BestBuy: Predator Ultimate Hunter Ed. Blu Ray -- $14.99

dfo

dfo

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
Bestbuy has the new Predator Blu Ray release on sale for $14.99.

This is a new transfer in response to all the bitching about the graininess of the 2008 release. Opinions differ as to the result: lots of reviewers (including blu-ray.com) say this is some of the worst DNR work available on blu ray and that removal of all grain seriously detracts from the viewing experience. A few others (including avpgalaxy.net) commend the increased clarity and color of the new transfer and say this movie has never looked better.

Unlike the 2008 blu ray, this release includes special features:
-- "Predator: Evolution of a Species--Hunters of Extreme Perfection" featurette [newly made for this release]
-- sneak peek at the new "Predators" movie
-- audio commentary with director McTiernan
-- text commentary with film historian Eric Llichtenfeld
-- 28-minute making-of feature, "If It Bleeds We Can Kill It" from 2001
-- Inside the Predator featurettes
-- Special Effects featurettes
-- Short takes with the filmmakers
-- Deleted scenes and outtakes
-- Photo gallery and Predator Profile

I have not seen the package, but rumor is this also comes with $10 in e-Movie Cash for the new Predators movie, so if you were planning on going to that you can check out the new transfer yourself for effectively $5.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
keep in mind the people over at avpgalaxy.com aren't videophiles (which means don't take their word for scripture).

keep in mind the people over at blu-ray.com are videophiles (which means don't take their word for scripture).

its all preference, some like grain (me), others don't (my dad). I kinda wish i wasn't missing out on the new extras. if this ever drops to below 10$ i may bite.
 
I'm definitely in the more grain/less DNR camp myself, so I wasn't thrilled reading about the new transfer. I like special features though, and with the Movie Cash this seemed like the right price to me. But I understand why a lot of people will be passing on this one, and either stick with the 2008 release or wait for super-duper blu ray, or whatever the next format will be, to see if Fox can finally get this one right.
 
Watching it right now. The hate is so OVERBLOWN for this title. When in motion all the screencaps people point out don't look as bad as the screencaps make it out to be. There is still plenty of grain and lots of detail.
 
I've been holding off on this Blu-Ray for quite awhile after hearing mixed signals about the transfer. Might pick up the new one (using a GC) if it indeed includes the movie cash...
 
wow, arnold looked so young! so does that mean the 2008 release will have more value? but I do like the left. Call me crazy, but since we now live in an HD world, sharp and smooth is where its at for me. Best clarity possible..
 
ArnoldThenNow.jpg
 
yea i was just gonna say .... are there ppl that actually think stallone is natural in that new rambo??
 
[quote name='dfoz3']Pardon my ignorance, but which version is which in the side by side pic? To me the left pic looks best as it is very crisp.[/QUOTE]

Very crisp indeed the problem is the digital cleanup turned Arnold face into plastic/ computer generated looking.

I am curious if the effect is as bad though when in motion.
 
I picked it up yesterday and watched about 2/3 of it. There are a few scenes (such as that early one many of the stills from the scene where Arnold and Carl Weathers get reacquainted in the bunker) where the skin tones look extremely artificial, almost like CGI. For whatever reason, Carl Weathers' skin looked particularly plastic to me in many shots, maybe because Fox's DNR has trouble with darker colors/skin tones?

In any event, the picture otherwise looks much, much improved from the DVD version I've got, and I was generally impressed. I certainly understand the complaints (they could have done a better job screening out scenes that now look ridiculous), and it may be that the 2008 blu ray transfer is the way to go, but I'm satisfied with this for $15.

Also, the blu ray I bought came with $10 in "Hollywood Movie Money," which gets you $10 off a ticket to "Predators", "The A Team" or "Knight and Day", but you have to select which theater (from a list of participating theaters) you want to see the movie at when you redeem the code online, as opposed to getting a certificate good at any participating theater.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']one stopped using roids and hgh, and one didn't.

wonder which is which.[/QUOTE]

One also had way too much plastic surgery. Let's just say that DNR isn't really a concern for Stallone anymore, as he already looks like he's made of plastic.

And yeah, I (and my wife) had the same "man, he looks so young!" response when we saw those screen shots of Arnold. But I guess 1986 was a long time ago now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='opterasis']It's crazy the difference between how him and Stallone aged.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='perdition(troy']one stopped using roids and hgh, and one didn't.

wonder which is which.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dfo']One also had way too much plastic surgery. Lets just say that DNR isn't really a concern for Stallone anymore, as he already looks like he's made of plastic.

And yeah, I (and my wife) had the same "man, he looks so young!" response when we saw those screen shots of Arnold. But I guess 1986 was a long time ago now.[/QUOTE]

And let's not forget that while Stallone's been taking it easy with Hollywood life, Arnold's been governing the most populated state in the nation. That'll age anybody dramatically. (Of course, some wiseguy will crack a joke about the quality of the governorate, but I think that's beside the matter.)
 
God damn this sucks... I hate DNR with a frakkin' passion.
Older films HAVE and are supposed HAVE film grain on them.
I don't know who the god damn fool was that though Digital Noise Reduction
makes film transfers look better, but we should flog the livin' shit out of him
and anyone else that prefers that miserable effin' filter.
 
[quote name='opterasis']It's crazy the difference between how him and Stallone aged.[/QUOTE]

Stallone still works and dopes up while Arnie got himself a desk job living in luxury.

Also, I did NOT need to see that image. What happened, John Matrix?
 
Wow, that DNR is terrible...

For the record, this is what a movie should look like:
2606_4_large.jpg


And this is what a toy looks like:
wolverine-action-figure.jpg


Do not make movies look like toys.
 
I'll be sticking to the previous Blu-Ray release which I got for under $10. I hate too much DNR.
 
[quote name='Rouzhokuu']New transfer looks infinitely better.

If you want grain, watch a VHS, not a Blu-Ray.[/QUOTE]
This seems to be a misinformed statement.
 
[quote name='Rouzhokuu']New transfer looks infinitely better.

If you want grain, watch a VHS, not a Blu-Ray.[/QUOTE]

Are you retarded?

Grain is inherit to film (Predator was shot on 35mm). Trying to make it all smooth and "sharp" with DNR eliminates detail and make it look like Arnold was made out of plastic.

[quote name='opterasis']Release 1. Too much grain. People complain.
Release 2. No grain, too much DNR. People complain.[/QUOTE]

No more like

Release 1. Fox uses a old transfer. Movie doesn't look as good as it could. People complain.
Release 2. Fox uses a new transfer but go way overboard on the DNR in post. Movie doesn't look as good as it could. People complain.
 
the new features sound pretty awesome and i'd use the ticket if i can get out of the house to catch the movie. Maybe I'll let the reviews sway me.

Adrian Brody better bring it, god knows how he will though.
 
For anybody wanting "Hollywood Movie Money" and the original Predator Blu-ray release, Costco has a 3-pack that includes Predator, Commando, Alien Vs. Predator for $24.99. It includes a $10 movie money for The A-Team, Knight and Day or Predators.

I picked a copy for myself because I wanted the original release of Predator.
 
[quote name='rapsodist']And let's not forget that while Stallone's been taking it easy with Hollywood life, Arnold's been governing the most populated state in the nation. That'll age anybody dramatically. (Of course, some wiseguy will crack a joke about the quality of the governorate, but I think that's beside the matter.)[/QUOTE]

I, for one, respect Arnold and all he has done for CA. The only reason he gets so much attention is because he is part of the Hollywood Elite and because everyone assumes he is responsible for the state being in debt. Though I don't agree with all of Whitman's politics, she is the lesser of the two evils when compared to Brown. Just my two cents.

BTW, I also agree that they used way too much DNR. I just watched Collateral on BR and the studio did a marvelous job keeping the original film intact while still bringing it to HD.
 
[quote name='Rouzhokuu']New transfer looks infinitely better.

If you want grain, watch a VHS, not a Blu-Ray.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Friend of Sonic']This seems to be a misinformed statement.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Sporadic']Are you retarded?

Grain is inherit to film (Predator was shot on 35mm). Trying to make it all smooth and "sharp" with DNR eliminates detail and make it look like Arnold was made out of plastic.

No more like

Release 1. Fox uses a old transfer. Movie doesn't look as good as it could. People complain.
Release 2. Fox uses a new transfer but go way overboard on the DNR in post. Movie doesn't look as good as it could. People complain.[/QUOTE]

Agree with Friend and Sporadic, grain is part of any movie shot on film and should be retained. Some removal is fine but don't take it all away and remove the original feel of the movie.
 
i love predator too much and will have to pick this up and let my own eyes decide what I like. As bad as it might be, I also want to see the new movie. I know my wife wont go so now I can get a friend to split the cost of a ticket with me to see it.
 
[quote name='neoz']Agree with Friend and Sporadic, grain is part of any movie shot on film and should be retained. Some removal is fine but don't take it all away and remove the original feel of the movie.[/QUOTE]

That leaves us with questions like 'how many hairs must a man lose before he's bald?' and 'how long is a piece of string.'

In a perfect world we could see two versions of a film on one disk. One with grain in tact and one with the DNR treatment – like how some DVDs eventually compressed both widescreen and P&S version one a single disk – just to make both camps happy.

I almost feel like picking this up to show folks the difference between the versions so they have a better understanding. My reward would be the Movie Cash, but since mostly independent theaters are near by, would some be nice enough to list which theaters are taking this (in the New England area if they're regional). Unfortunately , the majority of the time the traveling involved doesn't make most Movie Cash deals worth it for me.
 
I am glad everyone knows what everyone's opinion should be about grain in a movie. Heaven forbid that it is just an opinion and everyone is entitled to one.
For the record I like the grain, but if you don't, go out and buy this movie, and enjoy it. It is nothing to me, and you certainly aren't an idiot for having that opinion.
 
For 15 bucks I might have to pick this up. As much as I hate the DNR of it and would rather have the grain I have RZ points I can use to bring it down to 5 bucks and change then with the free ticket it makes it worth it.
 
[quote name='ackbar7']I am glad everyone knows what everyone's opinion should be about grain in a movie. Heaven forbid that it is just an opinion and everyone is entitled to one.
For the record I like the grain, but if you don't, go out and buy this movie, and enjoy it. It is nothing to me, and you certainly aren't an idiot for having that opinion.[/QUOTE]

Opinions can be wrong. See: People who complain about a movie not filling up their screen :dunce:
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Opinions can be wrong. See: People who complain about a movie not filling up their screen :dunce:[/QUOTE]

lol. no, opinions cannot be wrong.

thats the point of an opinion...
 
[quote name='postulio']lol. no, opinions cannot be wrong.

thats the point of an opinion...[/QUOTE]

I know you're probably just going to come up with the same relativistic reasoning again, but I'd hope that even you have to admit that there are absolute truths in our world. Some things cannot be contradicted.

Believe it or not, I can actually sympathize with someone who simply prefers a pan-and-scan version because it fills out their 4:3 TV and is a more pleasing experience for them. But if that person actually thinks that a letterboxed version (of a movie originally filmed in widescreen aspect ratio) is missing part of the picture, then that's wrong. It doesn't matter if someone tries to label that as an opinion to make it seem more palatable for acceptance. It's not true.
 
But when it comes to grain v DNR, or P&S v letterbox we are simply talking about an aesthetic preference and there can't be a wrong opinion on that.
 
[quote name='ackbar7']But when it comes to grain v DNR, or P&S v letterbox we are simply talking about an aesthetic preference and there can't be a wrong opinion on that.[/QUOTE]

Except that filmmakers choose to make their films a certain way for a reason. Do you think that Spielberg filmed Jaws in 2:35:1 for no reason?

Cropping the movie down to 1:78:1/4:3 or destroying the grain structure of a transfer by turning it into wax isn't an aesthetic preference.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Except that filmmakers choose to make their films a certain way for a reason.[/QUOTE]

I agree to a point, except for the fact that when this movie was made, there was no choice in making the thing digital. If they could've shot the thing originally to look all crisp and clean like this, I believe they would have. With that said, I do too prefer the grittier look to this film because I grew up watching it that way.

Not every studio is gonna "Star Wars" their movies to make it look the best it can possibly look over and over again and make us all buy a new copy year after year because another new scene has been perfected. I don't know if I intend to buy this or not, and I don't have the previous Blu either, just the regular DVD, and upconverted seems like a good enough way to watch it to me. I am glad though that Fox took the time to actually do work on the movie and not just repackage the last release with the movie cash for the release of the new movie. Atleast they cared enough to try something and not just cash grab. For some of the HD-philes out there, this new clean look could really pop their TV to show off to friends with untrained eyes, who are more impressed by the cleanliness and brighter colors than how it's "supposed" to look.

Anyway, good job OP, cause this is a good deal considering the movie cash involved. You get to see the new one and get a blu ray for $15.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Except that filmmakers choose to make their films a certain way for a reason. Do you think that Spielberg filmed Jaws in 2:35:1 for no reason?[/QUOTE]
There is one reason that films are all filmed in that size, and that is purely financial. That is the shape that the screens are, so that is the shape the film was shot in. So yes, I do believe that (aesthetically) Speilberg filmed Jaws in 2:35:1 for no reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top