UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Aliens -- in 4k UHD (3 Viewers)

[JoshZ]

I also found the Arrow blu-ray of The Thing to be excessively grainy. And that's a movie that never looked particularly grainy in release prints.

The Universal 4K release of The Thing (from a different master) looks way better than Arrow's 4K remastered Blu-ray, IMO.

 

[JoshZ]

My belated copies of Aliens and True Lies just arrived. (Still waiting on The Abyss.) Sadly, I'll have to backburner them to watch the Road House remake tonight.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I'll be watching this soon [ideally, tonight] and will weigh in with my thoughts.

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

It certainly looks better than the Predator "Ultimate Hunter Edition."

Are you trying to make this thread "Aliens vs. Predator?" Whoever wins, we lose.

 

[Robert Harris]

As someone fine with this release...

I would go with the grainy restoration. I believe that the home presentation should reflect what the film was intended to look like.

However, this is what Cameron wanted to do. It is his decision and no matter how much we protest, he's going to reimagine these films, as well as The Terminator, the way he wants.

I understand the anger. I'm not dismissing it. Who knows if anyone is going to inform James Cameron about the negative feedback he is getting on these titles, or if he will care.

I think the saving grace is that there are quite a few of the less vocal who haven't found these presentations to be the travesty that some are making them out to be. I suppose, if you are going to "reimagine" your films for video, they could turn out a hell of a lot worse than they did here.

I’ll chime in here.

The film DOES NOT need to be restored.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I’ll chime in here.

The film DOES NOT need to be restored.

Yup, not every catalog film released on 4K/UHD has been restored. RAH, what would you call what Warner did with The Searchers that's being shown next month from a 4K scan?

 

[sbjork]

I've said this before in other threads, but with the caveat that I haven't watched Aliens yet and it may well be worse, I have already watched both Titanic and The Abyss. Are they what I would have preferred, if I had my druthers? No, and I've been clear about that. Am I content enough with them as they are that I'll definitely watch these new versions over the previous Blu-ray and/or DVD releases? Yes, I will. What's sometimes lost in debates like this is that there's a massive divide between "perfection" and "completely unacceptable." No one is required to stake their ground on one extreme or the other; it's perfectly fine to land somewhere along the continuum between those two points. There are genuine awful 4K releases that I'll never watch again. These aren't what I would have wanted if I was in charge, but they're far, far from awful. The pluses outweigh the minuses. And I'm fine with anyone else staking out their own positions along that continuum. I'm not fine with people who insinuate that anyone who doesn't agree with their position doesn't know any better.

Where I am going to draw a line in the sand is over the argument that James Cameron is in any way, shape, or form open to consumer feedback of any kind -- pro or con. James Cameron has always cared what James Cameron thinks, and if he wants anyone else's opinion, he gives it to them. Further, to build on something that Ron said earlier, the days where studios really cared about feedback from enthusiasts are long, long over. There are exceptions, but for the most part, it's all indeed just noise. That's due to a variety of factors like the general decline in physical media sales, the purges in most major studio's home video divisions, and the simple fact that noise on the internet expands exponentially each and every year. It's impossible to separate the legitimate concerns from the oceans of generalized bitching about anything and everything, no matter how trivial.

All of that results in a catch-22 for enthusiasts. If we raise legitimate complaints, it's just more noise on top of the noise about cover art, pricing, lack of a slipcover, and all the other things that we complain about online these days. The zone has been flooded, and even if there were enough people at the studios who actually cared about feedback, they're unlikely to put the effort into sorting through all of it. We're also a niche of a niche at this point in history, so even if we boycott a release, it's not going to put a significant dent into the sales figures. But hypothetically speaking, if we do raise our complaints, boycott a release due to the issues, and it results in a lack of sales that gets the studio's attention, they're just going to chalk it up to the general decline in physical media and decide that it's not worth putting out those kinds of releases anymore. They're going to get the wrong message from the lack of sales, because they have no faith in physical media anyway and it's just going to confirm their biases.

I'm not saying that we should give the studios our money for releases that we do consider unacceptable, but that's the catch-22. We shouldn't have to pay for things that we don't like just to keep the pipeline open, but not buying things that we don't like is helping to close that pipeline. It's our own personal Kobayashi Maru, and none of us are in a position to reprogram the simulation.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Again, I'm not arguing in favor of DNR here. I just think some middle ground is possible between total grain removal and the sandstorm of grain we wind up with on some 4K releases.

I don't think anyone has argued that no grain reduction is ever allowable/appropriate.

Just that it be tasteful and still allow a gritty, grainy movie from 1986 to look like a gritty, grainy movie from 1986, not a peppy shiny film from 1986.

Cameron may've hated the graininess of "Aliens" but it worked for the movie, as it gave the film the rough 'n' tumble vibe it needed.

The 4K just looks sterile.

As noted earlier, this didn't keep me from enjoying the film.

But I still couldn't help but think it looked wrong and felt wrong.

 

[Robert Harris]

Yup, not every catalog film released on 4K/UHD has been restored. RAH, what would you call what Warner did with The Searchers that's being shown next month from a 4K scan?

Why do I feel as though I’m a guest star on CSI: Special Victim’s Unit?

 

[Robert Saccone]

I got to watch about half of Aliens tonight. I can’t recall the last time I saw it. In the beginning I was focused on dissecting the image. In particular I was amazed at the amount of detail I could see in people’s faces in particular including the peach fuzz and the beach fuzz. Eventually I got sucked in and just enjoyed the movie. End result is it works for me and I can’t wait to watch the rest.

 

[tenia]

I’ll chime in here.
The film DOES NOT need to be restored.

The grainy remaster, then.

 

[Robert Harris]

The grainy remaster, then.

If one desired the perfect appearance of an original 35mm print, a simple 4k scan of a timed IP would service the need.

 

[tenia]

If one desired the perfect appearance of an original 35mm print, a simple 4k scan of a timed IP would service the need.

And I'm fairly certain that's the kind of look Robert had in mind when saying what he'd take over what's being offered.

My precision was more about how misusing the proper term shouldn't cloud what even such a "recent" movie could gain from newly (and properly) performed work. For instance, I don't know if The Truman Show was restored or only remastered, but it's crystal clear how much improvement could be provided over his previous master and how this has been indeed provided by the more recent master.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Weighing in on this harvest and remaster now that I’ve seen it. I…….. don’t hate it, and may actually kind of like it. This is not the smeary mess of Patton, the HD master of Tremors, or Get Back. The AI has been carefully applied. Real grain is nowhere to be seen, and I appreciate that any artefacts that could arise from applying too much enhancement to SD elements within the frame are notably absent (the monitors inside the APC, the motion detectors). Also, there’s been no revisionist futzing with rear projection elements or matte lines. The amount of detail enhanced by the process is frankly impressive. I didn’t notice Ripley’s filling, and waxiness is at a minimum, though sweatiness is enhanced. I’d like a 4K harvest from an IP, but this master doesn’t stop me from losing myself in the movie. It’s still great.

Another note: this version returns the film to its steely blues, detailed blacks, blazing orange-yellows and hints of pink. Fleshtones look accurate and the skin textures are highly detailed.

 

[Todd Erwin]

Anyone disappointed that the digital copies of Aliens and The Abyss did NOT include the Special Edition cuts in 4K can call Disney Home Entertainment customer service at 888-223-4369 or complete the feedback form. Currently, they are only collecting feedback, but if they receive plenty of complaints, they may actually fix the issue retroactively.

 

[Lee-c]

Completely different process than what was used for TL, Abyss, and Aliens.
which is why James Cameron is redoing Terminator 2.

If he's re-doing Terminator 2, let's hope that means the color will stick to the original blue tint for night and not that teal nonsense. Hopefully this re-master also means lots of detail, but not artificial plastic-y looking. Are there any rumors on a release date for Terminator 2? I wonder if there's any chance for also getting a new Terminator 4K re-master with the orignal color timing restored (and lots of extra detail, too, of course)?

I can understand the concern about the grain issue with Aliens, but it is nice to know that it retains detail and that the colors are back closer to the DVD's more accurate blue color timing, and not the less-blue-more-teal of the later Blu-ray.

 

[mi_z]

The same logic can be applied to the fans who always argue against any changes to a film.

And they are right. At most we should accept multiple versions being made available like directors cuts, but completely burying the original is a big no-no. There is zero valid argument for this.

Doesn't matter what kind of film it is either. I would take Aliens over My Fair Lady any day. It is not up to someone to decide what is important and what isn't.

 

[mi_z]

Anyone who claims this is anything other than an upscale of the Lowry 2K master is deluding themselves.


I do not consider edge enhancement "extra detail": there is none.

 

[sbjork]

2005 called; it wants its jargon back.

 

[Wayne Klein]

Sure, but I do view it as the slippery slope of revisionism just because grain removal inevitably alters the original image.

Can they use technical whatnot to "bring back" what might be changed? Yeah, but that's still an artificial means that I think is unnecessary and potentially harmful.

I don't object to any and all forms of "massaging" movies/grain reduction/etc.

I know some movies need tasteful grain management.

But I don't think "the filmmaker didn't use grain for cinematic reasons" is a reason to eradicate it entirely.

To your point, whether or not it was an intended effect, the grain can actually add to the visual experience, I.e., “Aliens”, it gave it a gritty feel that matched the intent of Cameron‘s film.