Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by captclueless

Weak. IGN.com gave the ultimate hunter edition a 7 out of 10 for video and said it was better then the first one.

Not all reviewers are reviewers at all ,careful where you go to read reviews. Most reviews i read ,thought this new edtion sucks.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by fitprod

First, it is your behavior that is disqualifying you from becoming a respected member of this forum.

As for the fact you went to Business School instead of Film School, that is actually the core of the whole problem in the industry. Most of the people in charge of the studio decisions, are strictly number crunchers that have no sense of their own studio's history, let alone film history.

Warner and Disney get it... As does Sony. But pretty much every other studio no longer has a clue... Be it their own internal decisions (MGM, Fox) or from pressure from a parent company that is looking only for content (GE, Viacom)

fitprod

I agree with everything you said,except WB has had its share of dnr'd to death titles ,i'm not going to list them ,because at this site you can punch in a title by WB and read the review. You'll find they have botch a few titles.

[PRO-630HD]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

So does anyone think that there will be enough complaints that FOX will resolve this problem soon? Is it possible that they can quickly remaster the video again and make a replacement program?

Like they did with the Die Hard 2 DTS-HD Master audio issue! I liked them sending me the replacement disc. I just wasn't expecting it to be the same unfixed disc as I had before.

[SixSpeedSamurai]

Originally Posted by fitprod

First, it is your behavior that is disqualifying you from becoming a respected member of this forum.

As for the fact you went to Business School instead of Film School, that is actually the core of the whole problem in the industry. Most of the people in charge of the studio decisions, are strictly number crunchers that have no sense of their own studio's history, let alone film history.

Warner and Disney get it... As does Sony. But pretty much every other studio no longer has a clue... Be it their own internal decisions (MGM, Fox) or from pressure from a parent company that is looking only for content (GE, Viacom)

fitprod

Given the number of Warner discs with lossy audio only, they are on the fence with me.

I'm watching Predator UHE right now. The disc certainly is brighter than I think it was intended to be in my opinion. As far as waxy figures, looks more like "I have not washed my sweaty face in a long time," but that's just me. Arnold's red shirt certainly has a life of it's own though.

[MoviesandSGs]

Anyone in this thread play Computer games? Video Gaming was used in this debate but I don't remember anyone telling people that a new trend in Video games is to put in the Graphics Options of the setup for the game a "Grain" check box. That's right people. Grain IS a part of some HD gaming. They give you the option to have it or not. Here are 2 games I own that do right off the top of my head. "Mass Effect 2" and "FEAR 2". These are obviously the second games in the series but tell me why they intentionally give you the option to have GRAIN? I play both of these games with the Grain enabled. I tried both without and I prefer them with it. Why? Because it makes the Game look more like FILM. That's right. That has to be right. I pray that we don't start seeing Grain check boxes in Blu Ray movies. We know why because its then put into an on or off category screwing us again. But just remember that in Video Games these people are experts in Graphics and HD.

Happy 4th of July America!

[Member-38928]

Originally Posted by Canada

Here is a good review of the video because it explains why movies should have grain.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwoc...1.html#063010b

Here's a screenshot from the new Blu-ray to illustrate what I'm talking about ---

The last time I saw the Governator's cigar-chomping mug polished up this shiny was at the Hollywood Wax Museum. His shirt is so smooth it looks like Mattel molded it for Mr. Potato Head. If you're not fully sickened by this, what kind of film fan are you?

LMAO!!

[Member-38928]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Hey.....I supported that release when it first came out for 24.99....I did my part.

And you sold it for what to buy the 2010 version?

[Member-38928]

Someone needs to edit the poll, we need a ....

2008 verison
2010 verison
Neither
Both

[refnulf]

Well, the 2008 version is sellin for $9.99 now I'm grabbing it!

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Canada

Here is a good review of the video because it explains why movies should have grain.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwoc...1.html#063010b

It couldn't be put any better.

It blows my mind that so many people in this forum seem to think it's not only acceptable but "very good." It makes me jealous to be honest, to be able to watch something so technically horrific and think it's good.... oof...

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by bentvalve

And you sold it for what to buy the 2010 version?

I actually still have it

[persuazion]

Originally Posted by bentvalve

Someone needs to edit the poll, we need a ....

2008 verison
2010 verison
Neither
Both

How can it be neither though?That should not be an option on the poll. The question was which version is better....so despite if you like them both or not you have to think that one version looks better then the other in some way.

[QuasidodoJr]

I think they should let John McTiernan out of prison, drag Arnold out of office and gather together the rest of the cast and re-film it entirely in daylight, in brightly lit areas. They can do all dialog in close-ups and inject everyone with large amounts of botox, use wax figures as stand-ins and handle all of the action sequences with blurry CGI.

But then people may not be able to tell the difference between that version and the Ultimate Hunter Edition.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by persuazion

Its a bluray forum and I like Blurays...... I dont understand why my opinion would cause so much anger and hatred because it is MY opinion.I think thats what most of us are baffled by......

All you really have been saying is you like your blu-ray movies to look clean and smooth and it doesn't matter if the movie was made in the 70's,80's etc. And thats your opinion.Many people here are saying that opinion is wrong, because Its wrong for a studio to take a movie from the 80's that was dark dirty ,they way the director and dp was after and just change it to suit people that thought the 2008 edtion was to grainy. If someone can come up with a digital tool to take grain out but leave all the detail there ,i'm all for it.

And maybe down the road that will happen,but for now leave the f%&#in films alone! Anybody get GAMER on blu-ray? that movie was shot using [red cameras, blows any hd camera away,is 4k,costs 17000.00 a camera can be used in light and dark,no grain and is so small and light weight you can do anything with it. That's most likely the pq you like to see with old movies .It just can't happen on any format.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by davidjjanderson1981

so what about the newlly released star trek boxsets? they look awesome aswell now. does that make it bad? blu-ray makes a difference and it has to he new predator aswell.

The startrek box sets were talked to death a while back as with any blu-ray thats been tampered with. What your hearing on Predator is what you would have heard on any other f...up blu-ray. Why? because people like you just ''won't'' get it.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by tvine2000

All you really have been saying is you like your blu-ray movies to look clean and smooth and it doesn't matter if the movie was made in the 70's,80's etc. And thats your opinion.Many people here are saying that opinion is wrong, because Its wrong for a studio to take a movie from the 80's that was dark dirty ,they way the director and dp was after and just change it to suit people that thought the 2008 edtion was to grainy. If someone can come up with a digital tool to take grain out but leave all the detail there ,i'm all for it.

And maybe down the road that will happen,but for now leave the f%&#in films alone! Anybody get GAMER on blu-ray? that movie was shot using [red cameras, blows any hd camera away,is 4k,costs 17000.00 a camera can be used in light and dark,no grain and is so small and light weight you can do anything with it. That's most likely the pq you like to see with old movies .It just can't happen on any format.

Yep, awesome camera system. It was used for District 9 as well.

[42041]

Originally Posted by tvine2000

Anybody get GAMER on blu-ray? that movie was shot using [red cameras, blows any hd camera away,is 4k,costs 17000.00 a camera can be used in light and dark,no grain and is so small and light weight you can do anything with it.

the Red has plenty of "grain" in the dark. Any camera needs light to produce clean images, be it film or digital.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

That's all irrelevant though; Predator was filmed how it was filmed, no "what if's" or "what would you have prefer'ds." It is what it is, it was filmed how it was filmed.

The type of extreme DNR that was applied to this release does not in any way imaginable make it look better or more pleasing to the eye. It robs it of fine detail in ridiculous amounts, makes it look totally unnatural. For people who know what the Hell they're looking for (people who have been enthusiasts prior to the advent of Blu Ray) it looks ****ing comical, it's like looking at an action figure in motion. I don't know if this is a "loving the Blu Ray format for the sake of loving the Blu Ray format" or what, but to look at this presentation and think it looks good you either have to be high, blind, or have no idea what's what when it comes to this sort of thing. I remember there were droves here that praised Patton as well, that always blew my mind, but to each his own I guess... you like what you like.

Personally, I love Predator so I'm glad at least a superior alternative, while hardly fantastic, is out there (and is far cheaper to boot.) If only every DNR-addled release had an option B like this one does... stuff like Gladiator I never cared about (as a film) so I didn't care if it was botched. At least there's a non-botched version out there for those of us that appreciate that sort of thing. Maybe Fox should release every film with a half decent version and a crapped-upon version (the latter with a shiny cover and an ultimate tag.)

[mayorofsmpleton]

Interestingly, I've heard from a number of industry sources in the last couple of weeks that a lot of people at the various mastering houses are painfully aware of this problem, and are doing whatever they can to alert the studios to the issue.

I would hope so. Glad to know those of us who complain or have higher standards for film are being heard.

I've also heard that, many times, studio decision-makers are giving the thumbs-up to these BD masters after checking them on a 40-inch plasma.

This is horrible but not surprising. I think the reason the film industry suffers this way is that these are business men who get info the industry... however unlike other industries where they might leave it to experts EVERYONE at least watches movies once in a while -- so even though who know very little about film think they know enough to have an opinion about how it is handled, etc. So these execs want to have a much more hands-on approach than they probably should...

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.

Thank you. The voice of reason. Several releases benefit from DNR. It's when it's OVERUSED that it becomes an issue.

There are too many people working at the studios who 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.

Again, the result of people who know NOTHING about film/photography. Not everything can/should look like a Michael Bay movie. I once got into a disagreement with a guy who insisted the "compression artifacts" visible on a DVD we were watching was "film-grain." Sigh.

So I think it's reasonable to expect a little better. But if you don't demand better, you'll likely never get it.

Exactly. Which is why it's important for us to have made it loud/clear to FOX that this release was a big misfire and to be a little more careful in the future. If they wanted to remaster the film I'd be more than willing to purchase a new edition. As it stands I'll give it a rent some time... not worth owning.

How many films in the history of cinema - even just Hollywood cinema history - have been lost to time? The prints were cut, trashed, have deteoriated or been misplaced completely? A HUGE portion of the films made before 1930 simply no longer exist. This might surprise you, but Martin Scorsese's Film Foundation estimates a whopping 80% of the American films made prior to 1930 are gone forever. Let that sink in for a moment.

Few people know this and it's very terrible -- it's also how the business works. Out with the old -- in with the new. How many people in 30 years will use this current Predator disc as the go-to print reference.

Who knows how many of our favorite films today will simply be lost 100 years from now? There are many beloved classics with negatives in dire need of restoration and preservation, RIGHT NOW, even today.

This is why I love the BD format and why I'm so upset when we get a botched job like with Predator. It kills me that the Friday the 13th films will likely never see legit restored "unrated" cuts -- because the footage is there -- just collecting dust waiting for someone to take the time to find it and remaster it... and it's just not a priority...

But what about the classics of the 40-80's that with each increasing year are getting older and more forgotten?

it is ENTIRELY possible that, as we move fully into an all-digital world, some of these digital masters will end up being the ONLY surviving versions of our favorite films. So isn't it important get them right? I sure think so.

Yes, it's completely important... which is why it bothered me that some people were so nonchalant about this release not being true to the original. They don't realize that it may be another 5-10 years before this film gets a re-release -- and it's highly likely they will use THIS release as a template... at least as long as we remain unheard.

[markbr]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Yep, awesome camera system. It was used for District 9 as well.

I was so impressed with the camera work and video, on that as well.....