Gladiator Master Blu-ray Comparison and Review Thread - Page 11

Yeah I know....

Now, if only they could make that crew guy disappear just like the arrows, at least the whole thing could have some sort of purpose!

Wow so Paramount ran such an aggressive dust/scratch removal filter on this that the software removed important film elements like arrows as imperfections. Nice.

I cannot understand how a company can hire top directors, DOPs and cinematographers to meticulously craft $100M+ budgeted films and release them to thousands of movie screens with stunning film prints... and then hand those same films off to Larry, Moe and Curly for home video prepping.

Maybe Paramount can save even more money by just shooting their films on Youtube cams and bypass the expense of having their janitor run them through their filtering software. Just drag and drop the files right into the BD software and press the "Make Disc Image" button and email that off to the replicator.

Probably because the Marx brothers are managing the home video/BD division.

Fair enough. I always wondered though. I also expect that a very large screen will show a lot more of this than my 50" KURO at 9 feet.

I'll be buying this. With a front projector on a 106" screen, the problems with the transfer should be glaringly obvious. I also have the dvd, so if it truly is "not much better than and upconverted dvd" I'll find out. Guess it's time to see if I'm a true enthusiast, or a joe six pack.

I heard from a reliable source that the same guys are responsible for cleaning up Star Wars for the upcoming Blu-ray release. Here is an early screenshot:



Hey, at least we won't have to worry about Han shooting first anymore (there won't be any shots anyway).

If that´s what it takes to make a good transfer, then Paramount should have done that!
This is not just any movie, it´s one of their most anticipated catalogue releases!
Any way, I´m definitely not buying this, and that´s saying something because I still don´t even own it on DVD!


That is the sad Blu-Ray reality, it seems.

Thanks, I'm going see if any of the blogs will bite.

There is just no excuse for the arrow shot scene/fire bomb scene.... I agree, it appears in the case of this movie that Paramount did filtering on top of what was already on the master...

I said earlier that I would probably pick this up on Blu-Ray if it was $9-12.. Not even sure about that anymore..

I still want to give this a rent and watch it though (if nothing else, it is a good movie).

There's no way I am going to reward Paramount with my hard earned money by buying this dreck. I have the 2000 DVD, so I can still enjoy the movie, and I'm not interested in the extended edition, I prefer Scott's director's cut.. I don't see this Blu-ray as any sort of upgrade.

I HATE edge enhancement. I hate what it does to the picture. It's not just the edge halos it produces. it destroys the look of the entire picture. The result looks like a lower resolution image to me.

I echo all of the sentiments expressed on here. This is one of my favorite movies of all time. This, along with Jurassic Park are my most eagerly awaited Blu-ray catalog releases. Just seeing those screenshots is depressing to say the least.

My only hope is that the UK or German release (German confirmed region A,B,C) will not have this horrible treatment done to them. Since they are Universal in Europe, is there hope? I guess I'll have to wait for the UK/Germany reviews from the sites and/or buyers. Should be interesting.

If anybody gets there hands on a UK or German Gladiator let us know how it is.

The extended cut on the Blu-ray is NOT the same as the 2000 director's cut DVD???

Heh, the theatrical cut IS Scott's cut.

Why do I keep hearing this goofball reasoning? Video is a collection of still frames shown quickly one after another. Looking at one of those still frames is indicative of the many. We're not just cherrypicking a bad frame, all the freaking frames are bad. The guy can move his face around, he still looks like a wax droid. The battle scene can rage on, the arrows don't magically reappear on the next frames. We don't have to post video clips to infer that filtering is done to all frames, not one out of a thousand.

I think that's my position now as well. This film started out as "must have" and I had it pre-ordered. I started to see screen caps and cancelled my pre-order and put this in my "get it at bargain price later" bin due to the DNR and EE. The fact that their scratch removal filters have removed or obscurred important details from the film (arrows, fires, etc..) pretty much relegates this to the "never" bin.

This film has suffered a complete QA meltdown, honestly Paramount should re-issue this. The removal and/or obscurring of film elements like arrows and flames basically makes this a defective release. When Disney released the missframed Pirates they not only re-issued it, they offered existing owners a free trade in. Will Paramount step up? Unfortunately I doubt it, Brad Grey will probably just pocket the money as an "end of year bonus".

I'm getting confused now!
There's an introduction from Ridley Scott about the extended cut on the 2005 dvd, which I thought was his director's cut.
So:
2000 == theatrical
2005 == theatrical + extended(=director's?)
But there are only 2 cuts right? Theatrical and extended? Sorry for the confusion.

This reminds me of what Lowry did with Citizen Kain when they accidentally removed falling rain at the window for a DVD release several years back.

Indeed The Nightmare Before Christmas has a few frames accidentally removed due to "cleanup" but at least with that one it's not noticeable in motion and that disc still looks very good unlike this one.

I think it's great that Jurassic Park isn't being released right now as i think Spielberg realises the print isn't up to HD 2009 standards and he won't let sub standard releases he directed get out on Blu Ray. I think that one will be fabulous when it finally arrives.

Thats why i'm glad Sony delayed Lawrence Of Arabia. Now thats a company who for the moment are doing things right 99% of the time.

There are only two cuts of Gladiator.

Speaking generally now, a film can have a theatrical cut and an extended cut. Those are both concrete terms and immediately let you know what cut is being discussed - the theatrical is the original version shown in theaters, and the extended is one with extra scenes added that were not in the theatrical cut.

But the confusion comes from the fact that EITHER can be the "director's cut." Director's cut just means which one the director preferred - which one is cut as he/she wanted it to be. With many movies, there is no extended/special cut of the film, and the theatrical is simply the 'director's cut' by default - there is no need to mention a qualifier like 'director's cut' because there is only that one cut. On other movies, the theatrical is not the director's cut and for home video the director is allowed to make an extended cut to restore what he wanted to - this is the common use of 'director's cut.'

But Gladiator is a rare case where the studio created an extended cut for marketing or whatever other purposes, but the director still prefers the theatrical cut - so while there is an extended cut, it is NOT the director's cut. The director prefers the theatrical version, and considers that his cut.

I find this utterly incomprehensible. Why would they butcher one of their flagship titles? Is there a camp that actually appreciates the quality of this presentation, and we, the initiated movie aficionados as it were, are simply setting the bar too high?

I certainly expected perfection for something so marketed (Sapphire, etc.) and priced.

I'm fascinated by the extreme reluctance some people are showing to accepting reality here, as evidenced by all the "well, you don't really know for sure...you have to actually watch the disc...it could be ok" posts. Why all the bending over backwards to avoid accepting that it's not a good looking disc? But to answer your question directly, yes, it was posted that the actual disc has been seen, and YES, it's at LEAST as bad in motion as the screencaps indicate.

Let us know if they respond to you. They gave me the run around when I e-mailed them.

That would seem reasonable had they not given Braveheart such a fantastic release. If anything that release jumped a ways over the bar much of this forum had set.

Seems nutty that they'd do this to one of their flagship titles. Confusing.

The only reason I can think is that this release is so shockingly bad, people just can't freakin' believe it. The idea that a flagship catalog release would get such a bum's rush is really hard to believe. That a major studio is probably paying big bucks to people who are not qualified for their jobs just sounds too unreal for some people to wrap their brain around it.

I could be wrong. My understanding from past reading was that the theatrical cut was Scott's preferred version, and the extended cut was something just done by the studio for the fans.

I wouldnt call it extreme reluctance, I would call it cautious pessimism or something along those lines. Transfers on this forum are always under the microscope which I suppose is usually a good thing. However, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. Im just making sure that someone isnt "knee-jerking" or seeing some minor DNR or EE and completely freeking out when in reality its not nearly as big of a deal as they make it out to be. Also, I suspect that many viewers here have giant screens which further makes their findings harder to be accepted by the masses.

Im not arguing whether its good or not, it certainly appears that it is not an acceptable transfer. Im just making sure that the litmus test isnt totally based on viewing every pixel of a stationary screen shot on a computer screen. To me, thats NOT good enough.

I've made a bit of searching during lunch and yes, you're right, the theatrical cut is Scott's preferred version... Although some of the extended scenes were worth adding imo.

It's rare to have many aspects of certain shots (arrows and spears during a battle scene) to actually be erased completely. When it comes to judging a transfer, stuff like that is pretty cut and dried.

At the beginning of the blu Ray there is an intro by Ridley himself: there is no directors cut , "the theatrical version is the directors cut" he says

The 2005 version is just an extended cut to make some extra coin

Even low profile titles like this looks good.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...es_blu-ray.htm

That's the odd thing, I've seen quite a few less-talked-about releases that look like they have been transfered recently/on decent modern equipment, so it can't be that time consuming or expensive. I would bet my house that Gladiator would outsell something like Primal Fear

i'm truly baffled by this one