A few words about...™ Predator (2010 re-issue) -- in Blu-ray - Page 8

I don't think that the average uninformed buyer is going to make a decision to buy a movie whether it is dnr'd or not.  They don't follow these threads so they have no way of knowing what the releases look like before they buy.  It seems that dnr'ing movies like this will only decrease sales and never increase them.  Has using dnr and the like ever actually increased sales of a movie.  There are alot of people like me who want to own alot of these movies but will not buy because of the transfers.  Patton, Predator, Dark City, etc.  There are lots of people that will not buy a movie if it is dnr'd but are the're actually groups of people that won't buy a movie unless it is dnr'd?  I just don't see a scenario where filtering movies like this has any result other than decreasing possible sales.

 

To me that's an easy one. Yes, DNR will probably increase sales. The majority of people who don't know better think that an HD presentation of a movie is supposed to look like it was made yesterday (and I'm pretty sure I've even seen arguments here, on this forum, when a Blu-Ray retains the natural grain about whether it's correct or not). If they see grain, they'll think the movie looks like shit and won't understand that that's how it's supposed to look. It's like this format's pan & scan. Compound this with (what I bet) is the fact that anyone reading this thread has heard someone they know say "I just don't see the difference between Hi-Def and normal." and you get people who think this HD thing is just a gimmick to make you re-buy what you have on DVD already.

Well, I'll take the desecration of this movie as good news. Why?

 

Because I love Predator. It gives me my 80's action film high when I need it. And now it has been released twice on blu-ray. The first blu-ray version, arguably, needed some digital restoration and manipulation, and the newest blu-ray version definitely has too much digital manipulation, mainly in the DNR department.

 

So, after all the backlash against both of these releases, in two years, I deduce that they will release a new version that hopefully falls in the middle and is just right. Having not purchased any of the first two versions, I am praying that my deduction becomes a reality.

 

With the way studios love to release and re-release, and re-re-release popular blu-rays (especially action films of the 80's), I will not blink an eye if there are five different versions of Predator on blu-ray before the format becomes defunct. One of them will have to be good.

 

By the way, a hilarious first post. I actually laughed out loud at RAH's cleverness.

I didn't see this Blu-ray until the other day - between vacation and Fox sending my review copies to the wrong house, I didn't get one for a while.  I agree that it's an odd-looking presentation, and the bas relief comment is good.  I compared it to a rotoscoped flick in my review - it looked like something had been drawn on top of the original photography.

 

I don't think the presentation is a disaster, but it's certainly not something that looks like FILM.  If "Predator" had been shot in 2009 on hi-def video, it'd be more acceptable, but it's not.

 

I'm not particularly sensitive to DNR - I thought the "Star Trek" Blu-rays usually looked pretty good - but this one's got serious problems.

 

I'm surprised more people haven't picked on the scenes with smoke.  The DNR tends to erase the smoke - and the sharpness of the actors with it.  Look at Carl Weathers in the briefing scene - he takes on this weird ghostly look...

If i had known a Predator thread was alive on Home Theater Forum i would have put my two cents worth in, or since i'm in the UK my 1.3 pence worth.

 

I'm all tired out though from discussing this trainwreck of a new release, some people just don't get the argument for preserving the original shot film.

 

For those interested in seeing the look of the old Predator i did a lot of screencaps for my site, the link is below.

 

http://www.darkrealmfox.com/film_reviews/2010/07/20/blu-ray-screencaps-predator/

 

My opinion is the original release got a bad reputation but didn't deserve it, the encoding particularly during the final parts of the movie does suffer a little and a new AVC encode would have sorted that out but overall it's a pretty solid release compared to many films out there. It looks very good on the bigscreen. ( projection system )

 

I explain in a mini review that grain in still frame form might look distracting or even obscure some details which when in motion are perfectly clear, i just don't think some people listen or get this notion.

 

 

Predator DNR Disaster

Is anyone else as mad about the new transfer for Predator ? It has got to be the worst transfer since Patton. Everyone looks like those Duracell people from the commercials in the 90s. Just horrible. What do you think the chances are that they'll ever get their heads out of their butts and do the transfer right, leaving in the grain like it's supposed to be ?
 

 

Post moved.
 

Some not so mad it seems.

 

The new edition of Total Film magazine reviewed the "Ultimate Hunter Edition".

 

 

 

Real journalism is dead.

 

Edited by Michael Reuben - 8/11/10 at 11:15am

Is that Puss in Boots and Flounder from The Little Mermaid? What the hell is going on here!!!!?

 

Well that's one magazine i will never buy for the blu ray film reviews.

Wow, this thread started strong with RAH's witty dismissal of the Predator UHE train wreck, then veered off into an ultimately irrelevant discussion of what people want their Blu-ray content to look like, then came back strong with RAH's personal insights into the modern film technician's digital toolbox. A great three act thread!

Now in the third act, Mr. Harris made the following two quotes:

I'm truly shocked that grain can be removed without otherwise affecting the image. That just seems completely counterintuitive to me. I always thought that removal of grain would also inevitably result in a loss of fine detail along with it. After all, it seems that any time we get an "overly DNRed" release (we all know the examples) then the telltale sign is a terrible waxy look, devoid of fine detail. Mr. Harris, are you saying that Predator:UHE or Patton could have been released with all grain completely scrubbed, yet still presenting all of the fine detail of the original film? If so, why on earth wouldn't they have done that?

Just for the record, I am a firm believer that the final home video product should be as close to the look of the original answer print as is humanly possible, so even if a release could be fully de-grained while retaining all fine detail, I would still be opposed to that.

 

 

Hey look its a "no Leprechauns" allowed sign!

 

What can be said. Some of us hate the disc (me, never bought it, but saw it). While some love it.

 

And, i seem to have blocked any examples of people who loved it, from my mind.  :)
 

Fox Executive Discusses Blu-ray Plans

 

Remastering

Finally, Marcais was asked about the policy when remastering catalog titles and specifically about Predator. The Fox executive acknowledges that they got a lot of criticism, "but I don't think it was deserved," he countered, because the movie was shot on a film stock that wasn't good enough, and the Blu-ray version "represents what the filmmaker wanted it to look like." He said that Fox discusses the issue of "removing grain or not" with the filmmakers, as long as they are alive.

 

 

Taken from:

 

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=5821

 

 

So are we to assume that Mr. McTiernan wanted it to look this way?!? I have a hard time believing that. With this statement from Marcais, I do not see what is to stop more DNR'd catalog titles being produced by Fox.

 

 

 

Well that definitely sheds some light on things. It's kind of good to know that they are taking direction from the filmmakers rather than popular public opinion regarding grain-reduction and DNR, though unfortunately those of us who wish for film-like blu-rays may not agree with what the filmmakers approve!

Wasn't he in jail when this would have been approved?

 

 

I agree with you, i doubt McTiernan wanted it to look that way, i think the words are being twisted, McTiernan probably said he wanted it to look different when filming it and the studio exec told him they now have the tools to give him his wishes and the film can now look the way he always wanted it to look, McTiernan got all excited and thought they could fix it but as we can all see, those tools don't always work as we want.

 

Anyway, sometimes directors make mistakes, see Friedkin and French Connection, sometimes filmmakers do things right, see Spielberg and his movies on blu ray, you have to view these things on a case by case basis.

I had to buy this. I just had to. I wanted to see what the worst the format has to offer truly looks like

Walmart has this for $10 right now, and the *only* reason I finally broke down and got it was because it has a $10 movie cash promotion for PROMETHEUS. So it's like I saw PROMETHEUS, which I was going to do anyway, and received one of the worst looking Blus ever as a free consolation prize.

But I popped it in the other night, and OOF - it's as bad as they say. It really, truly is.