UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Aliens -- in 4k UHD (3 Viewers)

[Dave Moritz]

I was lucky enough to be able to see Aliens Directors Cut from 70mm film at Fox Studio back in 2016 and it looked awesome. Once the 4K blu-ray arrives I will see how good my memory is regarding the 70mm print I saw back in 2016.

 

[JWC1969]

It is not. You have to be a paying member of the Bits' Patreon to access this content.

Crud. Sorry about that.

 

[sbjork]

It may eventually make its way to the main Bits page.

 

[TravisR]

You're mind works just fine. It's fair to have a bit of skepticism about decades-old memories of color in particular because that's a detail that human memory doesn't store in detailed fashion.

Sorry, it may have been several decades ago in some collapsing dollar theater but I still remember everything about the presentation about every movie and I damn well will complain about it when a disc doesn't match my obviously photographic memory.

To be fair, Aliens is/was a grainy movie and I don't think anyone is arguing that it didn't used to be.

 

[SwatDB]

The audio has been upgraded to Dolby Atmos, and much akin to the original 70mm mix, it's huge and proscenium filling.

Close that.

A: How can you tell, the Dolby Atmos mix mimics the 70mm Mix?

B: What about Dolby Digital 4.1 (which is a reproduction of the 70mm mix [from what I have read from dvdcompare's review])

C: If you state the Dolby Atmos mix is "much akin to the original 70mm mix" then what about the DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 on Alien Anthology BD mix? Do you accept the 2010 5.1 mix being from a 70mm blow-up mix or do you believe the mix is a remix.

Thank you.

 

[Robert Harris]

Does how cheaply made the movie was have anything to do with filming and the film used?

Filming?

Absolutely.

Stocks.

Not a bit, unless the budget is so tint that short ends are being used.

 

[Lord Dalek]

The DTS-HD MA 5.1 and DD+ 4.1 on the old Anthology Blu-ray sounded pretty much identical in terms of mixing at least to my ears.

 

[JoshZ]

By virtue of generally accepted archival standards, films of a certain historical (and AMPAS) importance are considered very separate from those that may be important, but are still considered more “entertainment.”

Best Pictures are generally considered untouchable. Grain and resolution may be massaged as part of the restorative process, as would damage.

RAH, I know that you like to draw a hard-line distinction between movies that win Best Picture as somehow being untouchable, versus all the other crap released in a year, for which anything goes, but the rest of us do not. The Oscars are an arbitrary and increasingly irrelevant standard of judging a movie, made by a notoriously fickle and out-of-touch body of voters.

A number of Best Picture winners have proven, over time, to have very little historical importance, except as trivia footnotes. Whereas movies you might classify merely as "entertainment," such as Aliens, have proven far more influential to other filmmakers and the industry. Not to mention that it's a movie people actually want to watch again, unlike a lot of Best Picture winners. To my mind, that makes proper preservation and presentation of this "entertainment" of critical importance. Your dismissive attitude is disappointing, to say the least.

 

[Robert Harris]

RAH, I know that you like to draw a hard-line distinction between movies that win Best Picture as somehow being untouchable, versus all the other crap released in a year, for which anything goes, but the rest of us do not. The Oscars are an arbitrary and increasingly irrelevant standard of judging a movie, made by a notoriously fickle and out-of-touch body of voters.

A number of Best Picture winners have proven, over time, to have very little historical importance, except as trivia footnotes. Whereas movies you might classify merely as "entertainment," such as Aliens, have proven far more influential to other filmmakers and the industry. Not to mention that it's a movie people actually want to watch again, unlike a lot of Best Picture winners. To my mind, that makes proper preservation and presentation of this "entertainment" of critical importance. Your dismissive attitude is disappointing, to say the least.

Part of the concept. Overriding point is that there are some films where grain is an important, cohesive part of the image and some not. I believe that Mr. Cameron is not out of line with his actions.

 

[Robert Harris]

Close that.

A: How can you tell, the Dolby Atmos mix mimics the 70mm Mix?

B: What about Dolby Digital 4.1 (which is a reproduction of the 70mm mix [from what I have read from dvdcompare's review])

C: If you state the Dolby Atmos mix is "much akin to the original 70mm mix" then what about the DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 on Alien Anthology BD mix? Do you accept the 2010 5.1 mix being from a 70mm blow-up mix or do you believe the mix is a remix.

Thank you.

I’m not comparing. Making the point that the original mix as heard on the 70mm mag tracks was incredibly full, and this - ditto.

 

[MarkantonyII]

I’m confused.

Mr Harris has stated the films look has been revised, he’s said some will object.

The director is alive and is behind the change, not only that but this is not the first director-approved major change to the look of this film on home video, the 2010 blu was degrained then re-grained for the same reason - it never looked in post how he expected/desired/imagined. He had the ability to correct it, and did.

Therefore this should neither be a surprise nor a catastrophe as some seem to believe, inc. those that haven’t seen the UHD!

I love Aliens. Bought it on VHS, Laser, DVD and blu. The blu picture was light years ahead of the others. I will be buying the UHD.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I consider myself lucky, as I never saw Aliens. With no points of reference, I’ll be able to just sit back and enjoy. A rare opportunity.

Love my 4K/UHD of Alien (singular) and now can finally bridge the gap with Aliens (plural); as I am now years later interested in exploring the post and pre entries to which so many fine directors have lent their vision.

The 1st 2 are by far the best.

As a fan of the franchise, I can enjoy the others to varying degrees, but none of them come close to "Alien" and "Aliens".

"3" is the next best.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I consider myself lucky too because I watched Aliens in a movie theater 3 times. However, I don't have any point of reference either because I don't recall grain structure like some others do around here. Recollection of color schemes and grain structure isn't my forte when it comes to movies, I watched decades ago in a movie theater and then have seen again on various home video formats. Mixing the different viewing experiences has a tendency to muddy the waters for me. My mind works differently because I'm more apt to specifically recall the cast of actors, spoken dialogue and plot points.

I admit to skepticism when people say they remember precisely how a movie looked theatrically.

Especially because theatrical exhibitions can vary so wildly. What a movie looked like on Screen A isn't exactly what it looked like on Screens B, C and D.

I only saw "Aliens" once theatrically - and wasn't wild about, ironic since on VHS, it became maybe my all-time favorite movie.

But while I remember the screening, I couldn't tell you how it looked if my life depended on it!

Besides, I was a teen and not exactly knowledgeable about that stuff.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I was lucky enough to be able to see Aliens Directors Cut from 70mm film at Fox Studio back in 2016 and it looked awesome. Once the 4K blu-ray arrives I will see how good my memory is regarding the 70mm print I saw back in 2016.

I have more faith in memories of videophiles from screenings over the last 25 years or so - ie, in the "DVD review website era" during which these issues became more openly discussed and considered.

Doesn't mean they're always accurate, but I simply think most of us are more conditioned to notice grain, colors, etc. at theaters than we were before this culture became as wide as the Internet made it.

This also means a bigger resource of comments about what a movie looked like done in real time, as people would be more likely to post online right after they saw a movie.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I’m confused.

Mr Harris has stated the films look has been revised, he’s said some will object.

The director is alive and is behind the change, not only that but this is not the first director-approved major change to the look of this film on home video, the 2010 blu was degrained then re-grained for the same reason - it never looked in post how he expected/desired/imagined. He had the ability to correct it, and did.

Therefore this should neither be a surprise nor a catastrophe as some seem to believe, inc. those that haven’t seen the UHD!

I love Aliens. Bought it on VHS, Laser, DVD and blu. The blu picture was light years ahead of the others. I will be buying the UHD.

As will I - and its 2 siblings.

Though I'm decidedly discouraged by the tampering done to the movies.

I just wanna see - and hear - them as they looked when originally released without attempts to "fix" them.

 

[Robert Harris]

I admit to skepticism when people say they remember precisely how a movie looked theatrically.

Especially because theatrical exhibitions can vary so wildly. What a movie looked like on Screen A isn't exactly what it looked like on Screens B, C and D.

I only saw "Aliens" once theatrically - and wasn't wild about, ironic since on VHS, it became maybe my all-time favorite movie.

But while I remember the screening, I couldn't tell you how it looked if my life depended on it!

Besides, I was a teen and not exactly knowledgeable about that stuff.

You’re not alone. I’ve met people who honestly believe they have perfect recall. I don’t believe any of them. Not only that, but you’re 100% correct that the same print will appear different from screen to screen. And most venues will not have run it correctly anyway.

 

[Malcolm R]

If these looked no better than my theater in the 80s, I'd be very disappointed. Most theatrical exhibitions in the 80s were pretty dire IMO.

 

[Clinton McClure]

If these looked no better than my theater in the 80s, I'd be very disappointed. Most theatrical exhibitions in the 80s were pretty dire IMO.

Every film I saw theatrically in the 80s was in a derelict Rialto that closed in 1987. I can’t remember any details about the presentation of the films I saw there, only that I saw them and enjoyed them.

 

[Dave Moritz]

I have seen a 70mm print of Aliens at Fox Studio back in 2016 and while I remember it looking very good I can not say that I could remember it good enough to compare to the upcoming 4K release. I remember it looked good and that it had a six channel audio track. I wish I had taken some notes about the film print as James Finn and Schawn Belston would usually talk about where the film print was sourced from and what year it was made with other information.

 

[JoshZ]

The director is alive and is behind the change, not only that but this is not the first director-approved major change to the look of this film on home video, the 2010 blu was degrained then re-grained for the same reason - it never looked in post how he expected/desired/imagined. He had the ability to correct it, and did.

Therefore this should neither be a surprise nor a catastrophe as some seem to believe, inc. those that haven’t seen the UHD!

I love Aliens. Bought it on VHS, Laser, DVD and blu. The blu picture was light years ahead of the others. I will be buying the UHD.

A couple things here.

Personally, I'm not down with the argument that because this was a director decision that we all need to get on board with it. Filmmakers are human beings, and just as prone to making bad decisions as anyone else. There are plenty of examples of filmmakers who have retroactively gone back to tamper with their old work and made a mess of it. Hello, George Lucas!

In the case of Aliens, you're correct that James Cameron was never happy with the way the photography turned out. He's been on record with that for a very long time. And, yes, the Blu-ray was already extensively de-grained. So, you're also correct that this shouldn't be a surprise. I'm still waiting for my disc to arrive, but it sounds to me like no new film scan was performed at all, and that this new 4K transfer was built off the existing Lowry Digital master with additional A.I. processing applied to it.

However, James Cameron can't use that excuse for his later movies. He never expressed any disappointment with the photography for The Abyss or Terminator 2 or True Lies or Titanic, all of which had much larger budgets than this production. Yet he's gone and applied the same de-graining and A.I. "enhancements" to all of them.

That means that Aliens isn't just an isolated case where special handling was needed due to extenuating circumstances. He's giving all his movies the same treatment, because he's decided in retrospect that he now hates film and wants everything to look as digital as possible.

That's why some of us are wary of what he's done to Aliens.