Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by mars396

Let's see which version of Aliens we get in October.

Well, since James Cameron has already stated in the DVD commentary that he intentionally shot Aliens to be grainy, and since he personally supervised the transfer to DVD with all the grain intact...I'm gonna say we'll get HIS approved version.

Speaking of Aliens, how would you feel if Fox decided to replace all the aliens with CGI aliens without Cameron's consent or involvement, and changed the line to "Get away from her you, bi-otch!" and then released that version on a 50 gig disc with a superior encode, but only released the original, non-remastered version on a highly compressed 25 gig disc?

Now you know how we feel about Predator.

[42041]

It's not that I don't understand the other side's arguments, it's just that they're inane.
Many people here seem to have some vital piece missing from their understanding of the visual arts. As a hobbyist photographer I'm very particular about how my prints look, since I want them to convey a certain visual impression. Stuff like color balance, brightness, contrast, the texture of the image, etc, changes the effect of the image. Do you think filmmakers don't care about that sort of stuff, and are happy about it being altered willy nilly?

[jonmoz]

I still can't see why the studios need to add too much Dnr as most peoples Blu-ray players have noise reduction on them anyway.

Leave the film as it was ment to be and then the people who find the grain distracting can lessen it with their players dnr settings,this would make their viewing easier and not spoil the movie for everyone else.

[Kakihara]

Arnold: DNR, jooh wan ahgly muddafacka!!! Vut happened to jooh FOX Studios, jooh used to be a studio I can trust!

FOX: We woke up, why don't you? DNR is an asset, and grain is just expendable and we used DNR to get the job done, got it?!

Arnold: Grain is not expendable and I don't do dis kind of vurk.


Poncho: Blaine, you're hit...you're DNRing, man!

Blaine: I ain't got time to get DNR'd!

FOX: Any time!

True film fans: We got a score to settle!

[al cos.]

So some guys want old movies to somehow magically have a new look that suits their own taste. The hell? Are they 6 years old? It shouldn't be that hard to recognize that they can't make every movie cater to your own individual preferences with a potential buying audience of millions. The only option is to be as faithful to the original photography as possible, whatever that might be. Besides, even today there are directors who want the grainy look and do it deliberately, it's not going away in your lifetime.

[Home Th3atre]

If I know one thing, it's that the studios read these threads and in the future will probably think twice about releasing older movies. It just isnt worth the headache. Just be thankful they even release old movies like this and appreciate what you have because it's probably gonna be coming to an end.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by kakihara

arnold: Dnr, jooh wan ahgly muddafacka!!! Vut happened to jooh fox studios, jooh used to be a studio i can trust!

Fox: We woke up, why don't you? Dnr is an asset, and grain is just expendable and we used dnr to get the job done, got it?!

Arnold: Grain is not expendable and i don't do dis kind of vurk.


Poncho: Blaine, you're hit...you're dnring, man!

Blaine: I ain't got time to get dnr'd!

Fox: Any time!

True film fans: We got a score to settle!

:d:d:d

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by kakihara

arnold: Dnr, jooh wan ahgly muddafacka!!! Vut happened to jooh fox studios, jooh used to be a studio i can trust!

Fox: We woke up, why don't you? Dnr is an asset, and grain is just expendable and we used dnr to get the job done, got it?!

Arnold: Grain is not expendable and i don't do dis kind of vurk.


Poncho: Blaine, you're hit...you're dnring, man!

Blaine: I ain't got time to get dnr'd!

Fox: Any time!

True film fans: We got a score to settle!

LOL! Very funny!

Aaaahh, the wax! Get to da choppah!

[Spymaster]

Originally Posted by mars396

There is no way I will ever believe that John McTiernan wouldn't have liked to have been able to present all his hard work in way that we can see it better.

The trouble is, DNR scrubbing is not magically transforming the picture into what the movie would have looked like if it had been filmed on perfect stock back in 1987.

It's taking the - in your words "flawed" - picture and digitally manipulating it so those flaws are disguised. The side-effect being that most of the natural detail is disguised too.

So you're taking a "bad" picture and making it worse. But because it now looks "smooth" the more foolish eyes are perceiving it at "clear" and therefore "better".

It really isn't. It's a "workaround", it's not a "fix".

.

[Spymaster]

Originally Posted by mars396

Movies look better as the technology of presenting them improves. There is no need to hold on to the limitations of the past. Let's evolve.

By that argument I assume you're suggesting that Casablanca should be upgraded to colour because black and white is a limitation of the past. Or that North By Northwest should be converted to 3-D because 2-D was so last year! Or that the shark in Jaws should be replaced by a CG version because rubber props were a product of the mid-70s.

Movies do look better now. Of course Avatar (*spit*) looks cleaner, sharper and more colourful than Predator. And I imagine there'll be movies made in 10 years that make Avatar look like crap - especially as 3-D technology improves.

Grain is an essential part of the Predator experience. Grain makes the environment looks gritty, real, almost documentary like. Plopping an alien hunter down into that "reality" makes the story even more compelling (plus conveniently it hides any anomalies in the special effects!)

Predator comes from an era where story was king. Alas nowadays the likes of Avatar come from an era where prettier is better and WAY too many people are being sucked into that mindset, not helped by TV manufacturers technical ramblings about colour this, contrast that, line count the other.

It's the same mindset that encourages people to dismiss 2.35:1 movies because they don't use up all the lines on their TV. It's incredibly disappointing.

[markbr]

Originally Posted by Kakihara

Arnold: DNR, jooh wan ahgly muddafacka!!! Vut happened to jooh FOX Studios, jooh used to be a studio I can trust!

FOX: We woke up, why don't you? DNR is an asset, and grain is just expendable and we used DNR to get the job done, got it?!

Arnold: Grain is not expendable and I don't do dis kind of vurk.


Poncho: Blaine, you're hit...you're DNRing, man!

Blaine: I ain't got time to get DNR'd!

FOX: Any time!

True film fans: We got a score to settle!

That is well funny !!!!!! LOL. I like the Fox saying at the end !! Anytime.

[davidjjanderson1981]

Well thats me converted to a grain lover! gonna go out and spent my hard earned cash on grain ridden movies, infact i think i might aswell get my old vhs out now!lol

[davidjjanderson1981]

Originally Posted by Spymaster

By that argument I assume you're suggesting that Casablanca should be upgraded to colour because black and white is a limitation of the past. Or that North By Northwest should be converted to 3-D because 2-D was so last year! Or that the shark in Jaws should be replaced by a CG version because rubber props were a product of the mid-70s.

Movies do look better now. Of course Avatar (*spit*) looks cleaner, sharper and more colourful than Predator. And I imagine there'll be movies made in 10 years that make Avatar look like crap - especially as 3-D technology improves.

Grain is an essential part of the Predator experience. Grain makes the environment looks gritty, real, almost documentary like. Plopping an alien hunter down into that "reality" makes the story even more compelling (plus conveniently it hides any anomalies in the special effects!)

Predator comes from an era where story was king. Alas nowadays the likes of Avatar come from an era where prettier is better and WAY too many people are being sucked into that mindset, not helped by TV manufacturers technical ramblings about colour this, contrast that, line count the other.

It's the same mindset that encourages people to dismiss 2.35:1 movies because they don't use up all the lines on their TV. It's incredibly disappointing.

totally hear what your saying, its just i like the look of the new version, i dont hate grain it doesnt bother me usually but the 2008 was just grain ridden and over intrusive, i just found it distracting. of course i dont want all movies scrubbed of grain. i hope they make a good job of aliens cos that is also one of my all time favourite films. and yes to earlier comments i am into video games but what is wrong with that? is there a conspiracy against people who like video games? i respect everyones opinion totally and will of course take on board what you have all said.

[dixonhill]

Originally Posted by Kakihara

Arnold: DNR, jooh wan ahgly muddafacka!!! Vut happened to jooh FOX Studios, jooh used to be a studio I can trust!

FOX: We woke up, why don't you? DNR is an asset, and grain is just expendable and we used DNR to get the job done, got it?!

Arnold: Grain is not expendable and I don't do dis kind of vurk.


Poncho: Blaine, you're hit...you're DNRing, man!

Blaine: I ain't got time to get DNR'd!

FOX: Any time!

True film fans: We got a score to settle!

Brilliant!!!
You brought some humorous relief to a discussion with no end in sight!

Really, you guys are so desperately clinging to your arguments and opinions
but to me it seems you gain absolutely nothing from it.
There is just no final and in a manner of speaking "binding" solution!
I'm not trying to patronize anyone in this thread,
but regarding the never ending discussion of film grain or no film grain,
what about thinking of it as a kind of a generation gap?

I mean those of us who grew up in the before-computer-game-era,
who actually endured the VHS-age, who were twiddling around with
celluloid film stripes to put them in some heavy camera,
who tried to rescue some microcassette-tape from desaster by
winding it up with a pencil etc etc... see what I'm driving at?
Isn't it possible we folks of a more "analogue generation" simply
have a different "paradigm" what movies should look like
whereas to the younger or "digital generation" film grain or some
white noise in an audio record is an irritating or even annoying contaminant?

There are always changes in taste and general perception of things, we all know that.
Given the increasing use of computer generated pictures in modern movies and their flawless
or "dirt-less" digital perfection, isn't it likely this might be a change of paradigm?

As I said before I'm not trying to patronize anyone here,
I'm merely trying to offer a different point of view.

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Predator's gritty, grainy look is not about flaws as you've been carrying on about. It was the intentional look designed by the Director of Photography, Donald McAlpine, and approved by John McTiernan.

You've got evidence for that have you? More likely, the type of film stock was dictated by the low light location conditions. Actually I don't recall it being extremely grainy in 70mm.

[Spymaster]

Originally Posted by davidjjanderson1981

and yes to earlier comments i am into video games but what is wrong with that? is there a conspiracy against people who like video games?

The comparison to video games is made because a gamer will spend 4 hours with the best graphics, the cleanest pictures, the brightest colours - then they'll watch a 20 year old movie and expect the same experience.

They're NOT the same.

A theatrical motion picture is not a video game. Neither is something like Avatar although you'd be forgiven for thinking so!

[Spymaster]

Originally Posted by dixonhill

Really, you guys are so desperately clinging to your arguments and opinions
but to me it seems you gain absolutely nothing from it.
There is just no final and in a manner of speaking "binding" solution!
I'm not trying to patronize anyone in this thread,
but regarding the never ending discussion of film grain or no film grain,
what about thinking of it as a kind of a generation gap?

Because it isn't!

This *isn't* a matter of opinion I'm afraid. The movie is the movie. What exists on that camera negative is God! To get maximum quality from that negative requires talent and artistic integrity. To hack at it with computer software that doesn't recognise blue skies from blue shirts is entirely inappropriate.

To quote Dixon Hill (aka Captain Picard): "The line must be drawn here!"

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Have you seen Blade Runner on Blu-ray? Or 2001? Or Casablanca? They were all shot before Predator and they all look amazing with grain detail at a minimum. Why? Because that's how they were shot! That's how the directors' intentionally shot them.

In the era when Casablanca was made studios had their own house style. Directors were there for hire and didn't decide whether a film should be grainy or not because all studios endeavored to make films appear as grain free as possible. 2001 was, of course, filmed in 65mm which is why it had very little grain.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

In the era when Casablanca was made studios had their own house style. Directors were there for hire and didn't decide whether a film should be grainy or not because all studios endeavored to make films appear as grain free as possible. 2001 was, of course, filmed in 65mm which is why it had very little grain.

Could you please provide link for that? Just for good measure.

[Robert George]

Originally Posted by Spymaster

Because it isn't!

This *isn't* a matter of opinion I'm afraid. The movie is the movie. What exists on that camera negative is God!

In the case of the techniques used on this disc, it is absolutely a matter of opinion. And in the opinion of the owner of this film, it looks better in the newer version, or they would not have gone to the time, trouble, and expense to do this. I assure you, it was much more trouble and much more expensive to create the video master they did than to just scan what they had and be done with it.

The basis of this debate is that many, many people do not agree that what exists on the camera negative is "God". Movies get altered all the time, and in ways far more invasive than what they did to Predator. Whether that is right or wrong is absolutely a matter of opinion. The opinion of the owner of the movie, or often even the creator of the movie is that the change is appropriate. Anyone else has the right to disagree, but that is just opinion.