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

[Damin J Toell]

Intended: that's a very important word. The way a movie is intended to be seen and how it is distributed can sometimes be two different things. If I make a movie with the intention of it being heard in 5.1, that might not be the case in every theater where my movie is shown.

And when you make a film and that happens to it, you can inform the world about it and we can hope for a 5.1 mix supervised by you to appear on DVD. That doesn't mean you can presume that every filmmaker who ever released a film in a mono had a stereo mix that he or she created and intended to be presented. You can guess, without knowing for certain, that a film made in the late 1970s was intended to have a stereo mix. Such a guess, however, doesn't make it true.

DJ

 

[Gary->dee]

Likewise people should not presume that the way a movie was originally shown at the theater is the way the filmmaker intended it to be presented. More often than not, the presentation is based on a number of factors including budgets, deadlines, and the capibility of the individual theater.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Likewise people should not presume that the way a movie was originally shown at the theater is the way the filmmaker intended it to be presented.

Great. So when the intentions are not known for certain either way, there's only one way to present the film: as originally presented. The original version represents a version that was approved, as a result of whatever limitations, by the filmmakers at that time. And when the intentions are not known, doing anything else is a guessing game. Presenting the original version maintains the only version of the film ever approved by the filmmakers.

DJ

 

[Gary->dee]

As originally presented- Where? What theater? Should a theater with a mono setup be the default version that is chosen to represent a DVD release? What is 'the original version'? Dumb question: does the DVD for Jaws 2 for example represent the original version of the movie?

 

[Carlo_M]

So do you think that directors now, knowing that 5.1/6.1 is in and of itself a limitation, go around saying "gosh I wish my movie were in 10.2!!!" (since Tomlinson Holman apparently has a 10.2 demo working somewhere, maybe his labs). As such they are settling for a 5.1 soundtrack but their hope and intent is to someday, when blue-ray-super-ion-laser-hi-def-ultraDVD comes out with 10.2 DTS-EXCESS comes out that someone will ultimately remix their movie?

Or maybe we should all just wish soundtracks went to 11?

 

[Gary->dee]

(insert Spinal Tap joke here)


:p)

 

[Damin J Toell]

Dumb question: does the DVD for Jaws 2 for example represent the original version of the movie?

Yes. There was only ever a mono soundtrack released for the film as best I can tell.

DJ

 

[KrisM]

Jaws 2's original theatrical release was mono. The DVD is mono. I don't understand why this is difficult to understand.

KrisM

 

[Gary->dee]

Ok well that was my dumb question, although many of my others questions might seem dumb too.

 

[Eugene Esterly]

Jaws 2's original theatrical release was mono. The DVD is mono. I don't understand why this is difficult to understand.

IMO, some people want all DVD releases to use the full channel capabilites of their systems (5.1, 6.1, etc depending on how many speakers their systems allow).

Many movies espically a lot of movies during the 1980's were released theatrically w/ mono audio. Remember, not every company is going to take the time to remix mono audio into 5.1 or higher.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Likewise people should not presume that the way a movie was originally shown at the theater is the way the filmmaker intended it to be presented.

Good point. An incredible amount of movies were hacked up, altered, or even reshot from what should have been the "definitive version." Amadeus, for example, was edited from its 3-hour running time to the 1984 theatrical cut just because they knew a long movie would have trouble earning money back. This is the same reason why the Lord of the Rings epics were edited down. While both were compromises, meaning the filmmakers look at BOTH versions as the intended versions, it's easy to see what was originally intended.

 

[Damin J Toell]

while I don't recall anything about The Fellowship of the Ring's extended version getting a lot of flak.

Assuming one is an exacting purist and only ever wants to see the original theatrical version and not subsequent re-cuts, there's nothing to complain about with FOTR, because the original version was already out on DVD when the Extended Edition was released. What would there be to give flak about?

DJ

 

[Patrick McCart]

Assuming one is an exacting purist and only ever wants to see the original theatrical version and not subsequent re-cuts, there's nothing to complain about with FOTR, because the original version was already out on DVD when the Extended Edition was released. What would there be to give flak about?

That's my point. Apoc. Now and Amadeus are still on DVD in their theatrical cut versions. There has been a lot of negative stuff on them, while I was pointing out that FOTR didn't get much.

 

[Terry St]

Citizen Kane is six decades old. What type of center speaker do you have that can't reproduce this soundtrack adequately? (Because I'd like to avoid it.) I'm just surprised to see somebody mentioning that they notice some sort of processing that "screws up the audio" yet at the same time puts up with a center speaker that can't reproduce a 1941 soundtrack correctly. *shrug*

I don't recall the specifics of the current Citizen Kane DVD. (Might have to pull that one off the shelf again...) However, many early "talkies" were recorded with an emphasis on the higher frequencies to compensate for the considerable roll-off typical of the era's speakers. When played back on modern speakers such tracks sound harsh or shrill without processing. The track from an A-title DVD release like CK would probably have gotten a little massaging to sound better on typical modern setups. (And you thought you were listening to the unaltered real McCoy. The Horror!) There are still plenty of DVD's out there with unaltered mono tracks though. This is the reason why some preamps/receivers have an acadamy mono setting that rolls off the higher frequencies. If you have this mode, try it out on a normal movie to see what I mean. The difference is not subtle.

This is the point I was trying to make earlier. It isn't a case of modern center channel speakers not being capable of reproducing an old mono track. It's that the old mono track was mixed for an entirely different breed of loudspeaker. An unaltered acadamy mono track on a modern speaker doesn't sound as it was intended to. Personally, I'm happy with a little processing if it means I don't have to find and restore audio equipment from the 30's. If you consider that sort of thing fun, more power to ya!

 

[Ed St. Clair]

You forgot 'to save the world!'.

Nope!
Just trying to save the movies!

 

[Edwin-S]

That's my point. Apoc. Now and Amadeus are still on DVD in their theatrical cut versions. There has been a lot of negative stuff on them, while I was pointing out that FOTR didn't get much.
------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't seen the new cut of Amadeus but I have watched Apoc. Now Redux. I think a lot of people may have negative feelings about the Apoc. Now recut because they feel that Coppola has f@#$%D up his own cinematic masterpiece. It doesn't help that Apoc. Now Redux ( an inferior cut to many) has been blessed with a fantastic clean-up and DVD transfer, while the original cut languishes with a lesser quality transfer. A lot of people probably wouldn't feel so negative towards the recut if they could get a properly restored version of the original cut.

 

[Carlo_M]

It doesn't help that Apoc. Now Redux ( an inferior cut to many) has been blessed with a fantastic clean-up and DVD transfer, while the original cut languishes with a lesser quality transfer. A lot of people probably wouldn't feel so negative towards the recut if they could get a properly restored version of the original cut.

Edwin, I believe you can apply that statement to Amadeus as well (I haven't seen either film on DVD). Amadeus original DVD was among the early Warner releases and thus looks like an early DVD. The extended DVD was remastered and the print is nice (from what a friend who owns it tells me). And thus although both the unedited and the original are on DVD, it's not an even playing field. That may be why people (not me) are complaining.

Take E.T. for example, both new and old versions were cleaned up and included in the set and now everyone's happy! (ok, minus those that were pissed because the packaging didn't indicate the 1983 version was on the 2 disc set and thus plunked down extra $$$ on the 3 discer).

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Gary->dee

Didn't Steve's comments about the 5.1 disc allude to the fact that he'd never go back to watching Conan in mono again?

Didn't my comments about the 5.1 disc allude to the fact that it was "OK by me"?

 

[Gary->dee]

I just realized and remembered something. There's one movie that came out in the late 70's that initially received a crappy theatrical release here in America due to the dubbing of a new dialogue track. Apparently they didn't think that Australian accents would help sell the movie so they dubbed in American actors. So for years here in the U.S., this movie could only be heard with the fake American dub. I'd hoped for years for them to release the movie with the original Australian dialogue.

About a year or more ago MGM did just that and released the first Mad Max movie on DVD with several audio options, the main one being able to hear the original Australian dialogue. I thought MGM did a fantastic job with the Mad Max disc, also giving it the 5.1 treatment.

The point of all this is that I got spoiled.

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.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Mono does a great injustice to movie music and music in general. In my humble opinion, of course.

I have too believe your just young, and not... .
Boy, your humble opinion speaks volumes of your lack of knowledge.
Can not believe of someone with so little knowledge of the history of recorded music & movies gets to make an "in general" opinion, humble or not.
Where too begin?
The Beatles?
The Beach Boys?
The Blues?
Jazz?
Movies?
If your "humble opinion" was that mono releases of multi-channel mixes "does a great injustice" to the music/movie, I am with you.
However, it must be known by you, Gary->dee, and hopefully everyone else, that there are superior mixes of music/movies in mono.
That fact is indisputable.
It's wrong, to think taking something mixed for one channel playback, will 'automatically' sound 'better' in two or more channels.
It does not work like that.
There are to may things to take into account here.
I would hope you would seek out some much needed info on the subject.
Please try a site such as Steve Hoffman's. It's sure too help.
Do look into how the original soundtrack was recorded, as well!
You might find the orchestra, was recorded in stereo, even though the film was released in mono.
This would help your argument.
Superman The Movie score, was recorded in stereo.
It was a major find.
It is not however, the reason idiot's like me, still would like to have the "original" soundtrack to this film.
Good luck!