Gladiator Blu-ray - release date 09/01/2009 - Read before buying! (1 Viewer)

[Adam Gregorich]

Disclaimer: My post mentions the format war, but it is for historical reference, and not meant to cause a discussion of the format war, the thread is still about Gladiator....

I had a meeting with some Universal executives during the format war, about 4 months before WB ended it. They had done a new transfer and were trying to get Ridley Scott to approve it. They were having difficulty due to scheduling conflicts with some other projects he was working on. While I can't remember exact details I believe they had had a hard time finding clean elements and were originally trying to do a Q4 HD DVD release, but the delays with elements and getting the transfer approved had pushed it back. The format war ended causing it to be shelved for a while (along with Charlie Wilson's War which I actually watched on an HD DVD check disc--Since the encode is done Universal needs to release it on BD!). I have verified with sources that this Blu-ray is a new transfer and has been approved by Ridley Scott. I am assuming that it is the transfer that was done for the intended HD DVD release by Universal.

Having never owned the extended cut on DVD, I went ahead and picked it up despite the warnings. The low price at Best Buy when you purchased it as well as Braveheart made the decision easier. It'll do until something better comes along. Kind of like the Terminator 2 "Skynet" Edition.

Make room in that boat for me....

 

[Ray_R]

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich /forum/thread/292119/gladiator-blu-ray-release-date-09-01-2009-do-not-buy/90#post_3602524

 

[Adam Gregorich]

A quality HD transfer is not format specific. Arguments could be made about encoding for the different formats, but that debate ended when we went to one format and I don't want to resurrect it . My main point is that Universal was working on a new transfer in 2007 with the intention of releasing it on HD DVD, and I am assuming that it was the transfer ultimately used, as doing a transfer is expensive and it can take awhile to have an opening in a directors schedule to approve it (think James Cameron).

 

[Ray_R]

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich . My main point is that Universal was working on a new transfer in 2007 with the intention of releasing it on HD DVD, and I am assuming that it was the transfer ultimately used, as doing a transfer is expensive and it can take awhile to have an opening in a directors schedule to approve it (think James Cameron).

I agree too. A Director can approve of a transfer but it's also down to the encoding to be on disc. Such as for example the raw transfer could've had all the film grain retained with nary any DNR/EE/Jaggies-on-location-titles. I think it's just a botched encode with settings clicked on which didn't need to be of which is what I'm just assuming.
So ya, I think I'll blame the encode if that's the case. If I were a high-calibre director, you'd bet I'd take the time and effort to supervise both transfer and encode. And of course tell anyone who uses the DNR/EE options to take a hike.
Of course GLADIATOR isn't my movie but I sure as hell am quite a fan of it. As I've already said, I purchased the Blu just on the fact not having to swap the special feature DVD discs. Here's hoping for another re-encoding.

EDIT: About Cameron, Van even said himself he's far too busy with Avatar to do any new transfers/encodes at this time. Personally, I'm not sure if I'll be seeing Avatar since those blue whatevers are hard on the eyes.

 

[Paul Arnette]

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich

I have verified with sources that this Blu-ray is a new transfer and has been approved by Ridley Scott.

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich

My main point is that Universal was working on a new transfer in 2007 with the intention of releasing it on HD DVD, and I am assuming that it was the transfer ultimately used, as doing a transfer is expensive and it can take awhile to have an opening in a directors schedule to approve it (think James Cameron).

I'm confused, Adam, which is it? Verified or assumed?

 

[Shawn.F]

If that Blu-ray transfer was indeed new and approved by Ridley Scott himself, then I would like to offer the phone number of my optometrist to Sir Ridley.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Paul Arnette


I'm confused, Adam, which is it? Verified or assumed?

Adam's statements are very clear:

1. It is verified that the transfer is new and approved by Ridley Scott; and
2. It is assumed that it is the same transfer that was being worked on in 2007, originally intended by Universal for an HD DVD release, although it's possible (but unlikely) that it was done later.

 

[Paul Arnette]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben

Adam's statements are very clear:

Well, they weren't to me, or else I wouldn't have asked. I honestly could not tell whether it was verified or assumed that a new transfer was used for this BD.

I guess the bottom line here then is that there was a new transfer done sometime in or after 2007 that was used on this Blu-ray Disc and approved by Ridley Scott, correct? If so, I'm with Shawn.

Though I'm only mildly surprised; this isn't the first time a director has seemed to care less about how his film is presented on home video than the fans, but I would've never guess Ridley Scott fell into that group.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

After giving it some thought I changed the thread title from "Do Not Buy" to "Read Before Buying" Does this appear to be the release everyone was hoping for? No, but for someone like myself who only had the initial DVD release it makes sense to buy this at the current sale price as it is better than the DVD version.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

I guess the bottom line here then is that there was a new transfer done sometime in or after 2007 that was used on this Blu-ray Disc and approved by Ridley Scott, correct?

Correct.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Ken_McAlinden

Having never owned the extended cut on DVD, I went ahead and picked it up despite the warnings. The low price at Best Buy when you purchased it as well as Braveheart made the decision easier. It'll do until something better comes along. Kind of like the Terminator 2 "Skynet" Edition.

Regards,

After some internal debate, I made the same decision.




Crawdaddy

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Ray_R /forum/thread/292119/gladiator-blu-ray-release-date-09-01-2009-read-before-buying/90#post_3602461

If I remember correctly, the Spielberg directed films went with him and Dreamworks when they broke from Paramount. Ryan would likely be released by Touchstone if that holds true.

Doug

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina

_Man_

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by Ray_R

_Man_

 

[Ray_R]

Man, I jumped on buying both BRAVEHEART and GLADIATOR from Best Buy for $17.99 each. Personally I consider myself more obligated to inform Paramount/Universal/DreamWorks about this fiasco since I did purchase this title fully knowing about the PQ fiasco. Guess it gives me more leverage as a consumer since it also puts me in the spotlight as someone who's interested in the title and more at ease in informing Paramount/Universal/DreamWorks about my wish for a disc replacement program.
Just a feeling if they do see all the reviews INCLUDING substantial sales, they might even be more willing to plunk down the money for a new encode and pressing of discs. Hopefully with actual disc art this time! I'm slightly irked that BRAVEHEART didn't carry over the interviews from the SCE.

 

[Ray H]

Picked this up with Braveheart earlier and took a look at some scenes. It's not a complete travesty, but I do feel heavy DNR and digital sharpening produce an ugly image, and this is no exception. I certainly would've been happier had Universal/Dreamworks/Paramount just included a transfer based off of the untweaked HD master (used for TV broadcasts, etc). I certainly would take a soft and noisy, but more filmlike transfer over this digital processing.

 

[Dave Moritz]

As bad as I want this title because I love this movie, I will not buy it on Bluray ! I will continue to enjoy my SD-DVD until this transfer is corrected and it arrives on retail shelves! I will also say no to any other title and will let other people know when shopping for movies not to buy a title if it is messed up ! I find it embarrassing and pathetic that a top notch title like Gladiator gets such a poor quality transfer. This is not how a studio pushes a format to consumers, especially in a down economy when money is tight.

 

[Ray_R]

Originally Posted by Dave Moritz /forum/thread/292119/gladiator-blu-ray-release-date-09-01-2009-read-before-buying/90#post_3603363

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Ray_R ">[/url]



What're you talking about? I bought this for $17.99 which is practically a steal. IF you're not searching for great prices for releases that's your own fault and no one elses.
Yep, I'm still awaiting a new encode, disc replacement program and slightly satisfied with the film disc. I'd rather be perfectly satisfied but for the price I purchased this at, I'm a bit more relieved and patient awaiting news, if any, for the dilm disc.
Hopefully in your case they won't muck it up right off the bat for Holographic Versatile Disc in 2018!

 

[David_B_K]

I have it in my Netflix queue to see how good/bad it looks. But it is looking like my SD original version with the 6.1 DTS will likely be my keeper version. I had rented the DVD extended cut and did not feel the movie benefited from the new scenes.

The original DVD nooks pretty good upconverted, IMO.