The Terminator New Release - Page 20

Well, it could still be better with color timing is up to opinion. In the view of the creators, which I support, they don't want the old color timing and it's not going to ever be released again with that color timing because it produces an image that doesn't gel with the film and the vision they are trying to portray.

So it's a moot point. Some of us don't live in the past.

On the mono point I agree and have agreed with others, it should have been included NO DOUBT about it.

Agreed and 99% of all the Blu's we love could be better but they aren't. So I just enjoy the damn product instead of complaining about the most minute BS that nearly everybody does in this subforum.

They will only ever be better if we complain: remaining silent is tantamount to telling the studios that we are happy with what they dish out, the bar gets lowered and when the bean counters next ask how more "efficiencies" can be made, other reductions will be made to see if anyone objects.

Saying nothing would not have resulted in Gladiator being fixed to replace the detail lost through cleanup and DNR.

This is about as far from Gladiator as you can get.
Objective transfer flaws are hardly the same as people arbitrarily deciding they don't like some color because they read some dumb nonsense on a blog.
Sometimes I'm not sure the internet was such a great idea after all... truly an unprecedentedly powerful engine for the spread of misinformation and uninformed gibbering.
Edited by 42041 - 3/14/13 at 10:41pm

Now if you want to talk messed up color timings that alter a film into another galaxy let us talk about Road Warrior. Seriously, they might as well issue it in both timings as the whole damn film is just mind-blowingly different. Personally, they need to reissue it with a middle ground as altering the desert like that just doesn't fit that film like it does with these ones IMO.

I guess they won't because I heard it was the right timing on BD; overcompensation or something? Still not sure what to think. That is some pretty hefty overcompensation. Not saying it had to be like the old one but there should be some kind of in-between they can hit there surely. Oh wells. As long as they up the bitrate and do lossless I am good.

With T1 the old color timing was WAY too red. A true 80s relic when that color timing was in vogue. The more I watch the remaster the more I totally agree with Cameron. I wonder if the upcoming Mad Max set is going to be same weak ass disc Warner already issues. Even without the color timing it was a weak disc.
Edited by khronikos - 3/14/13 at 11:59pm

That's the whole point: a film is a product of its time and should not be messed with. If the studios want to issue "Terminator Mark II", by all means, but also release the original version with as much care as a revered artwork.

Hey, let's spray a teal wash over the Mona Lisa to make those earthy tones really pop, because it's flavour of the month!

Terminator never looked all red in theaters like the old disc. It looked more like the new disc. Hey, let's spray a red wash over the Mona Lisa to make those earthy tones really pop, because it's flavour of the month a decade ago and keep it that way. Cos I've been watching it that way for the last 10 years.

That's true, kind of. Not all our complaints get dealt with and I would say far less than 10% of them get used for something good. In your case, a re-release of Gladiator which had an awful old sharpened transfer. Thankfully that time the complaints did not fall on deaf ears. Patton is another recent example. I can't really think of many more than that.

Some are slower and more subtle. Warner's new release encodes have improved dramatically, and Universal's catalog titles are getting better by the day. Being vocal, even if it's just on a forum or critically on a website, is a way of letting studios know you're dissatisfied. If you like the new look of Terminator, fine. A lot of don't though, and that needs to be expressed. I don't understand the idea of just sitting idly by when things bother you.

It does need to be expressed but again I think it went too far. That old '80s' look is obviously not what Cameron wants for the film. It's not a matter of comparing it to the mona lisa. If the artist of any great work decided to hack it up and present it in a new light it is that artist's choice. Too many people on here forget who is in control of the vision and the work itself. James Cameron isn't dead so you can stop using those tired straw man arguments.

That being said the film being bathed in some red-tinted mess is purely wrong no matter how anybody sees it imho. The new color timing fits the film and it is as simple as that in my mind.

I do not believe anyone is really arguing that the old HD master that has been kicking around for ages is accurate to how it originally looked.
It is likely that what is seen is an artifact of how it was transferred in the original telecine process, not your vaunted and baseless red tinted '80s look' claim.

Once more the reason that the new color timing seems to work for the film now is not because that is how it was originally but due to Cameron's signature aesthetic to work more with a cool color palette. Which is not exclusive to teal.

As much as I find the whole schtick to regrading older films to a current aesthetic abhorrent and detrimental there are cases where I do not find it nearly as objectionable. Such as Aliens, Terminator, Titanic.

Especially when the Director and/or the DP are involved; unless of course they take off the deep end and actually ruin the film. French Connection or The Last Emperor springs to mind.

I have not heard the mono track in years but I hope to obtain a copy of the DVD that does soon to do a comparison. The mono track should have been included but at the same if it has different color timing is it really necessary or appropriate to include it?

One instance where I recall Cameron being on record about not being happy with The Terminator mix is on the Aliens commentary. I believe he mentions that it was a rushed and amateurish mix, especially in comparison to his experience with Aliens and his subsequent films.

Best Regards
KvE

PS Now it should be understood that artist ownership of their work changes when transferred to a new owner. Da Vinci if he were alive today could not arbitrarily change the Mona Lisa any longer unless the current owner permitted it.

Same for Directors, the most successful do retain a higher degree of artistic ownership or deference from studios in the final appearance and cut of a film, even though they themselves do not own it.
However not all directors in the past or currently are so fortunate to be afforded that amount of authorship, although in practice studios do tend to defer to the directors decisions but not always.

In fact there are plenty of transfers for BR that have been mucked up with no involvement of the Director or DP. Director approved master and/or transfer gets bandied about quite a lot but can be completely disingenuous to the final result. An old master which was director approved years ago can be 'remastered' and the appearance of the transfer completely different to what the director originally intended or approved. Gladiator and Gangs of New York spring to mind, or I would argue Ghostbusters falls into that category as well.

There are some early DVD releases including a special edition that include the mono track, but they are heavily compressed sloppy versions of the mono which don't go close to giving it justice. The best most accurate version of the mono track would be the LCPM Laserdisc.

yes, it should have still been included. No excuse for that at all. James Cameron's ignorance and butthurt should not stand in the way regardless of the fact that he is the director. Its not just his film, its the peoples film too. Keeping both sides happy is easy enough and yet he selfishly refuses to do it. That is not fair.

I watch quite a lot of older films on 35mm and I've never noticed any sort of tendency toward a "red-tinted" look in 80s films. Some are warmer, some are cooler, some are greener, etc. People's idea of how films of a certain time looked has been corrupted by rubbish home video transfers, which are sadly the norm rather than the exception... which makes some of the comments in these discussions grind my teeth. Heck, I've seen IB Tech prints from the 50s with what would undoubtedly be called "revisionist teal" in them.
Edited by 42041 - 3/15/13 at 8:34pm

It's a tragedy that all films weren't duped to technicolour, for archival purposes, as part of the process of generating release prints: we may not be having quite such heated discussions if there were more accurate frames from the original sources than simply video conversions of those sources available now for reference.

I am disappointed with the lack of interest by the studios in releasing versions as close to the original, as an option, if not as a matter of course. I really don't care if they release revisionist versions as long as original versions are still available too.

This whole situation reminds me vaguely of the BBC Doctor Who debacle, so we are not learning from our mistakes as much as we should (ie preserving original material for posterity).

I don't think anyone is arguing against any particular artistic intent in the original theatrical releases (including teal): what we become heated about is revision of those original artistic intents and presentations in subsequent consumer releases, because very few of us will ever have the resources to access an uncorrupted 35mm film version.

I'm not sure that would really help. Even when great-looking IB Tech prints or non-faded Eastman prints are readily available, the people in charge of video mastering rarely seem interested in replicating or even checking that look.
I remember reading an interview with the Universal restoration people where they even talked about how they use their existing video material as reference for new film transfers. Having compared my share of Universal blu-rays with nice-looking older prints, I find that a bit frightening

The mono LD track synced to the new version is kicking around in the dark recesses of the web. I muxed it with the Blu-ray and even tried a 2.1 version by blending the mono track with the .1 of the remix, to give it some kicks. It doesn't mesh with the pristine picture. In fact, it sounds worlds apart. I always advocated the mono mix, but now, with the possibility of seeing the remaster with the mono mix, I prefer the 5.1. The mono is just too grunge and limping.

Sure, in 10% of the mix, the 5.1 lacks the mono mix impact and style. But in the other 90%, it annihiliates it.

Your opinion. Which I disagree with 100%.

Universal has screwed up so many titles it's unbelievable.

Did you project those prints with the carbon arc lamps that they were originally timed for, or modern xenon lamps?

You know, if Jim Cameron wanted to do a new 5.1 remix that retained the original effects and flavor of the track, but gave it a little more dimensionality and power, I'd probably be OK with that. There are a number of perfectly good 5.1 remixes from mono sources available on Blu-ray now. However, the existing 5.1 track for The Terminator is an amateurish mess. It's total rubbish.

Jaws and Vertigo are two more movies that were poorly remixed to 5.1 for previous video editions. Both have brand new 5.1 tracks on Blu-ray that are substantially improved over the crummy DVD soundtracks.

Yep. It's not the fact that Terminator's been remixed into 5.1 that's the issue (a lot of people are making that mistake), it's the cack-handed way that they've done it. I could happily live with something that preserved the brute strength of the original mix whilst adding a moderate amount of contemporary finesse, but it's been rebuilt from top to bottom with scant regard for the original. One particular aspect wouldn't be enough to throw me, but the combination of the unbalanced new effects, the mis-timed/missing music, the missing effects and the horrid T2 retrofit means that I can't stand more than a few minutes of the 5.1 at a time.

Blade Runner's Final Cut remix is the gold standard for me. Sure, it helped that they had existing multichannel mixes for reference, but they still could've fallen prey to the same temptations as Cameron and Rydstrom did with Terminator. But instead of gimmicky dimensionality they added a palpable layer of depth and vitality; it was like hearing the movie with cloth taken out of my ears. Whereas with Terminator, I just wanna stuff the cloth back in as far as it can go.

Actually, I'd argue that a large part of the reason this forum isn't as active anymore is because there's such a vocal group of people that jump on you with comments like that whenever you find anything that might be less than perfect with a release. The 'shut up and enjoy the film' crowd has been pretty loud on here for the last year on a fora that's was previously populated by people looking for things that are actually done right.

"because in reality it isn't really teal. It's a very marginal change to a bluish/greenish shade, honestly would not call it teal"

If "teal" isn't "a bluish/greenish shade" what color (shade) is it?

I would argue that many got tired of some users just ripping any high profile title they could find with any perceived fault.

Not saying there wasn't some truth to some issues like the DNR'd Patton, but a grand majority of it can be viewed as nitpicking. And a lot of those users that were the most vocal usually were the biggest cheerleaders for HD DVD. IOW it could be viewed as having an ax to grind against the format. There were plenty of HD DVD titles that Universal just shoveled out to meet contractual obligations but I don't remember seeing a lot of out cry about those releases, but you can be sure when the BD was released some cherry picked images from each format and pretty much always concluded the HD DVD release was superior.

That's absurd. The number of members here that would fall under your label of pro HDDVD / BR haters = Whiney Nitpickers might number... 2 or 3 tops. The vast majority of people who tear apart substandard releases do so because the Blu-ray format is fully capable of offering glorious results even for older catalog films and between studio revisionism, botched transfers and over compressed encoding, a significant number of Blu-rays especially catalog releases *demand* to be called out as flawed and unworthy of consumer's interest or money. You can thank these "nitpickers" for Blu-rays like The French Connection, Gladiator and Patton for getting vastly better releases the second time around.

I never said that some didn't have valid points. But don't kid yourself there was a lot of negativism aimed at BD by some after HD DVD folded. This forum's membership swayed very pro HD DVD and that's why Blu-ray.com got started.

Those examples were pretty extreme and I agree that that should have been re-done. The problem is now that some studios are being cheap or they are intentionally holding back in the initial releases so they can sell new and improve versions in the future.

Here is a screenshot from the Image Entrainment DVD release which I believe was sourced from the Laserdisc.



You might notice that it has a slight teal shift to it which looks close to the newly remastered Blu-Ray. Take from that what you will....

OK, it looks closer (less teal) to old Blu-ray.

I've got both discs and I've got to say that while I love the clarity of the new disc, I love the colors of the old disc. Neither is perfect, IMO.

Just watched the new transfer last night!

I've FINALLY felt like being in the theater watching this release of Terminator. The detail was a significant leap from the first Blu-ray, and many scenes were really sharp. Not sure if this is just psychological, but it seemed that the sound encapsulated me and hit harder than ever before, too.

Great Blu-ray for $10. Sure, it may have some teal (I didn't notice anything different). And sure, it may not have the original mono track (rarely ever does this happen for other titles, though). I didn't even think or notice these things one bit.

Definitely recommended. The original release was almost as good as an upscaled DVD. This is an actual HD release.