Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[ridergroov1]

Originally Posted by Beast

Not really. It's improved greatly by the Rifftrax though.

http://www.rifftrax.com/rifftrax/predator

That was terrible. I want the last 9 minutes of my life back.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by FendersRule

No.

"Talk to the hand."

[csdot]

Originally Posted by Bolty

If you put down Terminator Salvation again there's going to be a big brawl here.

You know, in 1969, they took my entire 3rd grade class to see Wizard of Oz at the theater and when I saw the recent Blu-ray it looked 'off' and 'over-processed' compared to the way it I remember it in the theater.

yeah but how new was the print you saw? the movie was 30 years old at that point.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Bolty

You asked for it. Two words---Nick Stahl

That's the offspring of Linda Hamilton and Michael Beihn?

Yep, he must have been exposed to all kinds of radiation.

Better than Christian "Batman Growl" Bale. One of the worst actors in a long time.

Guy needs to realize that growl talking like a throat cancer patient doesn't make you badass.

And at least Nick Stahl seemed like a logical progression from Eddie Furlong.

[Spanbauer]

One observation I find very interesting is this: nowhere on the disc's packaging does it say anything about this being a digitally remastered, or visually improved version of the film. One would think that if Fox was particularly proud of what they've done here, they would have pitched as such to consumers.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Spanbauer

One observation I find very interesting is this: nowhere on the disc's packaging does it say anything about this being a digitally remastered, or visually improved version of the film. One would think that if Fox was particularly proud of what they've done here, they would have pitched as such to consumers.

They don't really need to mention it. It'll sell due to being a tie-in for Predators.

That and the movie cash will be more than enough for most people.

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by FendersRule

As a musician for 11 years, I find that people who do not like DMB are not musicians, or are not technical listeners. ALL musicians will like DMB or at least will respect them and will never badmouth them. I find this to be completely true in every example that I have ever seen throughout my life.

There is no denying that DMB's first 3 albums are some of the best albums ever conceived, especially in the context of the 90s (Crash I would argue is the best 90s album, period). Most everything past these three albums have became more mainstream and less technical (for the most part).

Where do you think The Dark Knight got it's musical influence from? How about Two Step? Exact same notes, exact same sound, exact same tempo. It's clearly the intro from Two Step.

Now, enough derailing.

That's hillarious.

I've been a musician for 20 years. I was a music major/music technology major. My current band has been around for about 2 years. I live in a music friendly town, if you throw a stick up in the air it will fall on a guitar player.

and every musician I know hates DMB with a passion.
It's almost a running joke. The only thing I like about him is his choice of guitars and his signature Taylor is a really nice instrument. I hear the same line when people say they don't like Tool about how you need to be a musician. Not to compare Tool to DMB, my drummer loves Tool, I respect 'em just not my bag.

He's just boring and painfully white sounding. and as a lyricist, his lyrics are embarrassing, simply awful.

Give me Ween, Wilco, Tom Waits, Mr Bungle, The Pixies, hell I'll take Jack White in any incarnation before DMB.

It's funny because the people I know that do like DMB, none of them play an instrument.

[csdot]

Originally Posted by Post Prod

That's hillarious.

I've been a musician for 20 years. I was a music major/music technology major. My current band has been around for about 2 years. I live in a music friendly town, if you throw a stick up in the air it will fall on a guitar player.

and every musician I know hates DMB with a passion.
It's almost a running joke. The only thing I like about him is his choice of guitars and his signature Taylor is a really nice instrument. I hear the same line when people say they don't like Tool about how you need to be a musician. Not to compare Tool to DMB, my drummer loves Tool, I respect 'em just not my bag.

He's just boring and painfully white sounding. and as a lyricist, his lyrics are embarrassing, simply awful.

Give me Ween, Wilco, Tom Waits, Mr Bungle, The Pixies, hell I'll take Jack White in any incarnation before DMB.

It's funny because the people I know that do like DMB, none of them play an instrument.

amen.

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by Beast
C'mon. Even Terminator 3 was better than Terminator Salvation.
No.

Oh. Yes.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by Beast

"Talk to the hand."

He looks waxy.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

He looks waxy.

It's Arnold's natural complexion. The film grain just normally hides it.

You see, Terminator is a true story. Arnold really is a cyborg organism from the future.

[MeE]

I've yet to buy Predator UHE but I did just visit Digital Bits where there is supposed to be a side by side comparison of an image from the original release and the new UHE version.

Can anyone tell Me what differences I should be noticing between the two because to Me they look like the same image.

Since my understanding of all things Blu is rather limited, especially when it comes to technical terms and being able to tell the difference between very good and great, I'd appreciate any information from someone who is more in-the-know about these things than I am.

Me

[MaCruz]

Tune in to the last several pages...

https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mo...june-29th.html

[retablo]

Thank you, Bill Hunt, from Digital Bits:

"Let me be perfectly clear: The new Blu-ray is an unmitigated disaster. You remember how awful Patton looked? Well, the new Predator disc is every bit as bad. So much Digital Noise Reduction (the infamous and dreaded 'DNR') has been applied to this disc, that even the sky looks like it was molded from shinny plastic. Fox has actually managed to take a dark, gritty film and make it look like video. Not even high-def video, but old analog video. There is not a speck of grain to be seen anywhere, and hardly a speck of fine image detail either. The subtle textures of clothing, walls, hair, skin - they're nearly all gone. And Fox did this deliberately... It's just deeply disheartening to see a Blu-ray released with shockingly mishandled video like this. But it's even more disheartening that there are apparently so many fans online who don't seem to understand the most basic, most important thing about film restoration and mastering: A FILM SHOULD LOOK LIKE A FILM! Yes, I know that original Predator Blu-ray was full of sometimes coarse grain. But how many of those who complained about it have actually seen Predator projected in a theater? That's how the film looks, guys. That's how it looked on Day One when it hit theaters. It's ALWAYS looked like that - dark, gritty, grainy - the result of choices in film stock and camera process made by director John McTiernan and his cinematographer."

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by retablo

Thank you, Bill Hunt, from Digital Bits:

"Let me be perfectly clear: The new Blu-ray is an unmitigated disaster. You remember how awful Patton looked? Well, the new Predator disc is every bit as bad. So much Digital Noise Reduction (the infamous and dreaded 'DNR') has been applied to this disc, that even the sky looks like it was molded from shinny plastic. Fox has actually managed to take a dark, gritty film and make it look like video. Not even high-def video, but old analog video. There is not a speck of grain to be seen anywhere, and hardly a speck of fine image detail either. The subtle textures of clothing, walls, hair, skin - they're nearly all gone. And Fox did this deliberately... It's just deeply disheartening to see a Blu-ray released with shockingly mishandled video like this. But it's even more disheartening that there are apparently so many fans online who don't seem to understand the most basic, most important thing about film restoration and mastering: A FILM SHOULD LOOK LIKE A FILM! Yes, I know that original Predator Blu-ray was full of sometimes coarse grain. But how many of those who complained about it have actually seen Predator projected in a theater? That's how the film looks, guys. That's how it looked on Day One when it hit theaters. It's ALWAYS looked like that - dark, gritty, grainy - the result of choices in film stock and camera process made by director John McTiernan and his cinematographer."

[Bomberman]

Is this still going on?
Give it a rest, LADIES!!!!
I bought the Predator Ultimate Hunter edition and I think while it does look waxy with some of the characters, overall its pretty damn good. (Pardon my french).

I give it a 4 out of 5. Clarity is there, detail is somewhat lacking, but i am happy overall. Im glad i didnt buy the 2008 edition. I buy HD movies for Stunning picture and sound, not for the directors asthetic choice. While they shouldnt have DNRed it to hell, im glad it looks this way. Take what u can get.

I could care less what reviewers think it should look like, i care about what HD movies are supposed to look like. Beautiful picture, Stunning audio, and robust Extras
Get a life guys and move on.

Its blu ray, not the end of the world

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Bomberman

Is this still going on?
Give it a rest, LADIES!!!!
I bought the Predator Ultimate Hunter edition and I think while it does look waxy with some of the cahracters, overall its pretty damn good. (Pardon my french).

I give it a 4 out of 5. Clarity is there, detail is somewhat lacking, but i am happy overall. Im glad i didnt buy the 2008 edition. I buy HD movies for Stunning picture and sound, not for the directors asthetic choice. While they shouldnt have DNRed it to hell, im glad it looks this way. Take what u can get.

I could care less what reviewers think it should look like, i care about what HD movies are supposed to look like. Beautiful picture, Stunning audio, and robust Extras
Get a life guys and move on.

Its blu ray, no the end of the world

Sad. And completely ignorant of "what HD movies should look like."

[Bomberman]

Originally Posted by retablo

Sad.

Why exactly is that? because i dont agree with u or rather i think we should all just vote with our wallets?

If u dont like the way the film looks, dont buy it.....PERIOD!!!!
If u like the way it looks, then buy it......PERIOD!!!1

What i have gathered from all the bickering is that people who dont like the way the film looks are voicing their opinions and those that do like it are already confused as it due to those that dont like it.

Just let people buy the film.

We get it, U dont like the way it looks, The plus side is that it provides great extras.

[FendersRule]

Originally Posted by retablo

Thank you, Bill Hunt, from Digital Bits:

"Let me be perfectly clear: The new Blu-ray is an unmitigated disaster. You remember how awful Patton looked? Well, the new Predator disc is every bit as bad. So much Digital Noise Reduction (the infamous and dreaded 'DNR') has been applied to this disc, that even the sky looks like it was molded from shinny plastic. Fox has actually managed to take a dark, gritty film and make it look like video. Not even high-def video, but old analog video. There is not a speck of grain to be seen anywhere, and hardly a speck of fine image detail either. The subtle textures of clothing, walls, hair, skin - they're nearly all gone. And Fox did this deliberately... It's just deeply disheartening to see a Blu-ray released with shockingly mishandled video like this. But it's even more disheartening that there are apparently so many fans online who don't seem to understand the most basic, most important thing about film restoration and mastering: A FILM SHOULD LOOK LIKE A FILM! Yes, I know that original Predator Blu-ray was full of sometimes coarse grain. But how many of those who complained about it have actually seen Predator projected in a theater? That's how the film looks, guys. That's how it looked on Day One when it hit theaters. It's ALWAYS looked like that - dark, gritty, grainy - the result of choices in film stock and camera process made by director John McTiernan and his cinematographer."

Truth.

[FendersRule]

Originally Posted by Bomberman

Why exactly is that? because i dont agree with u or rather i think we should all just vote with our wallets?

Just let people buy the film.

Or warn them...