AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Terminator (1984) - 4 DVDs vs Blu-ray comparison PIX
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Terminator (1984) - 4 DVDs vs Blu-ray comparison PIX - Page 6

post #151 of 605
7/13/11 at 5:47am
Man, I so hate revisionism unless the original is also offered as an option with the same care and attention as lavished on any revised version.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #152 of 605
7/19/11 at 6:11pm
We might see the Lowry/Lightstorm remaster of The Terminator on Blu-Ray sooner than we thought. Possibly within the next 6-12 months. This is what Van Ling had to say on 01-21-2011, just six months ago:

"the hope is that Terminator will get back on track soon... I was put on hold back in 2009 because many of the desired key participants were a bit busy doing stuff like environmentalism, picking up awards and trying to run California; if we're lucky, there might be a chance of a new release later this year. My understanding is that Lightstorm has been working on a Lowry restoration of T1 for a while now."

The complete thread can be found here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...inator-1-2/600

Seems like the wildly speculated MGM financial issues are not at play at all. My personal guess is that, with all that he has on his hands at the moment, Jim Cameron just needs more time to approve the new transfer and supervise the entire restoration process. Very good news indeed!!!!!!
Reply
Reply
post #153 of 605
7/20/11 at 11:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post
My personal guess is that, with all that he has on his hands at the moment, Jim Cameron just needs more time to approve the new transfer and supervise the entire restoration process. Very good news indeed!!!!!!
Not so good news if you know James Cameron's history. He has put off approving new transfers for The Abyss and True Lies for over a decade now because he's had "too much on his hands."
Reply
Reply
post #154 of 605
7/20/11 at 11:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Not so good news if you know James Cameron's history. He has put off approving new transfers for The Abyss and True Lies for over a decade now because he's had "too much on his hands."
Yeah. I'm still waiting for True Lies.... on dvd.

I'll take the BD now, thankyouverymuch!



Ugh. The sad part is that TL is on Netflix in HD and looks WWAAAAYYYYY better than my non-anamorphic dvd. What gives? GIMMEH MAH BLU RAY!!!!
Reply
Reply
post #155 of 605
7/20/11 at 12:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post
Ugh. The sad part is that TL is on Netflix in HD and looks WWAAAAYYYYY better than my non-anamorphic dvd. What gives? GIMMEH MAH BLU RAY!!!!
That's what happens when a laserdisc master is used for DVD (see also The Abyss). The R1 True Lies DVD is so bad it's tragic. The anamorphic R2 disc (which crept through uncut before being recalled) looked superb though.

What's doubly frustrating about True Lies is that HD versions are out there! It's available on demand as you say, it was released on 1080i DVHS, it's been broadcast on TV etc etc. IMO the subject matter is still working against it.

There are no such worries about The Abyss, unless they don't want to offend soppy underwater aliens. I don't care if Cameron is living on board the freakin' Titanic in a submersible while shooting Avatar 2, 3, 4 and 5 back to back to back to back; how hard can it be to spare a few hours here and there to check a new video master?
Reply
Reply
post #156 of 605
7/20/11 at 4:13pm
I'm very aware of Jim Cameron's history. True Lies and The Abyss are both not at the same stage as The Terminator right now. Cameron had no problem approving the new master for Aliens Blu-Ray by the way.

The Terminator has been worked on extensively for the past 3 years in house at Lightstorm, where Cameron is overseeing the entire process personally. As soon as the remaster is done and as soon as they can finish all of the interviews and extras that Van Ling has been working on, the film will be released to Blu-Ray.

As for The Abyss remaster that was done some years ago, maybe Cameron is just simply not excited, or interested in it. Aliens was also shown in HD on TV, but the master that Cameron approved was the brand new, Lowry 4K one that he personally supervised.

Jim Cameron did Aliens, The Terminator is being worked on as we speak at his own studio, Lightstorm. He is also finishing Titanic for next years re-release. In all of the interviews that he has made, he said The Abyss and True Lies will be next. My guess is that they will start real work on them later next year.

The only movie that will be left with an old master is Terminator 2, which Lowry just did and was released as the Skynet Edition. My take on this is as follows... Cameron still hasn't decided if he wants to convert it into 3D. He said Terminator 2 was the only other film of his that he would consider. Now he has to wait an see how profitable Titanic's 3D re-release will is and then make the decision. If Titanic is successful, Terminator 2 will take a year, or two to convert. If he decides not to, then a new master will not be made until after The Abyss and True Lies.
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 605
7/20/11 at 10:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

I'm very aware of Jim Cameron's history. True Lies and The Abyss are both not at the same stage as The Terminator right now. Cameron had no problem approving the new master for Aliens Blu-Ray by the way.

"Cameron had no problem approving the new master for Aliens Blu-Ray by the way."


Butt LOOK at IT!!
Reply
Reply
post #158 of 605
7/21/11 at 12:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

Butt LOOK at IT!!

Teal > Pink... just sayin'.
Reply
Reply
post #159 of 605
7/21/11 at 11:29am
I hated the pink look of Aliens. It reminds me of the first series of Star Trek TNG, that was bathed in pink light too.
Reply
Reply
post #160 of 605
7/21/11 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagysAudio View Post

The Terminator has been worked on extensively for the past 3 years in house at Lightstorm, where Cameron is overseeing the entire process personally. As soon as the remaster is done and as soon as they can finish all of the interviews and extras that Van Ling has been working on, the film will be released to Blu-Ray.

Jim Cameron did Aliens, The Terminator is being worked on as we speak at his own studio, Lightstorm. He is also finishing Titanic for next years re-release. In all of the interviews that he has made, he said The Abyss and True Lies will be next. My guess is that they will start real work on them later next year.

This is all great information for me. Unlike a lot of folks around here, I love the new Aliens BD--I find the color timing works very well for the feel and location of the film--dim artificial lighting on a space ship and alien world. Then again, I haven't watched Aliens since I saw it in the theater and bought the Special Edition LD box set, so I never got acclimated to the pinkified DVD versions. I'm sure all of Cameron's back catalog will be well worth the wait whenever these new masters finally make it to BD.
Reply
Reply
post #161 of 605
7/22/11 at 12:51am
No love for the Aliens BD?
Sheesh.

Although it doesn't look as good as Alien, still, it's pretty damn satisfying (assuming one is a fan of the film).
Reply
Reply
post #162 of 605
7/22/11 at 1:17am
If Mr. Avatar "totally de-grains"* "TT" like he said he did for "Aliens"...
then it will be just as smeared as well.

* http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=68820
Check out from 5:40 mins onward.
We all know he didn't "totally de-grain" it, however that is what he said & the results are DNR smearing.
Reply
Reply
post #163 of 605
7/22/11 at 8:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenUK View Post

I hated the pink look of Aliens. It reminds me of the first series of Star Trek TNG, that was bathed in pink light too.

It isn't that we liked the pinkish push of the old transfers. However, at least they had some other colors in them than just teal. There were blues and grays and reds and greens, etc. The Blu-ray is one flat, monotonous teal with practically no other colors in it.
Reply
Reply
post #164 of 605
7/22/11 at 8:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

No love for the Aliens BD?
Sheesh.

Although it doesn't look as good as Alien, still, it's pretty damn satisfying (assuming one is a fan of the film).

In all respects other than color, the Aliens Blu-ray looks fantastic. It's much sharper, more detailed and less noisy (without sacrificing the "gritty" look with a decent amount of grain) than ever before. Unfortunately, the teal tinting is flat-out hideous, IMO.
Reply
Reply
post #165 of 605
7/22/11 at 8:46am
And that's all it is, opinion. We all moan when we don't get discs that are representative of the 'director's intent', yet when we get a director approved release - a release that looks better than any other version of the film previously available on a home format - people still moan because it doesn't look like they want it to look. The filmmakers/studios/distributors can't win.

I think it looks great, but again that's just an opinion.
Reply
Reply
post #166 of 605
7/22/11 at 9:12am
No, the issue of contention is the revisionism to the current -Trend- of shifting color grading/timing to teal.

It seems that damn near every movie in the last ten years has taken on this color palette and now far too many older classics are being "modernized" with the same thing. Ten years from now everyone will be scratching their heads to why this pervasive proliferation of monotonicity.

Since it has been so extensively abused many find it normal and no longer appreciate how foolish it is.

I am of mixed opinion of the choice made for Aliens; Cameron's films tend to be cooler in over all palette but that is has been typically reinforced more by production choices rather than solely post color timing.

I am certain more people would be more up in arms if the current trend was to make everything more desaturated amber like a lot of period films have been done in.

My vote is for a pristine optimal presentation of Terminator without any overt modernization which is accompanied by the original mono mix and a better 5.1 mix.

Best Regards
KvE
Reply
Reply
post #167 of 605
7/22/11 at 10:34am
Just watched 5 minutes of Scott's Robin Hood for the first time and the colors were so hideous and ugly I didn't bother watching it. This trend has to stop.
Reply
Reply
post #168 of 605
7/22/11 at 10:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentasm View Post

And that's all it is, opinion. We all moan when we don't get discs that are representative of the 'director's intent', yet when we get a director approved release - a release that looks better than any other version of the film previously available on a home format - people still moan because it doesn't look like they want it to look. The filmmakers/studios/distributors can't win.

So I take it that you think the purple-tinted French Connection disc is fine and dandy? After, the director approved it and says that it's what he always wanted. Never mind that his own cinematographer publicly called him a liar and described the transfer as "atrocious."

What directors like Cameron and Friedkin want now unfortunately has little relation to what they wanted when the films were actually made.
Reply
Reply
post #169 of 605
7/22/11 at 12:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

So I take it that you think the purple-tinted French Connection disc is fine and dandy? After, the director approved it and says that it's what he always wanted. Never mind that his own cinematographer publicly called him a liar and described the transfer as "atrocious."

What directors like Cameron and Friedkin want now unfortunately has little relation to what they wanted when the films were actually made.

Do you think Lucas is largely responsible for starting this revisionist trend, or would it have happened without him? No question the age of digital tools made it so easy for directors to start fiddling around with their films years later.
Reply
Reply
post #170 of 605
7/22/11 at 12:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

It isn't that we liked the pinkish push of the old transfers. However, at least they had some other colors in them than just teal. There were blues and grays and reds and greens, etc. The Blu-ray is one flat, monotonous teal with practically no other colors in it.

This shot begs to differ. I won't deny that there's some level of teal pushing gray towards green, but prior transfers weren't exactly glowing technicolor marvels to start with. Even the HDTV release of Aliens was pretty flat looking and had that same annoying pink cast as the DVD (if slightly less so due to higher color resolution).

Don't get me wrong, you've got my support 100% on blatantly problematic restorations like Suspiria, Dracula and The French Connection. But I really do think any issues with Aliens are minor, and just a bit overblown. (But what do they say opinions are like? Everybody's got one, and all that...? )

For everyone who'd rather Cameron not color time the films as he sees fit, I ask this: If the director can't be "trusted" to restore the film, who the hell can be? A salaried colorist who doesn't know the first thing about the movie, and has no solid references to work from except for maybe an extremely limited color-graded IP from 20+ years ago? Is that really better?
Reply
Reply
post #171 of 605
7/22/11 at 12:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

Do you think Lucas is largely responsible for starting this revisionist trend, or would it have happened without him? No question the age of digital tools made it so easy for directors to start fiddling around with their films years later.

Charlie Chaplin heavily revised The Gold Rush 17 years after its original release, so Lucas is hardly the first:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0015864/alternateversions

There is a 1942 re-issue version, prepared by Chaplin himself, which uses his own narration, music score, and editing (running time: 72 minutes). This version is the only one which has its copyright owned by the Chaplin Film company. Many scenes of the 1942 version derived from an alternate camera that was shooting simultaneously. This explains some of the very slight differences in camera angle, although Chaplin also deleted some footage in order to tighten the pacing (such as Big Jim and the Tramp's near-encounter in the Gold Rush town and the shot of a woman comforting another woman during the singing of "Auld Lang Syne".
Reply
Reply
post #172 of 605
7/22/11 at 12:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

So I take it that you think the purple-tinted French Connection disc is fine and dandy? After, the director approved it and says that it's what he always wanted. Never mind that his own cinematographer publicly called him a liar and described the transfer as "atrocious."

What directors like Cameron and Friedkin want now unfortunately has little relation to what they wanted when the films were actually made.

Never seen it so I can't comment, but if you think that Aliens looks bad there's no helping you.
Reply
Reply
post #173 of 605
7/22/11 at 3:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentasm View Post

... but if you think that Aliens looks bad there's no helping you.

If you think "Aliens" on Blu looks like the film released in 1986 "there's no helping you"#.

Badd is of coarse subjective; you can watch "Aliens" on Blu, its not that badd.
Just what does it look like & what doesn't it look like.
Whether that's good or badd is open too debate.

It's badd if you had hoped it would be representative of the '86 film & its good if you wanted it too look like 2010 video.
Mr. Avatar wanted it too look like modern digital video; he got he's way.
However, the film fans don't have too be force fed that digital manipulated "totally de-noised, de-grained, up-rezzed, and color corrected"* product.

Just don't say the "1986 Aliens" on Blu looks GREAT! Cause it doesn't.
This is more like "Last of the Mohicans" on Blu too me. That release was the "directors" movie; not what was seen & heard back-in-the-day in the theater.

I would hope (that's all I can do), that "TT" will look like its old gritty gray self.
Not, green, or teal, or pink, or orange!!!!
[and the original soundtrack would be GREAT/is that REALLY asking too much!]

# your words; not mine!
* his words; not mine!
Reply
Reply
post #174 of 605
7/22/11 at 4:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

Just don't say the "1986 Aliens" on Blu looks GREAT!

Okay, I won't. I'll say it looks 'frikkin great'.
Reply
Reply
post #175 of 605
7/22/11 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

If you think "Aliens" on Blu looks like the film released in 1986 "there's no helping you"#.

Badd is of coarse subjective; you can watch "Aliens" on Blu, its not that badd.
Just what does it look like & what doesn't it look like.
Whether that's good or badd is open too debate.

It's badd if you had hoped it would be representative of the '86 film & its good if you wanted it too look like 2010 video.
Mr. Avatar wanted it too look like modern digital video; he got he's way.
However, the film fans don't have too be force fed that digital manipulated "totally de-noised, de-grained, up-rezzed, and color corrected"* product.

Just don't say the "1986 Aliens" on Blu looks GREAT! Cause it doesn't.
This is more like "Last of the Mohicans" on Blu too me. That release was the "directors" movie; not what was seen & heard back-in-the-day in the theater.

I would hope (that's all I can do), that "TT" will look like its old gritty gray self.
Not, green, or teal, or pink, or orange!!!!
[and the original soundtrack would be GREAT/is that REALLY asking too much!]

# your words; not mine!
* his words; not mine!

Apparently you have reading comprehension issues to compliment your spelling problem. Please direct me to the post where I said it looks like the 1986 release. The point I was making was that Cameron was never happy with the way the film looked, so he took the opportunity to deliver what he considers to be his preferred version of the film (which is vastly superior to any other home video release) and all some people can do is bitch. Some people on this forum are all in favour of director intent as long as it doesn't differ from their own preference.

He didn't approve a sub-par BD with terrible image quality. He didn't go back and add CGI xenomorphs. The integrity of the film is intact, it just looks a bit different (better) than it did on VHS/laser/DVD. In spite of this all some people can do is moan about how it has different colour timing. Cry me a river...
Reply
Reply
post #176 of 605
7/22/11 at 9:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by worth View Post

Charlie Chaplin heavily revised The Gold Rush 17 years after its original release, so Lucas is hardly the first:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0015864/alternateversions

There is a 1942 re-issue version, prepared by Chaplin himself, which uses his own narration, music score, and editing (running time: 72 minutes). This version is the only one which has its copyright owned by the Chaplin Film company. Many scenes of the 1942 version derived from an alternate camera that was shooting simultaneously. This explains some of the very slight differences in camera angle, although Chaplin also deleted some footage in order to tighten the pacing (such as Big Jim and the Tramp's near-encounter in the Gold Rush town and the shot of a woman comforting another woman during the singing of "Auld Lang Syne".

I do know even others than Chaplin modified their films later which is why I used the words "largely responsible" with Lucas. The Special Edition Star Wars movies got a lot of attention as digital tweaking was reaching new heights and a lot of notoriety was given to these new versions. It seems other directors started deciding they could do the same in different ways. I just wonder if it helped facilitate a greater tendency (for directors) to use these readily available digital tools to go back and make changes.
Reply
Reply
post #177 of 605
7/23/11 at 12:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentasm View Post

Apparently you have reading comprehension issues to compliment your spelling problem. Please direct me to the post where I said it looks like the 1986 release. The point I was making was that Cameron was never happy with the way the film looked, so he took the opportunity to deliver what he considers to be his preferred version of the film (which is vastly superior to any other home video release) and all some people can do is bitch. Some people on this forum are all in favour of director intent as long as it doesn't differ from their own preference.

He didn't approve a sub-par BD with terrible image quality. He didn't go back and add CGI xenomorphs. The integrity of the film is intact, it just looks a bit different (better) than it did on VHS/laser/DVD. In spite of this all some people can do is moan about how it has different colour timing. Cry me a river...

Perfectly said. This whole issue that some people have with Aliens is getting very tiring.

Besides, this is about the Terminator and if Cameron can make the Terminator look as good as Aliens does than I'll be very happy.
Reply
Reply
post #178 of 605
7/23/11 at 9:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
Do you think Lucas is largely responsible for starting this revisionist trend, or would it have happened without him? No question the age of digital tools made it so easy for directors to start fiddling around with their films years later.
Lucas is the worst offender, but I think this trend would have happened without him. Digital tools make it too easy for filmmakers to "tinker" with projects that were long-since completed, just because they can. That temptation is very hard for some people to resist.
Reply
Reply
post #179 of 605
7/23/11 at 9:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentai View Post
This shot begs to differ.
Ah, so there's both teal AND orange. So much better!

Let me qualify my previous statement. The early parts of Aliens have teal spinkled in liberally, but are not overly dominated by the shade. However, once the marines land on LV-426 (which is, what, a half-hour in?), teal is practically the only color you'll see again for the rest of the movie. Every shot is doused in it, with only a little bit of orange from muzzle flashes and explosions to break it up.

Quote:
For everyone who'd rather Cameron not color time the films as he sees fit, I ask this: If the director can't be "trusted" to restore the film, who the hell can be? A salaried colorist who doesn't know the first thing about the movie, and has no solid references to work from except for maybe an extremely limited color-graded IP from 20+ years ago? Is that really better?
There is no perfect answer here. Generally, you think you'd want to side with the filmmaker. However, filmmakers are not gods. They are fallible people, just like everyone else. Sometimes they make bad decisions. And when they do, they deserve to be called out on it.

Aliens stands out as such an obvious revision because movies of the time period simply were not teal. The teal fad is a recent development this decade. The Blu-ray doesn't look like anything that was made in the 1980s. It has clearly been tealed up to "modernize" it, and I find that really distasteful.
Reply
Reply
post #180 of 605
7/24/11 at 6:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Ah, so there's both teal AND orange. So much better!

Let me qualify my previous statement. The early parts of Aliens have teal spinkled in liberally, but are not overly dominated by the shade. However, once the marines land on LV-426 (which is, what, a half-hour in?), teal is practically the only color you'll see again for the rest of the movie. Every shot is doused in it, with only a little bit of orange from muzzle flashes and explosions to break it up.



There is no perfect answer here. Generally, you think you'd want to side with the filmmaker. However, filmmakers are not gods. They are fallible people, just like everyone else. Sometimes they make bad decisions. And when they do, they deserve to be called out on it.

Aliens stands out as such an obvious revision because movies of the time period simply were not teal. The teal fad is a recent development this decade. The Blu-ray doesn't look like anything that was made in the 1980s. It has clearly been tealed up to "modernize" it, and I find that really distasteful.

It is a shame, really. I recently watched Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (for probably the twelfth time or something) and my eyes felt like they caught a lucky break. The colors were digitally tweaked for sure with a bit of desaturation going on and whatnot but they weren't bathed in teal and orange. No such luck when I plugged in Deathly Hallows but I had honestly started to forget how nice a modern movie can look without that obnoxious color scheme. I can personally live with it on Aliens, but on Alien it is really distracting.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Terminator (1984) - 4 DVDs vs Blu-ray comparison PIX