'Warrior' - High-Def Digest Review

[Elvis_Rambo]

I saw this the other night and it was kick ass.. I do have a question though

Spoiler:

whats up with letting tommy fight with a broken arm? in reality wouldn't stop it the fight?

[Bane]

I saw this the other night and it was kick ass.. I do have a question though

Spoiler:

whats up with letting tommy fight with a broken arm? in reality wouldn't stop it the fight?

Spoiler:

The ref didn't know it was broken. When Brendon tried to call him over to tell him the coach stopped him.

[Roy Batty]

For what it's worth, and with the caveat of not having actually watched the BD but going only by the screen captures on different websites, I must say I completely agree with the reviewer on his "digital noise, not film grain" appreciation, and congratulate him on making that distinction where other reviewers have not.

Although, again just from looking at the screen caps, I don't really think it warrants such a tough markdown in the PQ grading.

[skycracksopen]

Spoiler:

The ref didn't know it was broken. When Brendon tried to call him over to tell him the coach stopped him.

Spoiler:

I can't remember, was it broken, or was his shoulder just dislocated? Sometimes a dislocated shoulder is difficult to spot, especially when it's surrounded by the amount of muscle that Tom Hardy has.

[Knarf]

For what it's worth, and with the caveat of not having actually watched the BD but going only by the screen captures on different websites, I must say I completely agree with the reviewer on his "digital noise, not film grain" appreciation, and congratulate him on making that distinction where other reviewers have not.

Although, again just from looking at the screen caps, I don't really think it warrants such a tough markdown in the PQ grading.

Although it is pseudo-grain (meaning, fake grain created by a noise filter), it was in the theaters like that. Tommy's scene's had noise atop of a grey palette added to them to give them grit. This wasnt a mistake.

So to say the "bluray transfer gets a 2.5" is DEFINITELY unfair. The bluray is an accurate representation of what was in theaters. So give Director Gavin O'Connor a 2.5 for choosing to do this, but its uncalled for to give the transfer a 2.5.

Sorry Luke.

[Josh Z]

So to say the "bluray transfer gets a 2.5" is DEFINITELY unfair. The bluray is an accurate representation of what was in theaters. So give Director Gavin O'Connor a 2.5 for choosing to do this, but its uncalled for to give the transfer a 2.5.

Now we're back to the '28 Days Later' argument. Would you give a picture shot at 240p resolution and plauged with edge enhancement and electronic noise issues a 5-star score if that's the way it looked in theaters? Or would you try to be honest with readers and warn them that the picture looks like crap?

[Knarf]

Now we're back to the '28 Days Later' argument. Would you give a picture shot at 240p resolution and plauged with edge enhancement and electronic noise issues a 5-star score if that's the way it looked in theaters? Or would you try to be honest with readers and warn them that the picture looks like crap?

Its not what you say, it's how you say it.
If a movie was shot and presented to us on Blu-ray the same way it looked theatrically, one cant blame the blu-ray, or master, or transfer like we can when we got a bum version of Gladiator.

I'd let the readers know that they may not like the visual direction... that it was the decision of the writer/director/producer.

Should they scrub the master of DNR to get rid of the noise on the bluray? Then it wont look like it did in theaters. People would complain that it's not supposed to look that way.

[skycracksopen]

yeah it's a tough call.

I rewatched 28 Days Later a few days ago and actually really liked the poor quality through most of the film. it almost gave it an amateur shot feel, similar to Cloverfield, which made it more believable to me.

but at the same time, you can't give something like that 5 stars. if it were me, I'd probably put the rating somewhere between the transfer quality and actual quality, at maybe 3 stars, and reserve 1 and 2 star scores for the really botched transfers like the original release of Gladiator.

[Knarf]

yeah it's a tough call.

I rewatched 28 Days Later a few days ago and actually really liked the poor quality through most of the film. it almost gave it an amateur shot feel, similar to Cloverfield, which made it more believable to me.

but at the same time, you can't give something like that 5 stars. if it were me, I'd probably put the rating somewhere between the transfer quality and actual quality, at maybe 3 stars, and reserve 1 and 2 star scores for the really botched transfers like the original release of Gladiator.

Right. When the TRANSFER on the master for the Bluray is bad, give the PQ on the Bluray a 2.5.
When the PQ changes looks between scenes when it shouldnt, like the From Dusk Till Dawn, give the PQ on the Blu-ray a 2.5.
But when we clearly see that all scenes with TOMMY are on a grey pallete with noise, while all scenes with BRENDAN are clean with bright colors, that's an artistic choice, not a Blu-ray failure.

[Bane]

Spoiler:

I can't remember, was it broken, or was his shoulder just dislocated? Sometimes a dislocated shoulder is difficult to spot, especially when it's surrounded by the amount of muscle that Tom Hardy has.

Spoiler:

I'm not really sure as it was hard to tell. All I know was that he was injured.

[Spader]

Spoiler:

I'm not really sure as it was hard to tell. All I know was that he was injured.

Spoiler:

I watched it again last night and Brendan's coach says "Now pop the other one!" (or something to that effect) implying it had popped out of it's socket rather than broken.

For fans of Tom Hardy, specifically Tom Hardy Walking

tomhardywalking.tumblr.com/

[Tnecniv]

Great movie. Watched it on Blu but I got too caught up in the story and didn't pay close attention to the PQ, in a nutshell I thought the rougher, more washed out picture with Tommy's scenes vs the more vivid and colorful ones with his brother were done on purpose to accentuate the different paths they took. But I dunno that's just a quick observation of mine, eyes were squarely focused on the good acting and story being told. Definitely in my top ten, probably even in my top 5 of 2011.

[Knarf]

...in a nutshell I thought the rougher, more washed out picture with Tommy's scenes vs the more vivid and colorful ones with his brother were done on purpose to accentuate the different paths they took...

They were. It wasnt a mistake on the Blu-rays' behalf. So it's a FACT that the Blu-ray PQ gets a 4.5.

If the reviewer here doesn't like the look, he can blame the movie, not the transfer of the movie nor the master of the blu-ray nor the PQ on the Blu-ray.

[Bane]

Spoiler:

I watched it again last night and Brendan's coach says "Now pop the other one!" (or something to that effect) implying it had popped out of it's socket rather than broken.

Ah, ok. I completely missed that when I watched it.

[Roy Batty]

But when we clearly see that all scenes with TOMMY are on a grey pallete with noise, while all scenes with BRENDAN are clean with bright colors, that's an artistic choice, not a Blu-ray failure.

But the issue here is not that I mind the "noise", for I saw this at the theater and I am well aware that's deliberate and intended on the creators' part, and I most definitely DO want the BD transfer to faithfully retain that gritty look.

The problem here is that what was film grain in theaters has turned into digital noise instead on the BD, because of a not good enough transfer into the digital realm.

If the reviewer here doesn't like the look, he can blame the movie, not the transfer of the movie nor the master of the blu-ray nor the PQ on the Blu-ray.

Same thing here. If that's what you take from the review, you have clearly not understood it.

The reviewer is NOT talking AT ALL about "liking" or "not liking" the look of the movie, he is clearly complaining that that look has not been properly translated into the BD transfer. He is not complaining about it looking "dirty", he is complaining about it being marred by digital noise that WAS NOT on the movie to begin with, because it was film grain (contrary to what some other posters seem to think, this was shot on film, not digital).