12 Monkeys: Worst HD-DVD To Date

Gary didn't agree with you that King King was the best picture to date, is that why you are taking shots at him because you disagree?

someone over on HTF quoted or consulted an issue of American Cinematographer on the techniques used in film this. The HD DVD is a very accurate representation of what was intended and released to theaters.
And since i never once noticed any compression errors or anomolies, that makes it a "Tier 1" transfer in my book.

But it sounds like this thread only exists to tweek Garys nose a bit over the Kong comments, so I was probably an idiot for responding seriously

This is accurate to the film and OP, you're wrong. Things sin-CGI are still great HD DVDs and are in fact great eye candy despite their derth of CGI (Sleepy Hollow is a perfect example of how people trash a perfectly great looking HD DVD for being like it is supposed to look: grainy). 12 Monkeys looks how its supposed to and is faithful to the film itself. That is what I want and I know its what Gary wants in a film.

Do you like movies to be filtered and reprocessed like McD's chicken? (if you can call it chicken)...

I suppose there are several ways to judge a film but I wasn't impressed regardless of the transfer or lack of compression. You could mask just about any artifacts in the fuzzy stuff. I'm not a fan that style but I did like the movie.

You know, I have Sleepy Hollow in HD DVD and it's hard to tell if that's REALLY what the look was or if it's a compression problem. The grain looks digital and it comes off as noise more than just grain. Believe me, I know what grain is, (I have no problem with grainy movies--the more it looks like film the happier I am) it's just that in Sleepy Hollow it appeared...slightly off. Also, it's a Paramount release (SH) and I believe it was one of their earlier ones which didn't have the best looking PQ. That said, I have 12 Monkeys as well (haven't watched it yet) but from everything I've heard here the movie *IS* accurate to the film.

I believe you. When I first saw the movie, I agreed that it was noise b/c it seemed that it didn't behave like grain. The next time I watched it I paid attention more to the grain/noise. Perhaps its compression artifacts, but I think its predominately (if not all) grain. I think people on this forum have problems with grain and that was a grainy movie so it was easier to condemn as faulty, noisy, and defective.

You may be right though and I definitely could be wrong. I just feel despite that error it is sharp as a tack and rich with details. It also looks sublime on a CRT display because its a dark movie with plenty of shadow detail.

U r all rong. All movies r suposed 2 look like CoR & King Kong the studios need 2 redo all the movies so they look that sharp becuz that is what HD is 4 and HD is supposed 2 make all movies look that good, it don't matter what the original movie looks like so HD-DVD sucks becuz not all movies look like they should.

True like We were Soldiers where the movie seems flat at times and varying degrees of grain are distracting to me on the other hand I hate trashing a transfer just because they don't look like AF or KK. However a movie was produced and recorded doesn't matter in the end because its what we are stuck with for all of time, and honestly with both movie I referenced I didn't see anything I thought I wasn't supposed to see. That and seeing everything you think you should be seeing should be how these movie should be judged. For that reason I can sit back and enjoy these movies.

This said, I really think Gary feeds off of the Film look so the more dirt, grain and scratches the closer he feels to the theater. I don't Like grain, I wish all movies were free of it but I am not going to deny myself a movie (and for that reason the best representaion of said movie) just because it happens to be a heavy on grain.

When PotC comes out on HD-DVD (disney convert plz) I will still buy it that day going into it knowing that its one of thegrainiest recent day Block Busters I a have seen.

You should change your sig or your title (under your handle) to resolution whore.

BTW, CRT is king.

Oh, and I think that movies should look like movies regardless of 3D pop. I do appreciate when they jump out at me like Corpse Bride though.

Yes, We Were Soldiers (another Paramount) is another example of a very grainy movie (intentional -- war flick) but was sharp as a tack (to me) and had a great soundtrack. I agree that it wasn't like Corpse Bride but I'm glad that we can enjoy it for what it is and what it isn't.

The HD DVD is the best the film has ever looked. And it's an accurate representation of what I saw in the theater -- how the film SHOULD look.

I thought the HD DVD was fantastic. Methinks you're complaining about how the film was shot.

To take this in another direction (derailment ahead) the idea 'what the Director intended' can only go so far...

For instance, Aeon Flux was filmed in 1080p (I'm not totally sure of this, but even if it's not it suits the example). So what we're seeing now is basically 100% true to the director's intent.

*HOWEVER*

Eventually High Def will move to Ultra HD (4k?) and beyond. Now would upconverting a movie FILMED in 1080p to a 4k+ resolution be staying true to the Director's intentions ?? I'm sure the movie will look better upconverted, but are we supposed to suffer at 1080p (and I'm sure there'll be a day when 1080p is looked upon like SD is today) ??

Luckily most movies are on film, so 4k+ Ultra HD won't be an issue with those movies, but still, those pesky digital movies pose an interesting question.

cool, a simian movie comparison...apes vs monkeys...12 monkeys wasn't suh bad...i thot kong's hd pq was a tad better than the upconversion version on the sd

Analog = better than digital

Seriously, digital movies shot in 1080p mean the director was short sighted. Most movies are shot in film (unless they use HD cams) and CGI is done at 1080p (or whatever higher res if budget allows). HD Cam'd movies like Click and Superman Returns will just remain at 1080p while older movies like The Searchers will look fantastic. Irony hurts...

I too was dissapointed w/ 12 Monkeys HD DVD. Then again, I've never seen it theatrically and if you guys say that it's an accurate representation of the source, then its all good. It certainly is a mezmerising film. Kinda ironic though b/c Fear and Loathing was a 10/10 eye-popping release - check out the vegas strip montage w/ all the lights...great HD

I took a look at the documentary about the film in the extras and after that I was especially glad that they didn't change the look of the film. This is one where I think it would have hurt the movie. Especially since it might have made some of their effects obvious. But even besides that, it just seemed like the look was part of what made the movie. I did find it rather incredible that test audiences always gave it low scores before it was released and then it ended up making about $160 million worldwide and is way up there on imdb.com, after Terry Gilliam decided not to really change it to make those test scores go up.

--Darin

12 Monkeys is soft, grainy and dreamy looking, all 3 dvd versions where the same way,

Gilliam filmed this movie very weird and in this case it gave the film a creepy look, like it needed to be any creepier

Yes, the disc is not going to win any awards for for 3D look or pop, it looks the way it is supposed too

I would have thought that was obvious with this movie, 12 Monkeys ain't gonna look like Riddick or MI:3, it is not supposed to

check out Bruce's dream sequences for a good look at the "dreamy" look of the film, which translates to soft, muddy and grainy

-Gary

4th time I bought this movie! Signature Collection LaserDisc Box, DVD, SE DVD and HD DVD.12M, looks great! The grain was rendered very nicely! The DVD version looks like less grain because of lack of res, and was unable to render it properly producing much less detail a bit "muddy/blury" looking throughout.

will Ultra-HD 4k give us full film resolution or is film still higher than that?

I have to disagree with the thread starter, Excalibur is the worst HD-DVD out there. I watched it last night and thought perhaps I was watching it on my old VCR with my tube TV, absolutely horrible.

I completely disagree with the OP. 12 Monkeys shines in HD DVD. We were very impressed with this transfer in this house I can tell you.

To those who know and love their Gilliam movies, you are in for a treat with this disc. For those who want gloss and sheen above all else - yeah, whatever man.

I had my concerns when I saw the text on the screen, but as soon as it cut to the first frame with the knights on horses silouetted in the forest, I knew we were in HD territory. I was very happy with Excalibur. Another one that looked exactly like it should. It was a thrill to see this in HD, and I can't remember another time where the film hit me as well as it did the other night. I've seen it plenty of times over the last 25 yrs, including once at the theater and multiple times on just about every format there is and has been, but the other night is the first time I remember chills running down my spine in certain scenes. Magnificent.

12 Monkeys is exactly what I saw in the theater. Gilliam used a mix of lenses and a number of shots are intentionally soft and/or filtered for dramatic effect. The transfer is a step up from the SD DVD, but not by a lot.

I don't knock the HD disc... it just not enough of a step up to buy the film again.

The Fugitive is among the weakest HD DVD transfers (1080i bobbed, grainy/dirty print, w/ some nasty compression artifacts).

If you want to see a bad transfer, check out Full Metal Jacket. Unfortunately, there's not much Warner can do since it's the last director-approved transfer, short of digitally cleaning each frame (as they did with Casablanca)

I just find it amazing, those of you who can remember the nuances of picture quality in a movie you saw in a theater more than 10 years ago.

Those who think 12 Monkeys is bad, have not watched Spartacus.

There are some films which just stick in my memory. This was one of them. Then again, I saw it more than once.

I found HD-DVD transfer of the '12 Monkeys' quite alright. Some scenes and close-ups especially look great, some shots are soft and blurry, but then again it is what Terry Gilliam intended in the first place. 'Fear and Loathing' transfer was spectacular, this one is OK IMO, but not the worst I've seen (Dazed & Confused combo disc comes to mind as one of the worst).

Actually, that transfer was done after Kubrick's death, for the 2001 DVD set. The problem is that it was done at a time when they were doing their masters in 1080i. Other Kubrick titles are being redone, so hopefully FMJ will get a new transfer as well.