Predator (1987) (Ultimate Hunter Edition)

[Douglas R]

What annoys me about this is the way people shout to the rooftops about how bad the disc is without ever having seen it and then suggest that anyone who buys it is committing a heinous offence. I will buy any disc I want thank you very much and will then make up my own mind about it, instead of acting like a lemming, following what everyone else thinks.

[Zippyfan]

So has anyone actually seen the new Blu Ray and compared it to the old version?

[meehan]

Originally Posted by drtre81

What experts? We don't even have any real reviews yet.

Even still, there is such a thing called an opinion.

I think some of the new pics look better... Sue me.

And digital grain doesn't look like that.

There are people posting here that work as professionals within the industry, not to mention Robert Harris has had a few words to say on the subject.

I think they more than anyone should be listened to. You won't find one professional who would say that it's a good transfer.

And no one's telling you not to buy it and if you do, I hope you enjoy it, but for those of us who expect better and for films not to be toyed with to the extent that this has, I think we're entitled to voice our grievances.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Some artifacting? A LOT. Take a look at some of the original screenshots and zoom in on them. The grain is very digital and blocky as the the low bit MPEG-2 evidently could not handle it very well. That shot of Weathers contained real film grain that was defined despite the mustache blurring. There are also facial markings on Weathers' face Mr. internet film-maker genius-expert that you aren't seeing.

Haha, Mr. internet filmmaker genius-expert... the first correct thing you've said! Although i never said internet, so I don't know what that's referring to.

Since the new edition is SUPER scrubbed and there is possibly still some fine grain left, that means there was A LOT of grain originally, if it takes that much DNR to not even wipe it all out. And grain does come in different sizes, you know, depending on film stock, lenses used, exposure, etc. So there is large blocky types of grain that would generally be present in a film shot under the canopy of jungle trees using a lot of natural light.

And since there wasn't any mustache blurring in the original, nor should there be, then the film, as you say, wasn't shot soft and blurry to begin with. Therefore it IS the new transfer.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

What annoys me about this is the way people shout to the rooftops about how bad the disc is without ever having seen it and then suggest that anyone who buys it is committing a heinous offence. I will buy any disc I want thank you very much and will then make up my own mind about it, instead of acting like a lemming, following what everyone else thinks.

That's because it is an inaccurate representation and destroys the intended look of the original film. Like Ive said before, you don't take the brush strokes out of the Mona Lisa just because you can.

It's called integrity. Start messing with the integrity of art and there's really no need to create art any longer. When every expert who HAS seen it is calling it mediocre and, in some cases, worse than the original release, well, don't know what else to tell ya...

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by retablo

That's because it is an inaccurate representation and destroys the intended look of the original film. Like Ive said before, you don't take the brush strokes out of the Mona Lisa just because you can.

People keep latching on to this ridiculous analogy with the Mona Lisa (although seeing that painting in the Louvre is a vastly different experience to seeing it as a reproduction or photographic image). Apart from the insult in comparing a major work of art with the film PREDATOR, it's comparing apples and oranges. A painting is what it is for all time. Film is a flexible medium, which alters according to the whim of the makers and the studio, e.g. director's cuts, and the different viewing platforms.

[QuasidodoJr]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

People keep latching on to this ridiculous analogy with the Mona Lisa (although seeing that painting in the Louvre is a vastly different experience to seeing it as a reproduction or photographic image). Apart from the insult in comparing a major work of art with the film PREDATOR, it's comparing apples and oranges. A painting is what it is for all time. Film is a flexible medium, which alters according to the whim of the makers and the studio, e.g. director's cuts, and the different viewing platforms.

Ok. How about this then... Say you were to put together some kind of presentation or video, yourself. You purposefully designed it to look a certain way, in order to fit a theme you were going for. A few people see it and some of them decide they don't like the way it looks, so it's changed without your permission and made to look completely different.

Which version do you think people should see?

[meehan]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

People keep latching on to this ridiculous analogy with the Mona Lisa (although seeing that painting in the Louvre is a vastly different experience to seeing it as a reproduction or photographic image). Apart from the insult in comparing a major work of art with the film PREDATOR, it's comparing apples and oranges. A painting is what it is for all time. Film is a flexible medium, which alters according to the whim of the makers and the studio, e.g. director's cuts, and the different viewing platforms.

It's irrelevant what film we're talking about. Films are art regardless of whether it's an 80's action movie or a silent film from the 20's.

They are all distinctive of the time they were made in a variety of ways and I've said it time and time again; films should be preserved in a state that is as close to the original release as possible and not messed with to the extent that this transfer has.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by drtre81

What experts? We don't even have any real reviews yet.

Robert Harris fits the description of "expert", and he says it's a POS.

The HTF review, as well as the reviews from overseas have been quite real. It's just that you're choosing to ignore them.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Zippyfan

So has anyone actually seen the new Blu Ray and compared it to the old version?

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...hunter-edition

[DetroitSportsFan]

Even though I'm not impressed with this, I must acknowledge that Best Buy has this currently priced at $14.99.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Predator...&skuId=1001255

So the combination of the Predators movie money, wanting the extras on the disc (I don't own the DVD), and my morbid curiosity to see it with my own eyes is going to get me to buy it. After the Predators movie money, it basically makes the BD $5.

[Andy CYP]

Does anyone know when Blu-Ray.Com will be reviewing this?

[Jarfa]

Originally Posted by retablo

That's because it is an inaccurate representation and destroys the intended look of the original film. Like Ive said before, you don't take the brush strokes out of the Mona Lisa just because you can.

Let me ask you a question. The Curious Case of Banjamin Button was shot using digital cameras. The transfer to high-definition format (Blu-ray) it's not an example. What did fail? The art (digital cameras) or the transfer (no DNR)?

[Blu Nick]

Originally Posted by Andy CYP

Does anyone know when Blu-Ray.Com will be reviewing this?

Dunno, but i'm predicting a 2/5 for 'Video Quality'

[Beast]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Even though I'm not impressed with this, I must acknowledge that Best Buy has this currently priced at $14.99.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Predator...&skuId=1001255

So the combination of the Predators movie money, wanting the extras on the disc (I don't own the DVD), and my morbid curiosity to see it with my own eyes is going to get me to buy it. After the Predators movie money, it basically makes the BD $5.

Thanks for the heads up. With my Reward Certificate, I am basically getting this free.

I called Best Buy, they can't do the price adjustment until after I picked up the order though.

But as soon as I do, they already have a note on my account. Just have to phone them to have it put through.

Predator for free plus the movie cash to see Predators. I think that's a fantastic deal.

[Daredevil666]

That's because it is an inaccurate representation and destroys the intended look of the original film.

You can say that to ANY Blu-Ray version of ANY 25 years plus old movie that doesn't look like a glorified upscaled DVD.

[Spanbauer]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Even though I'm not impressed with this, I must acknowledge that Best Buy has this currently priced at $14.99.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Predator...&skuId=1001255

So the combination of the Predators movie money, wanting the extras on the disc (I don't own the DVD), and my morbid curiosity to see it with my own eyes is going to get me to buy it. After the Predators movie money, it basically makes the BD $5.

Bought. Thanks for the heads up.

Originally Posted by Blu Nick

Dunno, but i'm predicting a 2/5 for 'Video Quality'

if they give this release a 2/5 then they'll have to go back and give the original release a 1/5.

[philip74]

from the purist standpoint i can understand that they are unhappy about the film grain being gone.
looking at the avn forum screenshot comparison, i actually prefer the remaster though, because i feel there is more detail.
like previous posters have correctly stated though: a bluray presentation
can't be judged by just a few screenshots.
since i didn't own the previous version, i went ahead and ordered this one (extras won't hurt) and will make my own opinion once i have seen it.
i really don't understand all the negative energy in this thread though!
there are two versions available after all. the purists can still purchase the
old grain version and can stay away from the new one! where is the problem?
no one is forced to buy anything! if you don't like the so called remaster
simply don't purchase it, very simple.

[Robert George]

Originally Posted by QuasidodoJr

Ok. How about this then... Say you were to put together some kind of presentation or video, yourself. You purposefully designed it to look a certain way, in order to fit a theme you were going for. A few people see it and some of them decide they don't like the way it looks, so it's changed without your permission and made to look completely different.

Which version do you think people should see?

So...now the assumption is that the filmmaker was not consulted, or even cares.

[philip74]

isn't he still in prison