Oar (1 Viewer)

[Adam Lenhardt]

The DVD release of The Phantom Menace has a few extra shots in a couple of spots, but it doesn't really alter anything story-wise and certainly does not interfere with the theatrical experience, so I'm fine with it.

Personally, I feel that it ruins the flow of those scenes... the podrace in particular is thrown off in pacing.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I presume you mean the prior LD and VHS releases of RHPS, which had that terrible stereo remix. The DVD, thankfully, has the original mono (and a 5.1 mix based on that mono track, which also sounds worlds better than the previous stereo mix).

No, I was thinking of the DVD. There were a lot of complaints here when it first appeared, but I'm afraid I've forgotten the details (probably because I wasn't one of the people protesting ).
M.

 

[Damin J Toell]

No, I was thinking of the DVD. There were a lot of complaints here when it first appeared, but I'm afraid I've forgotten the details (probably because I wasn't one of the people protesting ).

I wish I knew what the concerns were, b/c afaik, the original mono mix is presented intact. This is a feat that no other previous release was able to accomplish. The 1995 20th Anniversary LD claimed to have the mono track, but it was actually a downmix of the awful stereo track.

DJ

 

[MickeS]

As for outcry about "Aliens", I wasn't a member of this board when it was released, so I don't know what was going on here then.

But I am still very much disappointed that there is no theatrical version of it available on DVD, along with the SE. I don't think seamless branching had been explored when it was released though, and Cameron seems to prefer the SE, so that's why there aren't two versions, I think.

There were plenty of complaints about "Jaws" not having the mono soundtrack on it.

/Mike

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Justin,
Nice to see you in this forum too...and posting so politely
I assume when you take issue with DD or DTS you're really talking about audio mixes that have been remixed from mono or 2.0 stereo originals to 4.0 or 5.1 remixes? After all...DTS and DD are merely digital compression schemes that if done properly should preserve the fidelity of the source signal (of course, there's even MORE controversy about *that* )
If you read a little deeper you'd find that most of us who enjoy a lovely 5.1 *director* or *original mixer approved* remix are also very adamant about having the original mono mix available too (Rocky Horror, Terminator etc).
As others have said, as long as a multi-track master was created for a 70 mm release (in addition to the standard 2-channel dolby surround mixed version), then there's no real "remixing" as the 5.1 DVD is representing a theatrical mix.
Many of us also feel very strongly that these multichannel mixes on DVD should *accurately* represent such original multi-channel endeavours. Sound of Music does a wonderful job preserving the directional dialogue of the original mix (for which it has been criticized in some on-line DVD reviews!). Ben Hur has been remixed with "mono" center-channel-only dialogue to much criticism on this forum.
As far as original versions of films vs "director's cuts" I think there's much controversy. Most of us view a difference between a film that had been cut or altered by a *studio* being restored to its original state that the director intended (like Aliens and Abyss) vs the "revisionist" director work we see being done with the original Star Wars films and E.T. And certainly everyone offers much praise when *both* versions of the film are made available (Legend and Blade Runner).
There's nothing inconsistent with pushing strongly for a particular aspect of DVD mastering (OAR) and less strongly for others (not boycotting a DVD on the basis of not containing original mono soundtracks). Sure, in a perfect world we'd want it all. But there are certain issues that get priority for many factors and this shouldn't be viewed as an inconsistency, but rather a reflection of how much energy one can realisticaly devote to the pursuit of a hobby even for the purist.
-dave
p.s. We're not so bad over here, we just take these things seriously. If you do a search you'll see droves and droves of threads debading the very issues you raise in your initial post.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

While I find myself mostly in agreement with you, I have one concern: isn't a filmmaker's vision pretty much always hampered by outside forces? There tend to be limitations of budgeting, time, technology, getting the proper cast and crew. Many of these are forced upon by the studio, but many are simply unavoidable. So how far can a filmmaker go in revising to attain the original vision? This is especially pressing in light of your sentiments against new elements such as CGI. What if new elements are necessary to achieve the original vision?

Damin,
I've considered the same thing. You're right about there always being "forces" limiting what a director can or can't do. This is the excuse Lucus is using to revamp (grr) his original 3 Star Wars films or E.T. getting nifty new CGI (as you state).
My thought is this:
The *technical* limitations of the day lend to artistry of the film. I don't want CGI "fixing" special effects in Gone with the Wind or Wizard of Oz. Nor do I want them "fixing" E.T.
There is a particular kind of "force" that is generally acceptable to change a film on DVD in order to circumvent from the past...that is *studio pressure* to dumb-down or alter a film based on what the studio felt would or wouldn't be "commerically viable".
-dave