A few words about...™ Gladiator (redux) -- in Blu-ray

but what about the new change in color? the blue tint is gone and the film now has a more natural color palette.

It should have been done right in the first place . Some idiots even says that watch your blu-rays farther away so it wont be noticeable

These studios always manage to destroy the PQ of "A" catalog titles. Well, almost.

But sloooooooooooooooowly and surely facts about film and how they are supposed to look in high definition are getting out there.

Got the Euro release from Universal, and it does look spectacular, with fine grain & detail intact. As for the different colour timing vs. the old release, the caps that are floating around don't do it justice. The early scenes still have that cold feel to them, and the subsequent gladiator training scenes look perfectly sun-baked, with the stuff in Rome coming in somewhere inbetween.

It's a terrific remaster, but Universal should've saved themselves the trouble and done it right in the first place. Still, kudos to them and Paramount for wanting to fix it, although it begs the question: if enough people complain about other heavily DNR'ed titles, will the studios involved here replace them as well?

I really worry that the color filter scheme Ridley Scott used in certain scenes has been tampered with. The blue filtering for instance gives that scene a certain "feel. " If these scenes have been "color corrected"I would not even want the disc.            

Uh Oh so they might have fixed one thing and broke another?

Excellent news.

Quote:

Originally Posted by meijer 

I really worry that the color filter scheme Ridley Scott used in certain scenes has been tampered with. The blue filtering for instance gives that scene a certain "feel. " If these scenes have been "color corrected"I would not even want the disc.            

Don't worry.  Those blue scenes still look blue, just with a few more warmer colours in the mix, really not so strong as to undermine the overall blue effect.  And in terms of all around treatment the new disc so utterly destroys the old one, that ignoring it in favor of the old one would really be silly.

I really don't understand why the altered timing is getting people so worried (not just here, but all over). This is no different than the colour shifts Ridley employed for both Alien (quadrilogy version) and Blade Runner Final Cut - and have people turfed those titles out of their home theatre for not looking like the "originals" (forgetting how nebulous that term is in regards to home video)? Of course not.*

The new Gladiator is GORGEOUS. I've eulogised about the colour scheme above, yet the main thing for me is that it looks so damned fresh; I don't think it had a DI originally but this latest transfer gives any new DI show a run for its money.

*Waits for some smartarse to say how much they hate the new timing for those movies and that they only watch the LD versions in protest. :-p

Video is a different medium than film.  New colour choices need to be made when a film goes to home video...as we are limited to colours within Rec.709 for HD at D65.

Video with a white point of D65 is more blue than what would have been projected.  It's possible that the "old" disc versions of this title were deemed as much too blue on video and for this version to "get it right", new choices were made to better display any warm images that were originally intended.

Very interested in picking up the remastered version. I have not seen this since opening weekend. Is the extended version any better or even worth watching?

     Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris 

Quote:

 

With all of this discussion on line regarding what was viewed in theaters, there is not one shred of evidence that this new Blu-ray is not a precise replication of the final approved answer print.

 

Theatrical prints, as seen by the public throughout the world, are rather irrelevant to the precise desired and approved look of a film.

 

RAH
 

Right. But to play devil's advocate for a sec, there is not one shred of evidence that this new Blu-ray is a precise replication of the final approved answer print. And - to answer my own puzzlement above - I guess that's what worries people when a film has looked a certain way for ten (or however many) years and then - BAM! A new version comes out which looks quite different. Has it happened because the filmmakers have simply not had the opportunity to set the record straight? Has it happened because years of neglect have finally been reversed? Has it happened because the filmmakers have decided to renew their film using current technology?

Let me make this clear: I'm not one of the worriers. The new Gladiator is STUNNING. I still contend that the lofty ideal of "original intent" that some people are currently chanting like a frickin' mantra is a nebulous one at best. For all the reasons above and more, there's just too much wiggle room to put one release on a pedestal compared to another (discounting those which have been nobbled thanks to ignorant use of DNR, scratch removal etc. outside of the filmmaker's remit). As long as I likes any aesthetic changes, I'm happy. If I don't likes it, then that's purely because of my personal preference. I won't pretend that I've got an answer print of whatever movie in my basement and say "See! It didn't look like that ORIGINALLY!".

Indeed.

Regardless of how the movie looked before I think that with Charles De Lauzirika writing on this very forum that Ridley Scott was present in the mastering sessions we have enough evidence that this is a version that has the backing of the director.

I have asked in that thread why Ridley Scott might have wanted it to look different than it looked theatrically and on previous DVD, Superbit DVD, HD and Blu-Ray versions, would be great to get an answer.

But answer or not, when Ridley Scott himself was actively involved in this Blu-Ray release it that should at least put an end to discussions of undue tempering on behalf of the studio - Paramount did everything right and I will buy the disc!
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris 

Quote:

 

With all of this discussion on line regarding what was viewed in theaters, there is not one shred of evidence that this new Blu-ray is not a precise replication of the final approved answer print.

 

Theatrical prints, as seen by the public throughout the world, are rather irrelevant to the precise desired and approved look of a film.

 

RAH
 

Any idea when the disc will hit retails stores in the US?  I'd love to go hunt it down.

Ditto Chuck. Haven't seen this film in YEARS. And would love to see in Blu-ray. Bought it when it first came out and returned it after the reviews came in. 

Chuck,

It's in Best Buy stores right now.  I picked up a copy this morning, based on Bill Hunt's comments yesterday at his site.  Basically, on the back cover, in the right hand corner, the words "2-Disc Set" should be missing, compared to the original release.

I was able to gaze at a few scenes of the remaster and it's glorious.

How can you tell if you're buying the "new" version?

Bill Hunt stated at the Digital Bits:

1. It would have a yellow scan bar, but then wrote that wasn't the case

2. It wouldn't say "2-disc set" - but then said Paramount said that wasn't the case

Has Paramount issued a statement as to the way to tell

I just swung by Best Buy this morning, planning to find the remaster.  They only had three copies of Gladiator.

Two of them did NOT say "2-Disc Set" and one did.  I bought one of the ones without the writing, and looking at it at home, its the remaster alright.

BIG point to bear in mind - NONE of the SLIPCOVERS had "2 Disc-Set" written on them - you have to slide the keepcase out and check the actual case insert for the "2-Disc Set". 

One copy in this case had nothing written on the slipcover, but if you didn't check, you'd go home with a copy bearing the dreaded "2-Disc Set" inside!  So be warned!

Maybe the way to tell is the date.  Does it say 2010 on the back? 

Bradley, did you simply read my previous post?

Oh - and NO yellow barcodes seen.

Bleddyn's correct.  Same thing with me.

Thanks, gents.  I'd like to see this again, and I go hunt for it in an hour or so.  I appreciate the detail.

Another thing to note - the slipcover and the cover insert of the old disc bear the serial number, in the very right corner of the back cover, of

11111016517

My remastered copy, bought this morning, has this serial number on the slipcover.  But the cover insert inside has this new serial number...

11111016515

Hopefully this will help!

Bleddyn:

If you are talking about the UPC bar code "sku" numbers, they are usually 10 digits long (two groups of five numbers--with two smaller numbers on each end of the string).

That is excellent information that the sku # of the remastered version ends in "5"...but I fear you may be off by a digit.