Predator 3D Blu-ray (1987) [Region Locked]

[Sherlock_Jr]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Fox had nothing to do with TFC and were not the ones who pushed for the remaster

But they are the ones responsible for the Patton remaster. Don't selectively ignore facts just to try and make a reaching point.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

Did you work on the UHE because you seem to be defending it a lot when the general conscious is that it looks like crap?

Also again, it's been confirmed by Fox insiders that the new release is from a new 4k scan but you're still denying it.

No offence but I'll believe their word over yours any day of the week.

Lets face it, most of what we are all doing here is speculating about the motivation for this new 3D release. Although, I prefer to categorize what I do as a masterful extrapolation of the facts.

When you refer to consensus (I think that's what you meant) you have to look at it by market segment. If your talking about consensus among purists, you are right. If you are talking about the universe (marketing stat term) of Predator Blu-ray buyers, you are wrong. A look at the sales strength of the UHE on Amazon should be proof enough of that claim. If you think purists represent a large segment of Blu-ray buyers today, you would be wrong. In 2006, you would be right.

Regarding the validity of a "new" 4K scan for this 3D release. I have seen nothing to support that claim. I have seen several post and tweets regarding this, but nothing conclusive. Get me a first hand attributed quote from someone like Ian Harvey and you will have my attention. Cryptic tweets from Marketing spokesman James Finn just doesn't cut it. You realize that it would cost something north of $200,000 to do it, right? The Fox JVC business model would not support that added expense. This 3D release including the conversion was probably brought in under $2 Million.

Originally Posted by 42041

I get the feeling that whatever iteration of the transfer Cameron was making that quip about isn't what's on the disc. While the granularity might've been evened out shot-to-shot, it still has approximately the amount of grain you'd get from an 80s high speed negative.

True, but it does point out that Cameron and other directors are not handcuffed by how the properties looked in original theatrical presentations any more than the studios are.

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

Lol even though he fully demonstrated how he altered the colour timing on one of the Blu-Ray's special features. I think he's in denial about the whole thing.

Definitely...but he was also a really nice guy and had great stories, so I didn't mention to him that every Blu-Ray came with a note about firmware...

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

When you refer to consensus (I think that's what you meant) you have to look at it by market segment. If your talking about consensus among purists, you are right. If you are talking about the universe (marketing stat term) of Predator Blu-ray buyers, you are wrong. A look at the sales strength of the UHE on Amazon should be proof enough of that claim. If you think purists represent a large segment of Blu-ray buyers today, you would be wrong. In 2006, you would be right.

Yes, but you're drawing a false conclusion here. Just because that disc sold well doesn't mean 20th Century Fox considers it advantageous to release crappy transfers. It just means a special edition re-release of one of their movies sold much better than a barebones one done near the birth of the format. They can take that into account by giving us yet another presentation of Predator (the UHE sold well enough for them to try and sell it to us again), while ALSO addressing the "purist" complaints about it with a new 4K master, AND forcing those purists to buy a 3D product they don't necessarily want by making the 2D remaster exclusive to a 3D combo pack.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

I understand the purist position that Blu-ray should be used to replicate the original film as closely as possible. Robert Harris believes that is achievable. I accept that. The studios have concluded that when they do that, they have no chance of achieving catalogue sales goal and profitability for the release, because the purist is the only market segment supporting it. Their answer is to modernize and modify their property to appeal to the greater audience. The look of the original film is secondary.

The criticism by RAH and others did not put a dent in sales of the UHE to this broader market segment. That simply reinforced the studios evaluation of this issue. To expect any improvement over the UHE for this "all new 3D transfer"
(read transfer as remaster and not new scan) in light of that falls into the irrational exuberance category. Also, the Fox JVC business model for low cost automated conversions just can't support the additional cost of restoration or "new 4K scans"

You may disagree, but for the studio's, profitability will be the major consideration for these catalogue releases, not the preservation of art.

If that is the case, they why did they bother re-issuing Patton? Wallstreet? There are others. No question, profit is the number one priority and should be (no one stays in business losing money), but I think there is a much different view on this issue of DNR especially with Fox. If a presumably low selling catalog title like Porky's can receive a very filmlike transfer, so can Predator which surely will do far more in sales.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Porky...7/#Screenshots

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

If that is the case, they why did they bother re-issuing Patton? Wallstreet? There are others. No question, profit is the number one priority and should be (no one stays in business losing money), but I think there is a much different view on this issue of DNR especially with Fox. If a presumably low selling catalog title like Porky's can receive a very filmlike transfer, so can Predator which surely will do far more in sales.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Porky...7/#Screenshots

Really, all of their recent Blu-Rays that I've seen have been wonderful. As was previously mentioned in this thread, Raising Arizona and Miller's Crossing leap to mind.

Hopefully with the TV show coming out, they revisit Fargo. I was blown away by how awful it looked when I watched it a few months ago.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

But they are the ones responsible for the Patton remaster. Don't selectively ignore facts just to try and make a reaching point.

My point was about French connection and its use in that example as wrong.
So yeah

[42041]

I don't think Fargo is a Fox release unfortunately.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

Really, all of their recent Blu-Rays that I've seen have been wonderful. As was previously mentioned in this thread, Raising Arizona and Miller's Crossing leap to mind.

Hopefully with the TV show coming out, they revisit Fargo. I was blown away by how awful it looked when I watched it a few months ago.

Fargo was mgm

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Fargo was mgm

20th Century Fox distributes MGM titles and has for years now, but I suppose maybe it's like the Warner / Paramount deal where MGM would have to make that decision?

Also, The French Connection is a relevant example. Even if I agreed that it was true / meant anything that Friedkin suggested a new disc (which I assume is what you're saying), 20th Century Fox still agreed to foot the bill for the new transfer and release it. Someone's brought up Wall Street as well.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

Yes, but you're drawing a false conclusion here. Just because that disc sold well doesn't mean 20th Century Fox considers it advantageous to release crappy transfers. It just means a special edition re-release of one of their movies sold much better than a barebones one done near the birth of the format. They can take that into account by giving us yet another presentation of Predator (the UHE sold well enough for them to try and sell it to us again), while ALSO addressing the "purist" complaints about it with a new 4K master, AND forcing those purists to buy a 3D product they don't necessarily want by making the 2D remaster exclusive to a 3D combo pack.

Sorry Tyler, but I think you have completely missed the studios motivation for this 3D release. In a nutshell, the motivation for this release is to bolster the supply of 3D product in a cost effective manner in order to increase the adoption rate of 3D in the home. That really is all it is.

The only official, on the record videotaped interview which was transcribed to Norwegian by a ezine author describes how Fox views the UHE.

(John Berge) "The interview was conducted in english and also videotaped for accuracy purposes. It was then transcribed to norwegian.

My translation:


When the restauration is done well, like with Sound of Music, it is astonishing. But then there are examples of bad restoration, like with Predator.
(Vincent Marcais)– Yes, we received critisism for that one, but to us it was unjust (or unfair). They shot that movie on a type of film that wasn't good enough. But how it now is presented on BD, is the way the director of cinematography wanted it too look. The discussion about grain or not, is something we have a close dialogue with the directors and photographers about, as long as they are alive.


best JB"

[Show spoiler]Here is an ongoing email exchange I have with John Berge, the author of the Norwegian article. As you see, I have invited him to join the discussion directly. It would be ideal if he can provide the taped interview which he confirmed was done in English. If you are interested in this, I will post future exchanges if he chooses not to join the discussion directly.

Hi John,
Thank you for your fast reply. I am a member of blu-ray.com in the United States. We have an immense thread about the two blu-ray editions of Predator. Your February article about your interview with Vincent Marcais was widely quoted on blogs and forums here without attribution to you,so it was very difficult for me to find the article on the internet. I have now posted a link to your magazine's website. Please take a minute to view the thread:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mov...ml#post4745800

The current debate is "Did Marcais mean that John McTiernan, the director and/or Don McAlpine the Cinematographer were consulted with about the Predator, Ultimate Hunter edition release and that the 'look' of the Blu-ray reflects how one or both of them intended it to look when Predator was originally filmed in the 1980's. The unanswered question is whether or not Fox will remaster Predator on blu-ray for a third time. It does not seem likely based on the translation you have just provided.

Is the videotape of your interview available anywhere on the internet? Any additional thoughts you have on the subject would be appreciated.

For now, I will post this email exchange to the blu-ray.com thread without the email addresses. I, for one, would welcome you to become a member of blu-ray.com and contribute directly to the discussion.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Berge (email address deleted by raygendreau)
To: raymond gendreau (email address deleted by raygendreau)
Sent: Thu, May 19, 2011 2:33:19 AM
Subject: Re: February interview with Vincent Marcais Sr VP Intl Marketing Fox Film Entertainment

Hei, Ray!


Thanks for your mail. First, who do you represent?



The interview was conducted in english and also videotaped for accuracy purposes. It was then transcribed to norwegian.


– Når det gjøres så bra restaurering som med Sound of Music, er det forbløffende. Men så er det eksempler på at restaureringen ikke er bra nok, f.eks. med Predator.
– Ja, vi fikk kritikk for den, men den syntes jeg var urettferdig. Filmen ble skutt på en filmtype som ikke var bra nok. Men slik den er på BD nå, er slik filmfotografen ønsket at den skulle fremstå. Diskusjonen om å ta bort filmkorn eller ei, er noe vi diskuterer med filmregissørerne og fotografene, så lenge de er i live. (RELEASE 1•2011)


My translation:


When the restauration is done well, like with Sound of Music, it is astonishing. But then there are examples of bad restoration, like with Predator.
– Yes, we received critisism for that one, but to us it was unjust (or unfair). They shot that movie on a type of film that wasn't good enough. But how it now is presented on BD, is the way the director of cinematography wanted it too look. The discussion about grain or not, is something we have a close dialogue with the directors and photographers about, as long as they are alive.


best JB




Den 19. mai 2011 kl. 10.30 skrev raymond gendreau:


Dear John Berge,
I read your article with interest using Bing translation .

Unfortunately, the last paragraph is not clear. Can you tell me where I can find a better translation than this one?http://www.microsofttranslator.com/B...sp%3FID%3D6732

This is the paragraph I am having trouble with.

— When done so good restoration with the Sound of Music, it is astonishing. But there are examples of restoration is not good enough. with the Predator.
— Yes, we received criticism for it, but it seemed I was unjust. The film was shot on a film type that wasn't good enough. But as of now, so BOND cinematographer wished that it were to emerge. Discussion about taking away the film grain or not, is something we discuss with filmregissørerne and photographers, as long as they are alive. (RELEASE 1 • 2011)

Was the interview conducted in English or Norwegian?

Thank you,

Ray Gendreau

[Sherlock_Jr]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

My point was about French connection and its use in that example as wrong.
So yeah

But the point of the post was that Fox has remastered their mistakes before, which is fact. Ignoring the part of the post that actually has relevance to the conversation doesn't make your point work any stronger, it actually weakens it by selectively filtering out the facts that prove you wrong.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

Definitely...but he was also a really nice guy and had great stories, so I didn't mention to him that every Blu-Ray came with a note about firmware...

Yeah he seems like a really nice guy who knows his stuff but his comments on the whole Blu-Ray firmware thing being responsible for the look of the transfer is hilarious.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

Hopefully with the TV show coming out, they revisit Fargo. I was blown away by how awful it looked when I watched it a few months ago.

It's got some of the worst edge enhancement I've seen on BD. Whoever worked on that release was severely incompetent. Probably the same person(s) who worked on UHE and original Patton. lol

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Sorry Tyler, but I think you have completely missed the studios motivation for this 3D release. In a nutshell, the motivation for this release is to bolster the supply of 3D product in a cost effective manner in order to increase the adoption rate of 3D in the home. That really is all it is.

The only official, on the record videotaped interview which was transcribed to Norwegian by a ezine author describes how Fox views the UHE.

(John Berge) "The interview was conducted in english and also videotaped for accuracy purposes. It was then transcribed to norwegian.

My translation:


When the restauration is done well, like with Sound of Music, it is astonishing. But then there are examples of bad restoration, like with Predator.
(Vincent Marcais)– Yes, we received critisism for that one, but to us it was unjust (or unfair). They shot that movie on a type of film that wasn't good enough. But how it now is presented on BD, is the way the director of cinematography wanted it too look. The discussion about grain or not, is something we have a close dialogue with the directors and photographers about, as long as they are alive.


best JB"

[Show spoiler]Here is an ongoing email exchange I have with John Berge, the author of the Norwegian article. As you see, I have invited him to join the discussion directly. It would be ideal if he can provide the taped interview which he confirmed was done in English. If you are interested in this, I will post future exchanges if he chooses not to join the discussion directly.

Hi John,
Thank you for your fast reply. I am a member of blu-ray.com in the United States. We have an immense thread about the two blu-ray editions of Predator. Your February article about your interview with Vincent Marcais was widely quoted on blogs and forums here without attribution to you,so it was very difficult for me to find the article on the internet. I have now posted a link to your magazine's website. Please take a minute to view the thread:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mov...ml#post4745800

The current debate is "Did Marcais mean that John McTiernan, the director and/or Don McAlpine the Cinematographer were consulted with about the Predator, Ultimate Hunter edition release and that the 'look' of the Blu-ray reflects how one or both of them intended it to look when Predator was originally filmed in the 1980's. The unanswered question is whether or not Fox will remaster Predator on blu-ray for a third time. It does not seem likely based on the translation you have just provided.

Is the videotape of your interview available anywhere on the internet? Any additional thoughts you have on the subject would be appreciated.

For now, I will post this email exchange to the blu-ray.com thread without the email addresses. I, for one, would welcome you to become a member of blu-ray.com and contribute directly to the discussion.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Berge (email address deleted by raygendreau)
To: raymond gendreau (email address deleted by raygendreau)
Sent: Thu, May 19, 2011 2:33:19 AM
Subject: Re: February interview with Vincent Marcais Sr VP Intl Marketing Fox Film Entertainment

Hei, Ray!


Thanks for your mail. First, who do you represent?



The interview was conducted in english and also videotaped for accuracy purposes. It was then transcribed to norwegian.


– Når det gjøres så bra restaurering som med Sound of Music, er det forbløffende. Men så er det eksempler på at restaureringen ikke er bra nok, f.eks. med Predator.
– Ja, vi fikk kritikk for den, men den syntes jeg var urettferdig. Filmen ble skutt på en filmtype som ikke var bra nok. Men slik den er på BD nå, er slik filmfotografen ønsket at den skulle fremstå. Diskusjonen om å ta bort filmkorn eller ei, er noe vi diskuterer med filmregissørerne og fotografene, så lenge de er i live. (RELEASE 1•2011)


My translation:


When the restauration is done well, like with Sound of Music, it is astonishing. But then there are examples of bad restoration, like with Predator.
– Yes, we received critisism for that one, but to us it was unjust (or unfair). They shot that movie on a type of film that wasn't good enough. But how it now is presented on BD, is the way the director of cinematography wanted it too look. The discussion about grain or not, is something we have a close dialogue with the directors and photographers about, as long as they are alive.


best JB




Den 19. mai 2011 kl. 10.30 skrev raymond gendreau:


Dear John Berge,
I read your article with interest using Bing translation .

Unfortunately, the last paragraph is not clear. Can you tell me where I can find a better translation than this one?http://www.microsofttranslator.com/B...sp%3FID%3D6732

This is the paragraph I am having trouble with.

— When done so good restoration with the Sound of Music, it is astonishing. But there are examples of restoration is not good enough. with the Predator.
— Yes, we received criticism for it, but it seemed I was unjust. The film was shot on a film type that wasn't good enough. But as of now, so BOND cinematographer wished that it were to emerge. Discussion about taking away the film grain or not, is something we discuss with filmregissørerne and photographers, as long as they are alive. (RELEASE 1 • 2011)

Was the interview conducted in English or Norwegian?

Thank you,

Ray Gendreau

Sorry but I think you're the one who's completely missing the point of this release. This release seems to be a 2 way thing:

On the one hand you have a 3D transfer for people who want to watch the film in 3D and on the other hand you have a 2D transfer which has been newly remastered for the people who want a high quality version of the film in 2D aka the "purists" as you like to call them.

That's if Fox has remastered it properly this time around, which going by their recent track record of catalog releases, they probably have. I also don't understand why you keep denying that it hasn't been remastered even though there's stone cold evidence of this claim.

It might be a big seller but the UHE still looks like crap and a lot of people will agree with that statement. It doesn't help either that the 2008 edition has been taken out of print and removed from shop shelves.

Another example is the Back To The Future trilogy which are also big sellers on Blu-Ray even though the transfers are processed to death. Sales figures aren't the be all, end all indication that the Blu-Ray that you're buying has a good transfer.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

20th Century Fox distributes MGM titles and has for years now, but I suppose maybe it's like the Warner / Paramount deal where MGM would have to make that decision?

Also, The French Connection is a relevant example. Even if I agreed that it was true / meant anything that Friedkin suggested a new disc (which I assume is what you're saying), 20th Century Fox still agreed to foot the bill for the new transfer and release it. Someone's brought up Wall Street as well.

Distributes not masters

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

If that is the case, they why did they bother re-issuing Patton? Wallstreet? There are others. No question, profit is the number one priority and should be (no one stays in business losing money), but I think there is a much different view on this issue of DNR especially with Fox. If a presumably low selling catalog title like Porky's can receive a very filmlike transfer, so can Predator which surely will do far more in sales.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Porky...7/#Screenshots

Well, if Fox had a change of heart, it must have been after the release of the UHE. You probably noticed that there was no mention of a 2D restoration or remaster in the official press release for Predator 3D. Why not?

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

Sorry but I think you're the one who's completely missing the point of this release. This release seems to be a 2 way thing:

On the one hand you have a 3D transfer for people who want to watch the film in 3D and on the other hand you have a 2D transfer which has been newly remastered for the people who want a high quality version of the film in 2D aka the "purists" as you like to call them.

That's if Fox has remastered it properly this time around, which going by their recent track record of catalog releases, they probably have. I also don't understand why you keep denying that it hasn't been remastered even though there's stone cold evidence of this claim.

It might be a big seller but the UHE still looks like crap and a lot of people will agree with that statement. It doesn't help either that the 2008 edition has been taken out of print and removed from shop shelves.

Another example is the Back To The Future trilogy which are also big sellers on Blu-Ray even though the transfers are processed to death. Sales figures aren't the be all, end all indication that the Blu-Ray that you're buying has a good transfer.

There are no disk specifications for the 3D release yet, so what will and will not be included in the release is up for discussion. We know the limited "head" edition will have a DVD in addition to the 3D disk from the description on Fox Connect. Nothing is officially stated regarding the "non head" release. There was no definitive statement from James Finn, other than that there would be two disks, one of which might be a DVD.

The only "stone cold" evidence is in the official press release: "all new 3D transfer" It does not say "all new 2D transfer. It does not say "all new optical restoration. It does not say "all new digital restoration" (It did say that in the UHE press release) and it does not say "all new 4K scan"

What we do know from the official Fox Connect listing is that "hours of out of this world extras" are included with the "head" edition. They may be on a DVD or they may be on Blu-ray. We have no way of knowing at this point.

In regard to the 2008 edition. It is not on store shelves because there is little demand for it and shelf space costs money. It is available from Amazon and stocked by Amazon. It is not OOP. http://dvdlist.kazart.com/queryDVDLi...re&sort3by=ASC

Just to be clear, I may be rolling my eyes at you when I buy this in December and find that the only way to watch it in 2D will be to select 2D from the menu in order to watch the left eye of the "all new 3D transfer"

Seriously, pending some first hand information on disk specs and reviews of the actual release, you're left with this first hand account of how the clips looked at SDCC:

"I put on the exclusive Predator 3D glasses to see the scenes from the film in 3D.

The 3D looked great, and the transfer itself looked superior to the standard Blu-ray editions, more clear, less grain. Granted, they were showing it on a top of the line JVC 3D TV so the conditions were optimal. In the closeup of the Predator unmasked, I’ve got to believe his little tendrils poked out of the screen a little, but maybe that’s just because I wanted them to.

Most of the 3D scenes showing at the Predator booth followed the James Cameron “inward depth” rule rather than the sticky outty kind of 3D that I like. You can definitely see all the layers in the jungle. Highlight included the descent into the jungle, the attack on the guerilla camp and the night fight between Dutch (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Predator. The night scenes looked particularly great for being low light and converted into full depth." (Fred Topel, craveonline)

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

Really, all of their recent Blu-Rays that I've seen have been wonderful. As was previously mentioned in this thread, Raising Arizona and Miller's Crossing leap to mind.

Hopefully with the TV show coming out, they revisit Fargo. I was blown away by how awful it looked when I watched it a few months ago.

The Fargo Blu-ray transfer is pretty good in my humble opinion.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

Sorry but I think you're the one who's completely missing the point of this release. This release seems to be a 2 way thing:

On the one hand you have a 3D transfer for people who want to watch the film in 3D and on the other hand you have a 2D transfer which has been newly remastered for the people who want a high quality version of the film in 2D aka the "purists" as you like to call them.

That's if Fox has remastered it properly this time around, which going by their recent track record of catalog releases, they probably have. I also don't understand why you keep denying that it hasn't been remastered even though there's stone cold evidence of this claim.

It might be a big seller but the UHE still looks like crap and a lot of people will agree with that statement. It doesn't help either that the 2008 edition has been taken out of print and removed from shop shelves.

Another example is the Back To The Future trilogy which are also big sellers on Blu-Ray even though the transfers are processed to death. Sales figures aren't the be all, end all indication that the Blu-Ray that you're buying has a good transfer.

I have little issue with people moaning about very poor transfers like the ultimate edition of Predator,but I feel we are back to asking for the impossible with releases like "Back to the future" which again looks pretty good on Blu-ray,and has nothing like the levels of DNR applied to it as the ultimate edition of Predator.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

I have little issue with people moaning about very poor transfers like the ultimate edition of Predator,but I feel we are back to asking for the impossible with releases like "Back to the future" which again looks pretty good on Blu-ray,and has nothing like the levels of DNR applied to it as the ultimate edition of Predator.

Actually it gets close