's a lot of smoke moving past the camera during that scene infront of Arnold and the others.

So I have a feeling the heavy grain look of that scene is a combo of both the grain and the smoke meshing together to cause it to look even more grainy. The smoke is still there, and you can actually tell it's smoke from the explosives charge that went off. The grain isn't so thick that it and the smoke manages to become haze obscuring everything. The grain is very light but it is there. All in all it looks pretty good.

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by olivehead

maybe someone who has followed this thread more closely than i can answer this question: has anyone yet mentioned that grain in film, especially in the mid-80s, wasn't necessarily, or even typically, a conscious choice of the filmakers?

You are right in that in the vast majority of cases filmmakers have not WANTED grain to be overly noticable. For most filmmakers it has been an unavoidable evil and it's only been in comparitively recent times that some directors have wanted to use grain creatively. Too many people on forums such as this talk as if most directors want grain whereas, in truth, most directors and cinematogrphers have tried for decades to make their films as grain free as possible.

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

You are right in that in the vast majority of cases filmmakers have not WANTED grain to be overly noticable. For most filmmakers it has been an unavoidable evil and it's only been in comparitively recent times that some directors have wanted to use grain creatively. Too many people on forums such as this talk as if most directors want grain whereas, in truth, most directors and cinematogrphers have tried for decades to make their films as grain free as possible.

and these same directors also have tools available to soften the image if the grain is too harsh for their liking in post.

Seriously though, if someone looks at either of these discs and can use the words "breath taking", I might want to get them some assisted breathing equipment for their home theater. Because if either of these takes your breath away, that breath wasn't long for your lungs to begin with.