Mono DVD's: What were they thinking? (1 Viewer)

[Ed St. Clair]

with at least offering an optional stereo track instead of leaving it as-is.

Now your talking.
Thank's for 'the update'!
Some of my first post, now gone, were for optional multi-channel tracks on DVD's.
I got slammed. I mean crushed. I ran into purist who would have none of it.
To them a re-mix, was sacrilege.
Could not talk them into a 5.1 optional soundtrack too save my life.
I am the type too re-mix till the cows come home,
just give me the original as well.
Love having 5.1 remixes of my favorite films.
They just better have the originals as well.

 

[Mark-W]

Just thought I'd chime in and say that I find many of these
comments regarding "upgrades" of original mono tracks to
2.0, 5.1, or whatever really distrubing, and while not
against the "letter of the law" for the forum, most
certainly smack of being against the spirit I thought
imbued this forum: films presented as closely as possible
to they way they were ORIGINALLY presented and produced.

Forget the crap about "Which theater?" and such drivel.

I, for one, never paid too much attention to the audio
on my DVDs...until Jaws was released.
For someone who didn't really think about "orignal
mix" too much, I was deeply upset that I COULD HEAR
THE DIFFERENCE from what I had always heard in Jaws.

Listen to that slap hitting Roy Scheider's cheek:
it is all wrong on the DVD,
and bears little resemblance to the original slap.

For you people who want "upgrades," I have no quibble,
so long as the original tracks are also available
on the DVD,
but to me, it does place you in the same camp that cares
more about their home theater system than films.

Personally, I think it saddens me that so many of you
are taking the position that,
"Well, if Orson Welles
had the capacity to make Kane in DD 5.1,
he would have done so."

That is not the point,
and I am so glad you can read his mind.

The point is, the creative team behind a film like
Kane worked with what they had to get
to an creative end that they were satisfied with.
To do a "remix" now, not only does not reflect the director's wishes,
but it does not represent the art in its proper
context in film history.
It is just a bastadization of the art.

I suppose some of you would want Da Vinci's
The Last Supper upgraded to reflect modern techiniques in fresco painting, too.
"We could have The Last Supper in 3-D!"
"DaVinci would've wanted the food on the table
to be offered in "Scratch and Sniff" format!!!"


Some of you people just don't get it,
and frankly, make me sad, espeically
when the studios start catering to
you instead of people who care more
about the films as historical works of art.

Mark

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

Just thought I'd chime in and say that I find many of these comments regarding "upgrades" of original mono tracks to
2.0, 5.1, or whatever really distrubing, and while not
against the "letter of the law" for the forum, most
certainly smack of being against the spirit I thought
imbued this forum: films presented as closely as possible
to they way they were ORIGINALLY presented and produced.

...

Some of you people just don't get it,
and frankly, make me sad, espeically
when the studios start catering to
you instead of people who care more
about the films as historical works of art.

Great post!

 

[Jeff Kohn]

I'm not going to get into the mono versus remix debate, I think it really is a case-by-case issue, though I would agree that there's no reason not to put the original mix on the DVD, after all that's one of the reasons DVD's support multiple soundtracks.

One thing I will say, though Mono DD1.0 sucks, I strongly think that even for the mono track it should be played back as 2.0 or 3.0. You can't tell me that movie theaters used a single speaker when playing mono tracks, so I don't see why we should be expected to at home. My current center channel is pretty capable, but when I had a sub/sat system (not a cheap one mind you, but a $1k DefTech setup), DD1.0 sounded terrible.

I also think if they're going to keep the mono (or hell, even stereo) track intact, the should do so as PCM, not dolby digital. No need to compress the audio when there's plenty of room.

 

[Mark-W]

Hey, I have an idea!

Why don't we ask the studios to record dialogue for the characters in
Metropolis, Sunrise, and City Lights?
After all, if Lang, Murnau, and Chaplin
had had the opportunity to record dialog for those films, they would have!

Oh, wait..Chaplin did record a narration for
The Gold Rush many years after the initial release of that film.

How well is that received?
(People hate it, and seemingly with a percentage 100
prefering the ORIGINAL non-narrated version.)

Oh, wait...Lucas has gone back and "upgraded" the
special effects for The Star Wars Trilogy,
and look how few care that we see those films as they
were ORIGINALLY presented.

(I seem to recall a rather lenghty, active thread
about petitioning Lucas to
PRESERVE FILM HISTORY by offering the films
on DVD as they were ORIGINALLY presented along side
the souped up "final versions.")

hmmmmmmmmmmmm.


Thanks, Jeff! :b



Mark

 

[MarkHastings]

Some of you people just don't get it,
and frankly, maee me sad, espeically
when the studios start catering to
you instead of people who care more
about the films as historical works of art.

I ask again (as someone else asked earlier) why is it that if you don't want a movie EXACTLY the way it was produced, that others need to make you feel like you're a ruining the DVD market?

To those so-called "HT Enthusiasts":

The last time I checked, the word enthusiast meant "One who is filled with enthusiasm; one who is ardently absorbed in an interest or pursuit. A zealot; a fanatic."

Just because someone may prefer Pan & Scan over OAR, doesn't make them any less an enthusiast than you are. The thing with DVD's is you'll get people who love movies, and you'll get people who love technology...and neither one should be made to feel insignificant to the other.

Movies are a means of entertaining an audience. If you think of them as works of art, then that's fine, but please don't talk down to someone who sees movies as a way of entertaining themselves. Neither viewpoint is "Superior" to the other :rolleyes

 

[SteveP]

CITY LIGHTS could have been made as a talkie in 1931.
Chaplin chose to make it as a silent with sound effects and musical score that made satirical comment thoughout on the recent innovation of sound on film.

 

[Mark-W]

MarkHastings-

Films are works of art. Whether you see that or not
is a moot point. Now, certainly there are films of
different historical and artistic merits, and that could
be a thread of considerable length all by itself.

There is Citizen Kane and there is
Plan 9 From Outter Space.

Both "art," but certainly, depending on who you are,
you consider them "art," "entertainment," or both,
and whether one is more "significant" to you than the
other, is again a topic that could fill threads.

For me, I openly acknowledge that I am a hypocrite of sorts too,
because while I care deeply about films that are significant placeholders in film history,
I don't so much care about those that seem to
be made primarily only for "entertainment value,"
and are little more than "popcorn flicks."

(For example: I love the new audio mix on StarGate.)

Films that have won awards, and hold places of prestige
in film history (Both recent and not so recent) NEED to
be available in a as-close-as-possible-to-original presentation.

Jaws is a landmark film in many ways, and
as has already been mentioned, won Academy Awards for
its sound, which is NOT available on the current DVD.

I don't think you'll hear too many people decrying the
new audio mix on StarGate, because it is nothing
more than an "entertainment" film designed to bring in
the bucks. (Though, I love the artistry of the production
design.)

But that is a slipery slope, and it gets complicated
very very fast.

I was an art history major, and we NEVER talked about
a work of art without discussing how it reflected and
represented its place in the culture's history.

(And, it absolutely matters whether that work is presented
2-D, or 3-D...bronze or stone...fresco or on canvas.)


When people start talking about bastardized "upgrades"
of "important" cultural works in any media,
be it film, scuplture, or painting, it absoultely matters.

And those who want those audio "upgrades" because their subwoofer
doesn't get a work out when watching Nosferatu are "inferior" in their point of view, sorry.

Mark

 

[Damin J Toell]

Here was a small Australian movie with a piss-poor budget that was originally released in the U.S. with a fake dialogue track and MGM eventually restored it with the Australian dialogue and included all the bells and whistles of 5.1 to boot. So that's why I wonder why Universal couldn't do the same with Jaws 2, with at least offering an optional stereo track instead of leaving it as-is.

I don't really see the correllation between undoing an modification that was done to a film upon its U.S. release and providing a stereo remix that never existed in the first place. Note also that MGM saw fit to include the original mono track on that DVD, too. Although I'd have no problem with Universal including a stereo remix in addition to the mono track on Jaws 2, I don't think only providing mono is worthy of asking, "what were they thinking?"

I can also think of one title that finally had its original mono track made available after years of only providing (angry) consumers with a godawful stereo remix: The Rocky Horror Picture Show. All video releases of the film, up until the DVD, used a horrible stereo remix that not only used vocals from the soundtrack album (which had never been used in the film!), but got the left-right imaging wrong in some places. When Fox put out the LD box, it claimed it contained the original mono track, but it was just a mono track containing the same vocal modifications. RHPS fans rallied for years to get the original mono track from Fox, and all was finally made well with David Prior's very nice SE DVD. Fox also got Chace to do a new 5.1 track that used the original mono track as its source (instead of the soundtrack album), and it worked much better than the previous stereo atrocity.

DJ

 

[Edwin-S]

I don't think you'll hear too many people decrying the
new audio mix on StarGate, because it is nothing
more than an "entertainment" film designed to bring in
the bucks. (Though, I love the artistry of the production
design.)
------------------------------------------------------------

And JAWS wasn't? Last time I watched JAWS I didn't notice a ton of social or political commentary. It was a movie about a shark eating people. Unless a person wants to look at it as an allegory for American foreign policy? Nope, still looks like a "popcorn" movie about a shark chowing down on a few hairless apes. JAWS was a "popcorn" flick made primarily to make money. It certainly wasn't made because the movie studio wanted to make "cinematic history". So why is it wrong to produce a multi-channel soundtrack for a "popcorn" flick like JAWS, but it is suddenly okay for a "popcorn" flick like STARGATE?
------------------------------------------------------------



Some of you people just don't get it,
and frankly, make me sad, espeically
when the studios start catering to
you instead of people who care more
about the films as historical works of art.
------------------------------------------------------------

Since when did movie studios ever cater to "people who care about films as historical art"? Movie studios are in business to make money, not cater to self-proclaimed "film historians". The fact that people frequenting this board constantly complain about the studios haphazard policies regarding OAR releases should indicate that the studios don't give a rats-ass about "film history". Studios are interested in what makes the most money. If studio execs think that re-mixing a soundtrack to 5.1 is going to boost sales then they are going to have it re-mixed. If the studio execs think that a film wouldn't recover the cost of a new mix with increased sales, then the soundtrack doesn't get re-mixed. Preserving the sanctity of film for "historians" is the last thing on their minds.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

"One thing I will say, though Mono DD1.0 sucks, I strongly think that even for the mono track it should be played back as 2.0 or 3.0. You can't tell me that movie theaters used a single speaker when playing mono tracks, so I don't see why we should be expected to at home."

Uh yes, they do- I worked in the theater business for 10 years and any films or trailers with mono soundtracks get played ONLY through the center speaker. At home I also immediately noticed an improvement on mono soundtracks when I finally upgraded to a pro-logic system and got the sound in the center channel instead of the left and right (I made sure to get a good center speaker.)

 

[Mark-W]

Edwin-

There is a lot more to Jaws as a cultural
milestone than there is to Stargate.
How many Academy Awards was Stargate
nominated for?
How many box office records did Stargate break?
How much impact did it have of future films?
How much impact did it have on American culture?

How much more has been written in academic film journals
about Jaws compared to Stargate?

(Answer: a lot.)

As for the money issue:
Films are made, like other products to make money,
just like artists like Caravaggio worked for the Catholic
church to make money. Art and commerce have always had
a problematic marriage.
In the PBS program American Cinema, there
is the following quote made by a filmmaker:
The problem with film as an art form, is that it is
a commerical product; The problem with film as a
commercial product is that it is an art form.


Again, that is a tread into itself. The fact is
Jaws was a cultural phenomenon. If
you don't see the difference between that and a film
that had no such significance.... :rolleyes

Why the studio failed to at least make available on the
same DVD the original, Academy Award winning mono track,
along with the one that gives home theaters a workout
baffles me.

And the studios ARE finally realising that they hold
the most relevant cultural significant art form
of the modern era in their vaults. Film schools aren't
that old, and film history as a course of study is
relatively new, too.

I am sure the Pope didn't think he was doing anything
wrong when he ordered little loin clothes be painted
over all the sex organs in the Sistine Chappel either.
(Only now do we fret and fuss and pay restorers to try
and remove the modifications to Michelangelo's work.)

Mark

 

[Damin J Toell]

The fact is
Jaws was a cultural phenomenon. If
you don't see the difference between that and a film
that had no such significance....

And every film deserves the same level of respect for its integrity, whether it has been declared to have "cultural significance" by some or not. The respect for integrity that is the mission statement of this forum doesn't extend only to those that some feel deserve it.

Anyhow, Stargate had multi-track sound since it was released. It had a Dolby Stereo SR track and a DTS track theatrically, but the DTS track may have been DTS Stereo (matrixed surround). Whatever modifications made to the original masters for the DD and DTS remixes on the Ultimate Edition set are therefore probably minimal. Plus, the set also contains a DD 2.0 track, which likely presents the original Dolby SR track, anyway.

DJ

 

[Edwin-S]

There is a lot more to Jaws as a cultural
milestone than there is to Stargate.
How many Academy Awards was Stargate
nominated for?
How many box office records did Stargate break?
How much impact did it have of future films?
How much impact did it have on American culture?

How much has been written in academic film journals
about Jaws compared to Stargate?

(Answer: a lot.)
------------------------------------------------------------

Again, that is a tread into itself. The fact is
Jaws was a cultural phenomenon. If
you don't see the difference between that and a film
that had no such significance....
------------------------------------------------------------

The biggest cultural significance of JAWS was that it was one of the early shock troops of the brainless summer "popcorn" flick. The other significant "cultural" aspect of JAWS (if a person wants to call it cultural) is that it made an enormous amount of money which once again opened the door for the brainless, effects driven summer "blockbuster". "STARGATE" merely became an example of a saturated genre. If the roles had been reversed and "STARGATE" had been the shock troop of the summer blockbuster, we would now be talking about the cultural significance of that movie and JAWS would be just another "popcorn" flick. This is just a thought experiment, so please don't tell me that since it didn't happen, the analogy doesn't apply.

As to being nominated for Academy Awards...so what? I think there are plenty of films nominated for Academy Awards based on their box office take, rather than on their artistic sensibilities. In fact, I think box office results are a more important factor as to whether a film is nominated for an Academy Award, than any supposed "artistic value".

And by the way......the shark still looks fake.

 

[Mark-W]

Damin-

I agree with you in principle, but all art does not garner
the same "respect for its integrity." That painting one's
newphew created in finger painting class in kindergarten
does not earn or deserve the same respect for its integrity that a painting by Picasso has...even if they look remarkably similar.

Still, we are in FULL agreement that DVD as a medium
is capable of making everyone happy because it could and
should provide the film as it was orignally produced
and released
(regardless of preceived merits the of the film),
and for those who want it and will pay for it,
one with Dolby Digital 1000.4 or whatever.


Mark

 

[Mark-W]

Edwin-

I am going to respectfully disagree with you,
and leave it at that, because
a) it is off topic
b) neither of us is going to change the other's mind

regards to you,

Mark

PS: Yes the shark does look fake.

 

[Edwin-S]

I will say this. I believe that if the movie had a mono track, that track should be restored and be put on to the disc without fail. However, there seems to be plenty of self proclaimed "film historians" that seem to think if the movie only had a mono track, then it is the only track that should be on the disc. I do not agree with this because they are now dictating the conditions as to the "appropriate" way to watch a movie in one's own home. On the flip-side, the same could be said about someone who thinks that DVDs should not be in mono....ever.

There are even cases where a stereo mix might not improve a movie. I just re-watched "THE MALTESE FALCON" earlier and it occurred to me that this particular movie might lose a certain quality if it had a stereo track. The sonic qualities of the mono track on "THE MALTESE FALCON" gives the movie a certain period "feel". It is a quality that is quite hard to define, but it may actually be lost if the movie ever had a re-mixed soundtrack applied. I would not, personally, be averse to a stereo track being added but I definitely would not want the mono track dropped from the disc. I would want to be able to choose the preferred listening format.

 

[Mike Knapp]

I saw my name mentioned on page 6 and read the thread. All of the points I would have made have been made quite eloquently by others so I wont add to the fray.

I will say this, Vince Maskeeper had it nailed on the first page. Technology must serve the film not the other way around.

Vince, Im going to steal that line from time to time.

Mike

 

[Iain Lambert]

Overwhelmingly, I agree with Mike, Vince and all the others - "Technology must serve the film not the other way around" is a brilliant way to put it.

Can I just throw one really minor spanner in the works though? For films recorded in Dolby Surround, i.e. with a matrixed mono surround channel and matrixed centre, I do appreciate it when a "4.0" mix is presented. The home user is getting the same sounds coming out of their speakers, and most home users don't have Dolby processors as good as the professionals have - getting Fox, WAMO or whoever to matrix out the centre and surround in advance, rather than your amp do a questionable job is surely a good thing?

 

[TedD]

You can't tell me that movie theaters used a single speaker when playing mono tracks

Oh yes I can, and I will. I have been a projectionist for over 40 years now, and the center speaker (in some cases the ONLY speaker) in a movie theater is the only one used for mono (means one the last time I checked ) sound tracks.

In the days before CinemaScope, the center channel was the only channel. In the days after CinemaScope mono otical tracks continued to use only the center channel.

The left and right channels were used for 4 track Magnetic and PerspectaSound optical tracks.

Ted