Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[ScuseMe]

Originally Posted by KingLeonidas300

I have the 2008 version and will just stick with that one. I have only watched it 2-3 times since I having it and I personally don't need to double dip. To those who will I hope you enjoy the new release.

Very respectfully said, and I totally agree.

I admit that the first time I saw the 2008 edition, the excessive grain really did stand out (and I'm very used to seeing grain). But after a few minutes watching Predator (a movie I'd seen probably over a dozen times in various formats), I really didn't care anymore about the excessive grain. The memorable characters and relentless action took over and the grain became a non-factor. In fact, even now (after viewing the 2008 edition 3 or 4 times) the only time I'm really aware of the excessive grain is when the FOX logo is show (and I think to myself "how in god's name can a corporate logo look any worse ). After that, I just settle into the flow of the movie and let the action drive my mind.

It's been officially stated that Back to the Future will have its grain preserved, so I don't think this UHE is some kind of portend for up-coming BD blockbuster movies. In my opinion it's just a corporate decision that was made, right or wrong, to sell more BD copies. That's all.

Everyone, just enjoy the release you like. Please.

[Inspector Toschi]

Originally Posted by fitprod

If the studios ultimately survive on catalog sale, and sales decline over time, what disc is not a cash grab? Please explain.

fitprod

Uh, there's a new Predator movie coming out? And the only new special features on this disc are interviews with those filmmakers and how the original inspired their version, and we all should see their version in theaters because if it. They even give you a free ticket.

This disc is not a restoration. It's sole purpose is to advertise the new Predators movie, and get people pumped for it. This is virtually standard practice for studios, especially with DVDs.

Am I really explaining this to you?

[toddly6666]

I don't like poorly-made blu-rays, but I think the people that like the new blu-ray of Predator are more understanding than the people that are automatically against the blu-ray just because they saw a couple images of the worst DNRed scenes of that film (the early scenes before they land in the jungle).

Once again, if you break down individual scenes of this new Predator blu-ray, you will see that the positive outweighs the negative.

I'm going to give an analogy to the haters of this blu-ray:
I love Robocop. I held off from buying it on blu-ray because of mixed reviews, but a couple weeks ago, I finally bought it (for 6 bucks), and I was very pleased with the quality of the Robocop blu-ray. The blu-ray is the movie with the extended scenes. The final DVD edition has both cuts of the film. The video quality on those extended scenes look pretty bad as if they were taken from an old VHS tape. Those extended scenes on the Robocop blu-ray make up just the minority of the film. I have a choice of watching the Theatrical Cut of the film on DVD the way it was shown in theaters. Or I can watch the Extended Cut of the film on blu-ray the way it wasn't shown in theaters. I prefer the Theatrical Cut of the film since those extended scenes with poor video quality throw it a tiny bit off, but I prefer to watch the Extended Cut blu-ray because the majority of this film looks better than the Threatrical Cut on dvd.

The wax scenes in the Predator blu-ray make up just the minority of the film, so I prefer to watch the DNR blu-ray.


Another controversial movie on video is Jackie Chan's DRUNKEN MASTER 2. I never bought the DVDs or blu-ray because the uncut dvds with original audio had unwatchable video quality, while the cut anamorphic dvds were also unwatchable because of the dubbing. But finally, someone in Taiwan (not sure if it's a bootleg or not) just released a DRUNKEN MASTER 2 DVD which includes both versions, both anamorphic, and original audio - a great DVD by the way if it's still available on ebay!

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

Agree with Cliff, that most of the problems comes from the source. I happen to like the new version, warts and all. It doesn't mean it's perfect (ie WARTS AND ALL). At least people can choose between the two disc according to their tastes.

@Robert Harris, I agree with you, I just tend to think that there's a whole generalisation (like DNR is EVIL!) coming from posters, when each film present it's own set of kinks when it comes to HD transferts.

Jesus, this debate is so silly. "DNR is evil!" "Grain is the worst thing ever!" "Screw you!" "No screw you!"

DNR isn't evil. I don't hate DNR. Virtually EVER high-definition master uses some form of DNR. What I hate, is when DNR is used carelessly and excessively, by people who have little experience in FILM preservation and remastering. There are too many people working in remastering that just don't like the film look (or just don't know any better), and think of ANY grain as some kind of defect, and so they have no qualms just stripping it all out with DNR, which all too often damages the integrity of the image. And then you have studio marketing people approving these things on a 40-inch plasma, who just say "Looks great to me!"

Let me be clear: I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with grain reduction, especially if the grain in a film element is coarse and distracting -- unless that was the specific intent of the director and DP. I dislike a "grain storm" as much as the next guy. But when I'm watching a film, shot on film, on Blu-ray, I still expect to see a little very light grain texture in the background - even after DNR has been applied - because that's an inherent physical property of any film negative. When I start quality checking the transfer of a film on Blu-ray, I look for a bright scene, pause the image and start frame-stepping forward. If I can see a very slight/subtle pattern of print grain changing from frame to frame, I generally move on and don't think anything of it. But if can't see that grain anymore, even upon very close inspection, it's likely someone has gone too far. And so I start looking at other detail in the image - skin and fabric textures, etc - and 9 times out of 10, some of that has been removed too. Or in the case of the new Predator disc, a LOT has been removed. And that's when it's a problem for me.

You know, Robert and I and others arguing the film purist side of this aren't just doing this to be obnoxious. But I don't care how many sales there are, Blu-ray is still a fairly niche format - a "20% of the market" format. A premium format, sold for a premium price. So I think it's reasonable to expect a little better.

I'm not saying DNR should never be used again. I'm simply arguing that there needs to be some kind of standard. Film, shot on film, should still identifiably look like a film on Blu-ray. If we're talking about Avatar or Toy Story 3, then I expect them to be crisp and clean and grain-free. But if I'm watching Predator, or Night or the Living Dead, or Battleship Potemkin, you know I expect to see a little grain. It's not rocket science. Criterion is getting it right. Sony is getting it right. All it takes is someone familiar enough with both film and video remastering to know that there's a balance that needs to be struck, and you need to employ a careful, light hand. The problem is, a lot of those very good people in the industry who made DVD so successful - who held that format to a high quality standard and who actually cared about (and communicated with) the enthusiasts - they're all gone. They've been pushed aside by marketing people who just don't really care, and know more about spreadsheets than classic film. So now we have a high-def format that can deliver the highest quality standard yet... and many of the good people who would have guarded that standard are MIA. So for every great title, we get stuff like Patton, Gladiator and Predator. And if you don't think there's a difference, trust me: When you see the new Gladiator Blu-ray master, and compare it to the old one, you'll get it FAST. When the industry takes a little care with these things, the results can be amazing. When they're careless and think "Ah, no big deal..." well, you get exactly the results you'd expect.

Look guys - for all those of you who felt the original Predator disc was terrible because it was too grainy, you can't tell me that you really truly believe the new one is that much better. It's just as terrible, only in a different way. There IS an easy, happy medium to be struck here. Hell, if the mastering tech who did the new disc had even SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE with regard to employing DNR, I doubt any of us would be having this conversation. But given the fact that so many of the old guardians of quality in the industry are no longer there... it's up to enthusiasts. If you don't demand a little better, you will NEVER get it.

[bandit29]

Mindless testicle waving and predator vaginas? Where the hell am I? A highschool lunchroom ?

This new version of Predator could have been great if they would have been more careful with the DNR. Hitting the "auto" button while the Fox employees surfed for internet porn was a mistake.

[HeavyHitter]

Bill,

Can we really make a difference? Some of us wrote letters to Fox about Patton, Longest day, and now look what happens? Clearly Disney and Paramount listened as they re-released Gangs of New York and Paramount is re-releasing Gladiator. It seems like Fox does what they want.

And more questionably, why aren't these guys listening to the insiders who supposedly had personal conversations with the studios about DNR a couple of years ago?

[bandit29]

New Gladiator master...?

[Q?]

Just want to say to The Digital Bits especially Bill, THANK YOU!
It's good to know us "purists" we have a strong voice and I'm not talking about this release exclusively, all releases!

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by DaleDark

I have, and I've seen the original, and to me its a wash. One is more filmic, but suffers from compression artifacts, while the other has heavy ammounts of DNR, but is more vivid, has better contrast. Either version you champion has faults and liking one over the other doesn't make yours or my s#$t stink any less.

And I'm not saying that a lack of grumbling from the filmmakers justifies my liking the new BD more than the original, but to point out to people on this board who are getting upset about this BD that if this transfer is such an affront to the way it was meant to be seen, where are their voices in all this? Could it be that they just don't care?

Well since you have seen this new release I would assume that you do want movies to look like high def sports and day time soaps. The artificial motion enhancement didn't bother you at all? I am not talking about still frame shots here I am talking about the whole flow of the movie.

I think when most say "meant to be seen" they are implying theatrical release. Day one at the theater.

[sharkcohen]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

I don't like poorly-made blu-rays, but I think the people that like the new blu-ray of Predator are more understanding than the people that are automatically against the blu-ray just because they saw a couple images of the worst DNRed scenes of that film (the early scenes before they land in the jungle).

Never mind all the reviewers that have seen it and scored it low, and Bill Hunt and Robert Harris, who have seen it and had nothing but bad things to say about it.

[Chaka]

Thanks Bill for your input once again. I have to ask though, why are most reviewers not mentioning the motion enhancement of this new release? To me its night and day and should be a major warning to those that don't understand filmlike.

[DaleDark]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Well since you have seen this new release I would assume that you do want movies to look like high def sports and day time soaps. The artificial motion enhancement didn't bother you at all? I am not talking about still frame shots here I am talking about the whole flow of the movie.

I think when most say "meant to be seen" they are implying theatrical release. Day one at the theater.

Which part of "its a wash" didn't you understand? Nor should you assume anything about my tastes. I just tend to save my outrage for transfers that truely deserve it (Hannibal, True Romance, Gangs of New York, Dog Soldiers....).

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by DaleDark

Which part of "its a wash" didn't you understand? Nor should you assume anything about my tastes. I just tend to save my outrage for transfers that truely deserve it (Hannibal, True Romance, Gangs of New York, Dog Soldiers....).

One man's Dog Soldiers is another man's Predator. "Saving your outrage" seems trite and selfish when put that way.

Oh, and "motion enhancement"? Care to elaborate Chaka?

[Post Prod]

Originally Posted by bandit29

Mindless testicle waving and predator vaginas? Where the hell am I? A highschool lunchroom ?

This new version of Predator could have been great if they would have been more careful with the DNR. Hitting the "auto" button while the Fox employees surfed for internet porn was a mistake.

So are you saying we need vending machines here? Or that you have problems surfing for porn at work without making mistakes?

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Bill,

Can we really make a difference? Some of us wrote letters to Fox about Patton, Longest day, and now look what happens? Clearly Disney and Paramount listened as they re-released Gangs of New York and Paramount is re-releasing Gladiator. It seems like Fox does what they want.

And more questionably, why aren't these guys listening to the insiders who supposedly had personal conversations with the studios about DNR a couple of years ago?

Because most of "these guys" aren't there anymore, and a lot of the people who are left, while very nice people, don't really get it. It's like trying to explain anamorphic to them all again in the very early days of DVD. The other problem is that most people at the studios stopped paying attention to the online enthusiast forums a long time ago - a few hang in there, but the Internet silliness associated with the format war was the final straw that drove most away for good, and I can't say I blame them. The rest are so new to the business that they never paid attention to the Internet to begin with, and wouldn't know the names of any of the sites or forums if you quizzed them. They just think and operate in a different world. To the degree that they're even aware of the "fan" or "enthusiast" community at all, it's because they've discovered the marketing value of "the geeks at Comic-Con." It's just how it is these days.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by DaleDark

Which part of "its a wash" didn't you understand? Nor should you assume anything about my tastes. I just tend to save my outrage for transfers that truely deserve it (Hannibal, True Romance, Gangs of New York, Dog Soldiers....).

your reply to this

Originally Posted by seigneur_rayden

The new edition really has bad picture quality. I am probably sure that the people who like it are people who like their movies to look like high def broadcasting such as sports,...or soap opera effect from LCD screens.

was this

Originally Posted by DaleDark

No, and you're an idiot for assuming so.....

so I wrote this

Originally Posted by Chaka

Well actually, I would assume the same thing after watching the new version. You can't go by just the screen captures. Trust me the motion effect is totally unnatural for film. If you have seen this new version and prefer it ONLY because it seems clearer or more vivid but are willing to deal with the jittery motion then I am at a loss.

This new release makes no sense at all.

I am just letting you know WHY one would assume this after watching the new release. It was a fair logical assumption. To me the motion enhancements far outweigh the grain removal and if you cannot notice that, then there is a problem.

[tilapiah6]

Originally Posted by aramis109

One man's Dog Soldiers is another man's Predator. "Saving your outrage" seems trite and selfish when put that way.

Oh, and "motion enhancement"? Care to elaborate Chaka?

Or to some, both Dog Soldiers and Predator are liked.

[toddly6666]

I think blu-ray watching is like learning karate.
For the people that don't mind or like the new Predator blu-ray, they are white belts.
For the people that can't stand the new Predator blu-ray, they are like black belts.

Mr. Miyagi, "You look at blu-ray, but don't see blu-ray. Look deeper."

I'll be honest, I'm just a beginner blu-ray watcher. I don't mind flaws that much as long as there are no pixilation, motion blurring, interlacing, dubbing, out-of-synch audio.

If FOX re-released the old Predator blu-ray with the free movie ticket, I would have bought it.


I also want to remind everyone that the majority of people in here double-dip when it comes to movie collecting. Don't forget about that factor. People double-dip from great quality to excellent quality to perfect quality all the time. So it's no surprise that people are buying this new Predator blu-ray if they had the old blu-ray or not. And if they remaster the Predator blu-ray again, people will buy it again. I don't think people are going to say, "hell no, I'm sticking with my DNR wax blu-ray version." We double dip, we waste money, we buy. That's what we do as dvd and blu-ray consumers.
Think of some of the dvds you've had in the past. Terminator 2 has always been pretty good quality even with the very first DVD. Think about how many times everyone has double-dipped on that title up until the second blu-ray release. Aren't they making a third Terminator 2 blu-ray soon?

[aeric_7734]

Almost snagged the collection with the Ultimate Hunter Edition packaged with Predator 2 for $30 yesterday. Held off, though, as from what I've seen I prefer to stick with 2008's release. I just tossed a digital copy from another blu and swapped cases with it to hold both the BD and the special edition SD DVD that came out back in 2003... or was that 2004. Whenever it was. Anyways, I don't expect a better reproduction of Predator to hit anytime soon, leaving me happy with what I've got.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by aramis109

One man's Dog Soldiers is another man's Predator. "Saving your outrage" seems trite and selfish when put that way.

Oh, and "motion enhancement"? Care to elaborate Chaka?

Maybe I am the only one that noticed this but the picture had a very unnatural jitter to it. To a point where I had to go back and replay certain scenes. NO my set does not have a motion flow type of setting.