A Few Words About A few words about...™ Gladiator (redux) -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

Paramount's new (replacement) Blu-ray of Ridley Scott's iconic film, Gladiator, finally reaches Blu-ray with all of its high quality imagery and splendor intact.


My hat is off, and held high, at Paramount's handling of the controversial first release, and their deliberate and speedy actions to re-visit and replace.


Superb film-making, now on a superb Blu-ray.


The new release will have a yellow boxed bar code.


Finally -- Ridley Scott's Gladiator is...


Highly Recommended.


Blu-ray perfection for the home theater.


RAH

 

[EnricoE]

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

 

[Xylon]

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.

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnricoE

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

I'm unable to speak to the color question on the film, as I have no concrete information. To ascertain correct color one would have to compare to final answer print or approved data files. Hopefully someone has performed this function.

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xylon


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

Watching some Blu-ray from a distance does help. Occasionally from a different room...


with a wall between the screen and viewer.


Facts are getting out, but the general audience still needs to be educated, if they are interested. Some frame grabs can be helpful, but one needs to understand how to interpret them, especially when viewing a still image that may or may not tell an accurate tale. Some seem to constantly post the worst screen grabs possible -- and I'm not referring to you -- and this isn't helpful to either the cause of quality Blu-rays or to education. I have no idea what agendas may be at play in those instances.


That said, well selected frame grabs that tell an accurate story can be extremely helpful, although I'm aware of at least one Sony employee who may disagree. If those images are truthful and accurate, they can be used to educate. With education may come the realization that Blu-rays do not need to be soft, grainless and dead in order to please all viewers. Creating that look can easily be brought to the fore by changing monitor and Blu-ray settings.


RAH

 

[Geoff_D]

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?

 

[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.

 

[TonyD]

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

 

[Robert Harris]

For differentiation, the new release will have a yellow boxed bar code.


RAH

 

[PaulDA]

Excellent news.

 

[Godbluffer]

Originally Posted by meijer /forum/thread/302465/a-few-words-about-gladiator-redux-in-blu-ray#post_3713584

 

[Geoff_D]

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.


*[SIZE= 8px]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[/SIZE]

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoff_D

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.


*[SIZE= 8px]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[/SIZE]

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

 

[Michael Osadciw]

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.

 

[Erin C]

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?

 

[Geoff_D]

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!".

 

[Robert Harris]

To quote William Goldman, "Nobody knows anything."


RAH

 

[Geoff_D]

Indeed.

 

[OliverK]

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!

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

 

[Chuck Mayer]

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