Thursday, July 1, 2010

What the fuck is this?

7:23 PM / Blu-ray / Comments13 Comments

Seriously, Fox, is this meant to be a joke?

Great comment by Robert A. Harris on this mess:

Whatever post facility created this master should be tarred, feathered and rode out of town on a log.

In the past I suggested that they should best be working in the manufacture of plastic combs, where nothing artistic might be harmed. No longer. And people actually get paid to create this garbage.

 
13 Comments

1. BobaFett said:

LOL

Wow, this is pure ugliness. My old DVD looks much better than this abomination! I wonder if they haven't learned anything from Patton? Or do people really think that this looks good?

Now I'm waiting for reviews praising the 'great remastering'. *sigh*

(Posted on Thursday, July 1, 2010 at 7:54 PM)

2. Author Profile Page Michael said:

There have already been quite a few positive reviews, I'm afraid:

http://cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/details/predator?movieid=14138&locale=all

You know, I've never seen this film, and I've no idea whether it would be my cup of tea, but I now feel compelled to pick up the original BD before it becomes unavailable, just in case.

(Posted on Thursday, July 1, 2010 at 7:56 PM)

3. Michael Griffin said:

The grey Play-Doh on the general's upper lip says it all, really... DNR introduces more problems than it attempts to 'fix'.

When will studios learn. People with big TVs HAVE 'grain reduction' as an optional feature. Why the hell do we need it on the source material?!

(Posted on Thursday, July 1, 2010 at 10:19 PM)

4. FoxyMulder said:

As i said in the high definition digest forum, people complain about film grain because the idiots have their sharpness control all the way up which makes grain stand out and look unnaturally thick.

They still don't get it though and don't understand.

(Posted on Friday, July 2, 2010 at 12:28 AM)

5. Christopher D. Jacobson said:

Oh wow, and I thought "Patton" looked bad.

The original release actually looks all right. I'll have to pick that up as well before it's gone. It's certainly loads better than that redone atrocity.

LOL at the grain debate going on in that thread. I see it a lot at AVS Forum, but holy hell, this post just makes me shake my head:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=18850910&postcount=40

(Posted on Friday, July 2, 2010 at 12:36 AM)

6. Victor said:

Just like with the colours/contrast on the Nouveaux Pictures Suspiria blu-ray, the results are inconsistent. Some screenshots actually look pretty good, like these two:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=11375&position=14

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=11375&position=12

However, others look ridiculous, like this one:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=11375&position=2

(Posted on Friday, July 2, 2010 at 12:45 AM)

7. Bleddyn Williams said:

Christopher D - that's the post that had my eyes rolling as well!

I find it a bit depressing that in the HTF review thread a fellow has posted four examples of when he thinks the new transfer looks good, and to me they look like hell.

Then there are follow-up posts praising the quality of these shots, and one judgment of the shots being "a good indication of when this disc works"

Like hell!

(Posted on Friday, July 2, 2010 at 12:54 AM)

8. Kram Sacul said:

It's clear Fox hasn't learned a damn thing since The Longest Day and Patton incidents. Pray for Alien and Aliens.

(Posted on Friday, July 2, 2010 at 12:59 AM)

9. Chris said:

I was just thinking about Robert Harris' suggestion that the people responsible for this should go work at a plastic comb factory instead. This might not be such a good idea, since excessive noise reduction could turn the combs into useless rectangular blobs of solid plastic. Or, even worse, excessive edge enhancement might transform them into dangerously sharp weapons.

(Posted on Friday, July 2, 2010 at 1:20 AM)

10. Christopher D. Jacobson said:

If "Alien" and "Aliens" get this kind of poor treatment, I'm going postal. I'm already pissed they (whoever "they" are) keep making "Terminator 2" worse with each new release, and have yet to do anything I'd actually want to monetarily support—I'll stick with my Ultimate Edition DVD from 2000, since not even the original BD release looks much better.

The original "Terminator" looks OK on BD, from screencaps I've seen, but still needs a new master. However, it's not enough of an upgrade at all to make me monetarily support it—I'll stick with my DVD for that as well until something better comes along. Though I'd still rather have a decade-old HD master than this kind of detail-free nonsense.

(Posted on Friday, July 2, 2010 at 1:39 AM)

11. Kentai said:

I bought the 2-disc DVD back in '04, maybe '05, and held onto it once the initial MPEG-2 Blu-ray came out. I don't much like "upgrading" without getting at least comparable special features, and the fact that it had minor-to-moderate compression issues made it even less appealing.

I can get the original release in a two-pack with TERMINATOR for $20. Somehow, even buying up their leftovers at roughly one-third retail price feels like rewarding FOX for being pricks about the whole thing...

(Posted on Friday, July 2, 2010 at 2:41 AM)

12. Ronny said:

Yuck...Madame Tussauds open for business! Another great movie treated like crap while bad films like "Showgirls" gets a fantastic transfer on Blu Ray( although admittedly it is a camp classic and a guilty pleasure of mine...hehe).

(Posted on Friday, July 2, 2010 at 4:47 PM)

13. Phil Quail said:

As always happens in cases like this, I've just felt (and given in to) a compulsion to order the original Predator Blu-ray.

Despite the fact that two hours ago I'd no particular intention of buying either version....

(Posted on Friday, July 2, 2010 at 11:51 PM)

 
To combat spam, commenting is automatically disabled on entries older than 30 days.

Did a comment you tried to post accidentally get eaten by the spam filter? It happens from time to time. I get upwards of 200 spam comments every day and unfortunately don't have the time to weed through all of them in case something genuine ended up there by mistake. If one of your posts gets incorrectly flagged as spam, email me at m.r.mackenzie[at]gmail[dot]com and I'll do my best to retrieve it.

 
Archives
Categories
Recent posts