Posted by The Wolverine Predator
- May 27, 2017, 12:00:34 PMIs there a Predator and Predator 2 Blu ray that has the digital copy to watch on any device available?
Posted by DerelictShip
- Nov 04, 2016, 02:41:34 AMQuote from: Jonesy23 on Feb 12, 2013, 03:06:32 AM
Well you also have to remember, they only put out this edition to cash in on 'Predators' when it first came out. I don't think they were thinking of the quality or of us except how much dough we would fork over for this.
Great point. The name Ultimate Hunter Edition already sucks me in, I'm glad I read this forum because it sounds like there are some flaws, still skeptical on getting
lol didn't realize it was last discussed on feburary of 2013, my apologies, but still skeptical of buying!
Posted by Hudson
- Feb 20, 2013, 09:40:44 PMQuote from: steelio2006 on Feb 14, 2013, 04:53:02 PM
picked this up at my local Walmart for $7.88. wasn't bad deal at all. now to track down P2 on Blu, maybe with Predators.
Speaking of WalMart, I saw Predator 2 Blu-Ray in the $7 bin there about a week ago. Just keep digging to the bottom.
Posted by BlazinBlueReview
- Feb 14, 2013, 04:53:02 PMpicked this up at my local Walmart for $7.88. wasn't bad deal at all. now to track down P2 on Blu, maybe with Predators.
Posted by Jonesy23
- Feb 12, 2013, 03:06:32 AMWell you also have to remember, they only put out this edition to cash in on 'Predators' when it first came out. I don't think they were thinking of the quality or of us except how much dough we would fork over for this.
Posted by Hudson
- Mar 26, 2012, 07:41:26 PMI just got this in the mail from Amazon today. Will report back with my thoughts on the new transfer.
MOD:
Really really unbalanced. The whole film needs to be rescanned like Alien and Aliens. There's no excuse for shots near the beginning looking like vaseline is smeared on the lens. Some shots really make the characters look waxy. No way that's the makeup because in most shots they look absolutely fine. There's a close up of Richard Chaves that looks like his makeup's been adjusted.
It just needs to be rescanned, simple as that, not digitally touched up to this extent. That's just lazy.
MOD:
Really really unbalanced. The whole film needs to be rescanned like Alien and Aliens. There's no excuse for shots near the beginning looking like vaseline is smeared on the lens. Some shots really make the characters look waxy. No way that's the makeup because in most shots they look absolutely fine. There's a close up of Richard Chaves that looks like his makeup's been adjusted.
It just needs to be rescanned, simple as that, not digitally touched up to this extent. That's just lazy.
Posted by AvatarIII
- Apr 05, 2011, 12:36:38 PMyeah i know, generally i consider a BD under about £8 a bargain, if it's a moie i actually want that is, so £6.99 was great
Posted by Vulhala
- Apr 05, 2011, 12:35:11 PMQuote from: AvatarIII on Apr 05, 2011, 12:32:55 PM
i just ordered UHE for £6.99 at play.com.
Score. I payed £16 for mine
Posted by AvatarIII
- Apr 05, 2011, 12:32:55 PMi just ordered UHE for £6.99 at play.com, i also found the original P1/P2 BD box set (i really liked the cover) preowned for £9 so i bought that too, and at some point i will compare the movies.
Posted by TJ Doc
- Mar 19, 2011, 12:36:52 AMI know what I'm doing - waiting for Fox to take another stab at it (most likely alongside Predators 2), with a third transfer which will hopefully get it just right and please everyone in the process. I know there's a solid chance it won't happen, but this disc has received so much bad press that Fox have got to at least be thinking about it.
Until then I'm sticking with the DVD.
Until then I'm sticking with the DVD.
Posted by Valaquen
- Mar 19, 2011, 12:09:25 AMA lot of HD nuts are surprisingly elitist. I'm over at the Blu forums and whilst the majority of people are great, there are some who like to be very vocal and antagonistic, but hey, dat's teh internets. And yeah, the actors were smeared in oils, vaseline, whatever, so ... but sometimes you read a review and think, "That's not right." What can you do, eh?
Posted by Sharp Sticks
- Mar 19, 2011, 12:03:29 AMThere are a handful of shots, in one scene, that look terrible. But the rest of the movie is gorgeous. It's like the reviewers only watched the first three minutes before reaching a verdict.
Posted by bleau
- Mar 18, 2011, 09:12:07 PMQuote from: Gieferg on Mar 18, 2011, 06:58:10 PMQuoteI heard the rumor that Carl Weathers mustache was airbrushed in. That is simply not true.
It's not true because it wasn't airbrushed, it only looks like it was in UHE
I know LOL
Posted by Gieferg
- Mar 18, 2011, 06:58:10 PMQuoteI heard the rumor that Carl Weathers mustache was airbrushed in. That is simply not true.
It's not true because it wasn't airbrushed, it only looks like it was in UHE
Posted by bleau
- Mar 18, 2011, 09:30:16 AMThe reason the characters look waxy is because of a number of reasons, other than the DNR. I believe make up, film location and directors shooting style are the culprit.
Arnold was smeared with Vasoline, including his face. R.G. Armstrong was covered with make up, because of his age.
"John McTiernan admitted that actor R.G. Armstrong was too old for his part, but kept Armstrong simply because he liked him. Added to this, the actor wore "too much" tanning makeup to hide his age somewhat."
It was filmed in the jungles of Palenque, Mexico. It was vary cold at night, and vary humid in the day. Running in a humid jungle = sweat. Sweat = oily skin.
I believe the opening sequence with Arnold, Weathers, and Armstrong were filmed from a far distance with the camera zoomed. Meaning a soft picture. I cant find the source for this, but will edit when I do later.
I heard the rumor that Carl Weathers mustache was airbrushed in. That is simply not true.
I think the UHE is a marvel in restoration. It's a shame the the Hi Def community blame DNR for the wax look of the actors. Maybe the film looks to new to some. But I assure that any doubts about loss of detail because of too much DNR is simply because there was not any detail to loose to begin with.
Reputable reviewers Gave poor rating on picture quality based on the use of DNR. I have seen DNR and know all about it. I don't know how the restoration was done, but fine detail is retained. If there is not enough detail in the actors faces, it was because of reasons above, which reviewers should have noted.
Film is altered all the time weather it be for removal of crew and equipment, or to fix effects. This film was altered simply because of heavy grain, and because the film looked dated. Does it look natural? No. Some scenes with the actors look unnatural but still has some nice scenes. The old disc looks natural because of the layer of grain. The old looks better in some scenes and the new one looks better in others.
Arnold was smeared with Vasoline, including his face. R.G. Armstrong was covered with make up, because of his age.
"John McTiernan admitted that actor R.G. Armstrong was too old for his part, but kept Armstrong simply because he liked him. Added to this, the actor wore "too much" tanning makeup to hide his age somewhat."
It was filmed in the jungles of Palenque, Mexico. It was vary cold at night, and vary humid in the day. Running in a humid jungle = sweat. Sweat = oily skin.
I believe the opening sequence with Arnold, Weathers, and Armstrong were filmed from a far distance with the camera zoomed. Meaning a soft picture. I cant find the source for this, but will edit when I do later.
I heard the rumor that Carl Weathers mustache was airbrushed in. That is simply not true.
I think the UHE is a marvel in restoration. It's a shame the the Hi Def community blame DNR for the wax look of the actors. Maybe the film looks to new to some. But I assure that any doubts about loss of detail because of too much DNR is simply because there was not any detail to loose to begin with.
Reputable reviewers Gave poor rating on picture quality based on the use of DNR. I have seen DNR and know all about it. I don't know how the restoration was done, but fine detail is retained. If there is not enough detail in the actors faces, it was because of reasons above, which reviewers should have noted.
Film is altered all the time weather it be for removal of crew and equipment, or to fix effects. This film was altered simply because of heavy grain, and because the film looked dated. Does it look natural? No. Some scenes with the actors look unnatural but still has some nice scenes. The old disc looks natural because of the layer of grain. The old looks better in some scenes and the new one looks better in others.
