![Gladiator [Blu-ray]](http://cdn.hometheaterforum.com/1/14/50x50px-ZC-146e023b_51-dDsYiAL__SL500_AA300_.jpg)
"No, 'tis not so deep, nor so wide, but 'tis enough..." - William Shakespeare
Ridley Scott's Gladiator is an example not only of superb storytelling, but superb technical filmmaking, and as such should be a treasure to cinephiles, especially those with higher end systems able to decode the technical superiority of its visual and aural elements.
I've been reading page upon page of negative comments on line, and seeing examples of problematic frame grabs, which can be notoriously unreliable. I've now experienced the two first releases (the other is Braveheart) in Paramount's Sapphire Series, and have come away with a number of thoughts, all of which are personal and based upon what my eyes and ears are telling me.
Gladiator is one of those Blu-ray releases that is screen size dependent. It is in some ways similar to previous problematic discs -- the worst visually being Patton and Gangs of New York (each for different reasons).
But Paramount's Gladiator, unlike the others is, in my humble opinion, neither the softened mess that is Patton, nor the softened and sharpened Gangs, to which was then added contrast, which gave it lovely "force fields."
Gladiator has problems of a far less damaging nature than those which are the notorious poster children for unprofessionally prepared Blu-rays, and which should have been recalled. Gladiator appears to have come from the original high definition master, the source for the original standard definition DVDs. As such, it would (and should) have gone through a bit of grain reduction (read: throwing it slightly out of focus), and then a touch of sharpening. Both actions would have permitted proper compression and ultimately, a good looking standard definition DVD.
Had the entire film been sourced from that original master, the problem may not have appeared to be as great. However, the addition of 16 minutes of extended footage exacerbated the problem, and allowed a perfect vision of precisely what Gladiator could have looked like from an entirely new scan and master -- a master that the film deserved, especially as a lead-off title of a heralded new studio series.
Let's return to the concept of "size dependent" for a moment. Anyone viewing this film on a screen up to about 40" or even a bit larger should have no problems. This is because the discs negative attributes, inclusive of a softening of the image, and the requisite addition of sharpening, which gave the standard definition DVD its acceptability, are no where in the league of that found on Patton and Gangs. The Academy Award winning special effects, which have been affected by the processing, along with a myriad of other digital problems, simply don't show up at the smaller size. Yes, this includes the errant arrows.
Run them at a good, modern, high-end home theater size, however, of 100 inches or thereabouts, and they become all too obvious. Again, not so obvious as Patton or Gangs, but when compared to the extended footage, an obvious loss of the quality that should have been on screen.
As an aside, arrows have gone missing before.
Laurence Olivier's brilliant King Henry the Fifth (1945), available on Criterion, had a sequence in which archers let loose a stream of arrows at opposing forces. The arrows had been created via animation, and were a separate pass, an additional layer of film, that needed to be exposed in the creation of either original Technicolor printing matrices, or later, an Eastman IP. In at least one example, the extra roll of film was left aside, and hence... no arrows.
While it's certainly a pity that Gladiator is not what if could have been, I'm not seeing this error as a hanging matter, nor do I believe that it begs a recall. With multi-layered and beautifully created audio intact, and uncompressed reproduction now offered in DTS-HD, and an extremely high end set of extras thanks to Charlie de Lauzirika and his high standards, Gladiator is an imperfect, but ultimately a quality ?Blu-ray.
If I ruled the world, which unfortunately, I don't, I would do the following:
Go back to original film elements, scan them in 4k, re-insert the extended footage, and view the resultant HD master for quality on a LARGE SCREEN. 35 or 40 inches will not do. Once it is found that things are truly in order, do a running change between printings, with some indication to the interested consumer on the packaging. Make it known that a new printing up to Sapphire standards is available, and institute an exchange program for those with home theaters of high enough quality to perceive the upgrade and who desire it. Is this making lemonade from lemons? Possibly. But in providing the product that should have been in the marketplace initially, all bases end up covered.
Can I give Gladiator as it stands a recommendation?
I'm afraid that I can't. But with the requisite changes and upgrade to what should have been released, Gladiator would then rate Very Highly. We'll wait to see what the next move is, hope that the studio stands behind what I'm certain was its intended product, as opposed to what was released, and then re-visit.
RAH
Ridley Scott's Gladiator is an example not only of superb storytelling, but superb technical filmmaking, and as such should be a treasure to cinephiles, especially those with higher end systems able to decode the technical superiority of its visual and aural elements.
I've been reading page upon page of negative comments on line, and seeing examples of problematic frame grabs, which can be notoriously unreliable. I've now experienced the two first releases (the other is Braveheart) in Paramount's Sapphire Series, and have come away with a number of thoughts, all of which are personal and based upon what my eyes and ears are telling me.
Gladiator is one of those Blu-ray releases that is screen size dependent. It is in some ways similar to previous problematic discs -- the worst visually being Patton and Gangs of New York (each for different reasons).
But Paramount's Gladiator, unlike the others is, in my humble opinion, neither the softened mess that is Patton, nor the softened and sharpened Gangs, to which was then added contrast, which gave it lovely "force fields."
Gladiator has problems of a far less damaging nature than those which are the notorious poster children for unprofessionally prepared Blu-rays, and which should have been recalled. Gladiator appears to have come from the original high definition master, the source for the original standard definition DVDs. As such, it would (and should) have gone through a bit of grain reduction (read: throwing it slightly out of focus), and then a touch of sharpening. Both actions would have permitted proper compression and ultimately, a good looking standard definition DVD.
Had the entire film been sourced from that original master, the problem may not have appeared to be as great. However, the addition of 16 minutes of extended footage exacerbated the problem, and allowed a perfect vision of precisely what Gladiator could have looked like from an entirely new scan and master -- a master that the film deserved, especially as a lead-off title of a heralded new studio series.
Let's return to the concept of "size dependent" for a moment. Anyone viewing this film on a screen up to about 40" or even a bit larger should have no problems. This is because the discs negative attributes, inclusive of a softening of the image, and the requisite addition of sharpening, which gave the standard definition DVD its acceptability, are no where in the league of that found on Patton and Gangs. The Academy Award winning special effects, which have been affected by the processing, along with a myriad of other digital problems, simply don't show up at the smaller size. Yes, this includes the errant arrows.
Run them at a good, modern, high-end home theater size, however, of 100 inches or thereabouts, and they become all too obvious. Again, not so obvious as Patton or Gangs, but when compared to the extended footage, an obvious loss of the quality that should have been on screen.
As an aside, arrows have gone missing before.
Laurence Olivier's brilliant King Henry the Fifth (1945), available on Criterion, had a sequence in which archers let loose a stream of arrows at opposing forces. The arrows had been created via animation, and were a separate pass, an additional layer of film, that needed to be exposed in the creation of either original Technicolor printing matrices, or later, an Eastman IP. In at least one example, the extra roll of film was left aside, and hence... no arrows.
While it's certainly a pity that Gladiator is not what if could have been, I'm not seeing this error as a hanging matter, nor do I believe that it begs a recall. With multi-layered and beautifully created audio intact, and uncompressed reproduction now offered in DTS-HD, and an extremely high end set of extras thanks to Charlie de Lauzirika and his high standards, Gladiator is an imperfect, but ultimately a quality ?Blu-ray.
If I ruled the world, which unfortunately, I don't, I would do the following:
Go back to original film elements, scan them in 4k, re-insert the extended footage, and view the resultant HD master for quality on a LARGE SCREEN. 35 or 40 inches will not do. Once it is found that things are truly in order, do a running change between printings, with some indication to the interested consumer on the packaging. Make it known that a new printing up to Sapphire standards is available, and institute an exchange program for those with home theaters of high enough quality to perceive the upgrade and who desire it. Is this making lemonade from lemons? Possibly. But in providing the product that should have been in the marketplace initially, all bases end up covered.
Can I give Gladiator as it stands a recommendation?
I'm afraid that I can't. But with the requisite changes and upgrade to what should have been released, Gladiator would then rate Very Highly. We'll wait to see what the next move is, hope that the studio stands behind what I'm certain was its intended product, as opposed to what was released, and then re-visit.
RAH
