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

[Glenn_Jn]

I don't really care about old movies (pre 1970) being mono because I really don't buy many. But it bugs me when films like "Warriors" made in 1979 are presented in mono. You can't honestly tell me that they, the films producer and director, thought that this film would sound better in mono. I don't buy it. Every film, make that every modern film, should at least have a stereo score if not the entire soundtrack.

For those who wonder why there's a double standard between sound and video, maybe it's because film is a VISUAL medium. It's the same reason you'll never hear someone say " I won't buy such and such music CD because the sleeve looks like s**t". I think for the vast majority as long as you can hear what people are saying in a movie they're happy.

Personaly I don't subscribe to the "the director is god" crap. Directors are just people and they're just as fallible as everybody else. Do you really think that if Spielberg were to be making Jaws today instead of 1975 he would give it a mono soundtrack? I don't think so!

 

[Patrick McCart]

Personaly I don't subscribe to the "the director is god" crap. Directors are just people and they're just as fallible as everybody else. Do you really think that if Spielberg were to be making Jaws today instead of 1975 he would give it a mono soundtrack? I don't think so!

But they do have the best insight into how their films should be presented. Someone like Coppola or Lucas knows a hell lot more about their films than any of us who buy their DVDs.

You wouldn't tell any artists such as Dali or Picasso how to present their work, so why would you deny directors that?

 

[Glenn_Jn]

If I paid an "artist" to paint a picture for me then that picture would become my property and as such I would have the right to present it how I want. If the artist didn't like that then he shouldn't sell his work. Most films are paid for by the studio's and so become their property. I'm sure most studio's have an unwritten "good faith" agreement not to tamper with the finished work. Of course sometimes that can change (Blade Runner anyone!). The director is just one of many people that make a movie. One could argue that A DP would know better about how a film should look. So should his say come over that of the director?. A DP answers to the director, the director to the producers and the producers to the studios (in most cases).
If I was paying many millions of MY dollars for a painting by Dali or Picasso damn right I'd want a say in how it is presented.

 

[Michael Reuben]

But it bugs me when films like "Warriors" made in 1979 are presented in mono. You can't honestly tell me that they, the films producer and director, thought that this film would sound better in mono. I don't buy it. Every film, make that every modern film, should at least have a stereo score if not the entire soundtrack.

It's called budgetary constraints. The Terminator was a 1984 film -- and it was made in mono. Why? Because funds were limited and Cameron chose to spend as much as possible on visual effects and cut corners on the sound.

M.

 

[MarkHastings]

How come we never hear people complaining about 'unrated versions', 'directors cuts', or 'extended versions'?

 

[Glenn_Jn]

Budgetary constraints? So where was all the money for "Warriors" spent? How can it cost more to record a stereo soundtrack? I'm sure there are many films made on a much smaller budget than both these films that do have a stereo or better soundtrack.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I have no idea how the budget on The Warriors was allocated. I was simply pointing out the reality that everything on a film costs money, and that filmmakers are constantly making choices about where to allocate the available funds. The Terminator happens to be a famous example, where the writer/director has publicly acknowledged that the decision was made to favor other areas over the soundtrack.

And yes, it costs more to do a film in stereo, although the differential probably isn't as great as it was before sound mixing became all-digital. If nothing else, it's a matter of time spent by technicians in a mixing booth -- and time is money.

How come we never hear people complaining about 'unrated versions', 'directors cuts', or 'extended versions'?

People complain about them all the time. Stick around for a while.

M.

 

[Carlo_M]

How come we never hear people complaining about 'unrated versions', 'directors cuts', or 'extended versions'?
--------
People complain about them all the time. Stick around for a while.

Yup. People can and will complain about everything. And just because some of us would like the original track to be included, does not make us "absolute purists" in the sense of the word. That seems to be the popular belief: oh you want the original track, then you better complain about directors' cuts etc. The truth is that the world is not black and white. While I would prefer the original mono track to some gimmicky 5.1 remix, if the original multitrack masters were found and a new 5.1 mix made under the supervision of the director and even the person who did the original score, I sure wouldn't have a problem with that. See? Not black or white, many shades of grey. Just like director's cuts. I'm not for or against it as a rule. If a director makes changes and I like it, then I'm for that cut (Blade Runner, Brazil, etc.). If a director makes changes and I'm ambivalent towards it, then I don't care (American Pie) then I won't complain. But when a director makes what I feel are bad changes, I'll complain (Star Wars Original Trilogy). Not because I'm for/against changes as a whole, but that I don't like that particular change. I guess I missed the rule somewhere along the way that you have to either a) like directors cuts, or b) dislike directors' cuts. I make my personal judgments on a case by case basis. People here end up arguing at length insisting that people choose a side (i.e. you either like the original mono and absolutely no multitrack remix, or you want everything remixed into multichannel) and absolutely adhere to that side. I refuse to adhere to some principal like it's dogma. I will judge changes based on the result. Make a great sounding 5.1 mix out of original mono tracks? I am for it. Screw up a mono track by using cheap gimmicky effects simply for directionality (especially when not appropriate like the instruments coming from behind me in the DTS mix of The Eagles Hell Freezes Over) and I won't like it.

 

[Brendan Brown]

I tend to look at directors/unrated/extended cuts as brand new films that were released direct to home video and are judged on their own merits.

For instance, I find the movie "Star Wars: The Special Edition (1997)" to be inferior to a movie called "Star Wars (1977)" in which certain characters had more shades of gray in their moral fibre by doing things such as pre-emptively shooting their opponents without warning

 

[Michael St. Clair]

You know, I can remember a time where, on this forum, there would be no need to defend preserving artistic integrity.

Those who will not buy a movie because it doesn't fill up their speakers are no different than those who will not buy a movie because it doesn't fill up their screen.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I'd say there's a difference. P&S is a matter of a film being scaled down to inferior technology. 5.1 remoxes are scaled up to superior technology.

That said, I still think they should include the original track and not bother with a remix if they don't have the stems.

 

[Thomas T]

Pardon me for being the cynic here and yes, I am generalizing, but I'm beginning to suspect that many home theatre addicts are OAR adamant not because of artistic integrity but because they want their wide screen TV filled up which goes a long way to explain why the same courtesy is not extended to mono soundtracks which appear to be unwelcome.

I am apalled by what Glenn has to say but at least he is being bluntly honest which is more than I can say for some who are attempting to justify the alteration of mono soundtracks.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I'd say there's a difference. P&S is a matter of a film being scaled down to inferior technology. 5.1 remoxes are scaled up to superior technology.

The quality of the technology used to make the change is irrelevant if the integrity of the work is harmed. A hi-tech ruined film is still a ruined film. I see no difference.

Color is a superior technology to black & white, right? So "scaling up" a black & white film to color is just improving the film, right?

DJ

 

[Cees Alons]

Why not set all ethical considerations aside for a moment - especially if you're only trying to make other people look inconsistent - and look at the practical side: if people love a film, it's quite possible ( )that some of them love several of the aspects they learned when they saw/heard it before. Not too far-fetched, heh?

Now, without stating that you have to like every aspect of it 100% and think nothing could have been "better", you just may want to hear and see that same film you love. At least those aspects that made the film worthwhile for you.
That's, IMO, why you will always hear complaints about something that changed. That's also why, in my opinion, they should always make the original work of art available - changes make for a different work of art. Perhaps deemed better by some, but almost certainly not by everybody. (Note that the complainers don't have to be the same people all the time, hence the notion that there's some inconsistency here and there.) One could express this by saying that morally the originally published work of art has become the intellectual property of others than the creating artists alone.

As for the "how dare they to not add a Stereo/DD/DTS/6.1/7.1 track these days" (or: "after 197x", or "after making so much money with a previous movie"): utter nonsense. A pencil drawing can be a perfect form of art, even after all sorts of paints were discovered and broadly available. Hand painted pictures can be beautiful still, even now we have computer-art and mechanical printing. New techniques add to the palette of the artist, not replace it necessarily.

Cees

 

[StephenL]

5.1 remoxes are scaled up to superior technology

Not necessarily. A 5.1 remix can be inferior to the original mono mix:
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...&page_number=1

 

[Dwayne]

You know, I can remember a time where, on this forum, there would be no need to defend preserving artistic integrity.

Amen.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have enjoyed exceptional 5.1 remixes of older films. But I realize the importance of maintaining and releasing the original mixes as well. This also applies to Director's Cuts, SEs, Extended Cuts....etc.

Let me repeat for added clarification:

CHANGES ARE FINE SO LONG AS THE ORIGINAL WORK IS MAINTAINED AND MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

Some people argue that the original work is not neccessary if it's the artist themself making any revisions. But that artist is not the same person he or she was when the original work was created. Sometimes, twenty or more years may have elapsed.

 

[MarkHastings]

Those who will not buy a movie because it doesn't fill up their speakers are no different than those who will not buy a movie because it doesn't fill up their screen.

Again, another comment designed to make the 5.1 lovers feel lesser. Please leave these insensitive comments off this board, it just makes you look arrogant and doesn't help the debate.

Why the need to put people down because they want to utilize the technology that's available and currently being used??? Until someone gets off their high-horse, the conversation won't progress maturely.

 

[James Reader]

Again, another comment designed to make the 5.1 lovers feel lesser. Please leave these insensitive comments off this board, it just makes you look arrogant and doesn't help the debate.

Why the need to put people down because they want to utilize the technology that's available and currently being used??? Until someone gets off their high-horse, the conversation won't progress maturely.

Sorry Mark, I see nothing insensitive about the comment you quoted. In fact, to me it sounds spot on. And it does help the debate.

If you want to use the technology that's available, does this mean you want to see programmes such as Buffy season 4 released 16:9 just because they can? (see the Buffy Season 4 Cover Art thread for reasons why it should be 4:3) Does it mean you want film grain removing just because they can? Does it mean you want opening studio logos replaced with their modern versions just because they can?

To argue from a technological point of view is wrong. Becuase technology is always improving.

A film is made. A film is released. That's how the film should be preserved for eternity. It's history, you can't rewrite history just because you don't like it! And preserving doesn't mean locking away in a vault for the next fifty odd years - it means releasing to the public in a form which they can view and enjoy.

Funny how the bulk of the board doesn't object to the degrading 'Joe Six Pack' comments which frequent many postings (and indeed "arrogant" rants).

 

[RobertR]

you can't rewrite history just because you don't like it! And preserving doesn't mean locking away in a vault for the next fifty odd years - it means releasing to the public in a form which they can view and enjoy.

Amen to that!

 

[MarkHastings]

Sorry Mark, I see nothing insensitive about the comment you quoted. In fact, to me it sounds spot on. And it does help the debate.

I find it very insenstive because it's comparrison is completely inacurate. Pan & Scan crops out part of the picture (i.e. You are losing part of the visual), where going from mono to DD5.1, is in no way losing any part of the sound. Maybe if the mono to 5.1 conversion got rid of the dialogue track, I'd see your point, but filling the screen is NO WHERE NEAR the same thing as filling your speakers.

The comment was insensitive because it was said in a harsh manner and in no way has any technical backing to make it a sound (correct) statement.