“But I think we pulled it off” and other DVD audio commentary inanities - Page 6

It is absolutely fair and in the consumers very nature to hope and want for the best, but in the case of a DVD it is impossible for any one supplement to please absolutely everyone. Those that do the commentaries have different ways about approaching them, and as is abundantly clear, those who listen to them have varying preferences in what they actually like to hear. Some dislike the commentary on The Matrix. Some say it's bad, some say it is good. Which opinion then is right? There is no definitive answer. Quality in the eye (and in this case ear) of the beholder can be defined by personal preference.

As has been pointed out, few have any decent respect or understanding of what it takes to sit and provide such a narration in the first place. I don’t always long for a commentary track, and in many cases I find it completely understandable why a filmmaker may have no intention to even provide one. However, when I do end up listening to a commentary that I personally don’t find overly engaging, I am still grateful enough for the attempt either way. I don't care to listen to John McTiernan’s efforts for example, but hey, he's put some tracks for those who may want to give him a listen, and I dare say many like his commentaries. It’s surely great then that at the very least we’re blessed with the choice either way, no?



A big complaint and a valid complaint, absolutely, but some would feel happy to have something rather than nothing at all, and most complaints seem to come in the case of the latter. Some are just not comfortable in doing commentaries. Damn them for giving it a go if you must, but at least it is something. A lot of our issues with commentaries are predominantly to do with the nature in which the commentator has approached doing such and such a track, and how prepared - and perhaps most notably - how comfortable they actually are in doing it.

You can flick back through this thread and find a lot of notes on the personal preferences of contributors to this thread. Some have said they don’t like it when a commentary is recorded so long after a film is made and those involved find it hard to keep a good momentum to their narration. Some have noted that they actually don’t even like it when a commentary is recorded before, or slightly after a films theatrical release when the memories of the production would be so prominent in the narrators mind. There’s nothing wrong with either preference, but I can't imagine what it is like to be in the shoes of a producer on a DVD and being hounded with the stress and frustration that comes with the order of trying to do the impossible in compiling supplements that appeal to everyone. They just can’t win and we can’t often be seen to be making things any easier for them.

We’ve come to take so much for granted regarding the intricate processes’ of making a film and putting together a DVD that so often people can let their ignorance get the better of them when they come to criticise that which they are given.



Such an attitude so elegantly reminds me why I now post here so infrequently....

Dan (UK)


PS: Chuck-


Long time no speak. Hope you're well!

I am not sure it's so much consumer entitlement as it is consumer demand that has gone beyond proportion. Everyone is entitled to the best that can be done, no one can dispute that. In the case of commentaries I really just wonder if many understand the narration from an audio commentary participant may well be the best they can actually offer at the time of recording.

I was brought up to respect what I'm given. This is not to say we should put up with faulty goods, but we're not talking about faulty goods here, we're talking about supplementary materials, bonus features that are there to be explored by choice, not obligation. It is perhaps this view that so many treat a disc with a good commentary, a bad commentary, no commentary, no DTS, bad cover art and so forth almost as if it were indeed faulty goods, that continues to baffle me. It is, I think (and hope), an honest concern because it is often overshadowing the most important thing we should always remain most concerned about.

Hey kettle, this is the pot...you're black.

Posting issues we have with DVD's is just a way for us to vent. It's harmless venting and shouldn't be taken too seriously, but to come here and accuse everyone as being greedy is a total cheap shot at everyone here.

Please let us discuss our 'pet peeves' without the need for cheap shots by trying to sound 'holier than the rest'.


p.s. In all reality, I'd consider your original post to be a thread fart because this thread was created to air our grievances (in an open forum) and not to talk down to others that are displeased with commentaries.

Ditto. (And thanks for the thoughtful post, Dan.)

You seem to be taking his comments rather personally....I'm not completely sure why but put it this way, if the thread starter himself didn't really object to the critique,criticism, whatever you want to call it, then the subject is (IMO mind you) a moot* point.

Just my commentary on it.

Maybe I am, but it seemed like he took a thread where we can air out our grievances and made it sound like we are all a bunch of greedy/incensitive boobs for not appreciating the work that goes into the production of a DVD, like we aren't grateful. That's why I took it personally. It's just a thread to make rants about bad commentary, and not to belittle those who use it as such. But the thread starters first post says: so any comments that state that we are "greedy" for wanting high quality commentaries, seems (IMHO) like a thread fart.

That's my opinion.

WOW! I was shocked when I read Charlie's post about
99 percent of commentary participants aren't paid
for the service. I guess it's no wonder that there
are alot of filler tracks.

WillG's post about The Goonies track is a good point.
It's one of my least favorite and most annoying tracks
as well. Richard Donner sits there quiet while all of the
others are trying to talk over one another. It's a wall
of constant noise coming at you, with nothing being said.

A complaint I have about some of the commentaries is that
when there are more than 3 people featured on a track,
it would be nice to have a caption telling you who is
speaking, like the Star Wars and Lord Of The Rings discs.

Yes, but in direct response to Dan's opinions he stated:
The point being that he agreed with most of Dan's main opinions yet he backed up/defended his lighthearted reasons for starting the thread (which Dan also mentioned in the "offending post") without getting his feelings hurt and with no little amount of tact.
I've been dragged into swinging threads way off course with ultimately pointless bickering too many time recently to just do it again, but let me finish up by saying that I think you're being a bit overly sensitive because someone had a different take on the subject at hand. It wasn't a personal attack as far as I can see, the thread starter is ok with it, so...I don't know...maybe I just don't see the point in expending anger and energy in it. (shrugs shoulders)

Guess someone doesn't like Mssrs. Fincher, Whedon, Lasseter, et al. That's fine. But to callously dismiss them as "robots in human shells" who in your eyes, apparently have nothing more to offer than slick, soulless discussions of their work is not only unjustifiably harsh, but erroneous, since they provide not only entertaining anecdotes and interesting technical information about the making of their films and shows, but also edifying, substantive insights into the themes of their projects, the reasons behind their various creative decisions, and so on. Plus they're often very funny. Why criticize these people because of their articulateness, their ability to coherently discuss their work?


You think it "preposterous" to criticize a director for doing a bad commentary track and being unable to intelligently discuss his film, but it's okay for you to vilify a group of directors for daring to provide informative, articulate tracks? Why the antagonistic attitude? If my criticism of Burton touched a nerve, I apologize. Still, I'm sure the man sleeps well at night, despite my remarks.

As for your criticism of "cracking the whip" at directors who don't provide entertaining commentaries... first, the very point of this amusing thread is a fun, lightweight discussion of bad commentary tracks, a list of caveats for the unsuspecting viewer/listener who might otherwise waste their time on a disappointing commentary. Just because you think Mr. Burton a terrific filmmaker doesn't change my opinion that his "Apes" track merits inclusion in such a thread. Second, I never said Burton's track wasn't entertaining. In fact, his incoherence had me in stitches.


Perhaps Kubrick never explained the metaphysical subtleties of "2001" to his cast or crew. And yes, a director might take a different approach when dealing with a child actor or someone else with whom a discussion about thematic depth or subtext might not resonate or even be necessary. But Burton did not write "Apes," so unlike Kubrick with "2001," it wasn't his concept, and thus not a project whose "big picture" only he could see.

His position at the helm of a major studio picture means there were plenty of discussions between him, the screenwriters, and the execs about the story and script, including the absurd ending. Burton did not just show up on the set one day and say "Today, we're filming the part where the Lincoln memorial is now an ape statue. All of D.C. looks exactly like it did when humans lived here, but instead of humans, there are apes. Don't ask questions. Just do what I tell you."

David Lynch making "Eraserhead" answered to no one but himself. Tim Burton making "Planet of the Apes" had plenty of studio heads to answer to (of course, that every aspect of the production was under studio scrutiny didn't stop the movie from being one of the worst ever released, IMO. Please note that though Burton is certainly culpable, I place more blame on the screenwriters who wrote it, and the studio execs who signed off on the screenplay).

So yes, a director in the employ of a big studio, spending millions of their dollars, does have to explain himself. To elucidate every last little detail if necessary, about theme, story, character, and everything else. If he can't do so on a commentary track, fine. But to suggest that a "true artist" need never explain his real intentions to anyone, is naive, particularly when said "artist" is being paid to deliver a slick, high-grossing Hollywood film. For better or worse, studio films are just as much commerce as art, maybe more. Fortunately, gems like "Finding Nemo," "Singin' in the Rain" and countless others do emerge from this process.

Since this discussion is going off topic, I suggest we just agree to disagree. You like Burton's work. With the exception of the wonderful "Ed Wood," I don't.

So the less a director is the creative center of a film, the bigger his or her responsibility to be able to explain a film? If a director didn't write a film, he or she has more of a responisbility to be able to give "every last little detail" of the story? That doesn't add up.

DJ

Nick Meyer mentioned at the Star Trek VI speech that he doesn't particlarly like commentary tracks-- he thinks they're superfluous and take away from what the audience is supposed to get from the film.

The one movie I'm praying has an SE and a commentary track is William Friedkin's "Sorcerer," which looks like was absolutely hellish to shoot.

Mark,

Conveniently then you glossed over the very first thing I typed in my initial post noting that I was not voicing such a concern to single out any single person of cluster of members in this thread, which I absolutely agree in all fairness began as a simple "what commentaries don't you like" question posed to the membership by Brian.

By page five, discussion had matured to the point where I felt comfortable voicing this personal concern in this thread having felt the want to expand on a comment you made in a previous post.



Debate is a brilliant thing. It is the very meaning for a forums existence, and discussions should be left to mature instead of being ruled and over moderated to conform only to the very basics of a topic at hand. If you block progression in debate and discussion from happening, and some participants look upon differences of opinion as being lectured to, then discussion is simply of no fun or interest at all.

Out of respect for Brian and his thread, I am happy to bow out.

Dan (UK)

After reading the last couple of pages in this thread, there is little question in my mind that some of you take critical comments that were made in general terms, much too personally which causes a discussion to deviate from an opportunity to share different ideas to a senseless argument with nothing more than tit-for-tat exchanges.

Furthermore, when I read that a well-known DVD Producer and former HTF Administrator don't like to post here any longer, it sends a red flag up to me and the rest of the HTF Staff that the discussion environment has changed and not for the better.






Crawdaddy

i find it impossible to believe that 99% of the contributers don't get paid for their commentary work.
next you'll be trying to convince me that Charlie de Lauzirika and Robert Harris and others don't get paid to post here...otherwise why else would they take the time?
Lord knows they must lead far more interesting and busy lives than the majority of fourm-flys here do .

i usually don't listen to commentarys much anymore.
when i first got into LDs, it was such a unique feature that i would, but after listening to track to Wild Things (which was one of my earliest purchases on this format) hoping to hear some risque BTS tales and getting nothing more than lighting set up information, i became very disenchanted.
which is odd because i still consider the presence of an audio commentary (and other extras) justifcation for purchasing a title that i may have otherwise been on the fence about.
even though chances are i'll never listen to it.

the other reason i don't is it tends to rob some of the 'juice' from a film for me, and actually doesn't enhance future viewings but take away from them.
watching a film will then become less of an emotional/cathartic experience and merely a technical exercise for me.

one rare commentary that i did listen to (opartly) and enjoy was the one by the Ladies on The Courtship Of Eddies Father.
they all seemed to be a class act and had opinions that were honest and interesting.
if i don't sell off that disc, it will be because of the commentary.

Don't know if it's been mentioned, but Ebert's commentary on Dark City is excellent.

And a 2nd for Carpenter/Russell commentaries... They'll tangent off for ten minutes or so which is hilarious IMHO.



And the R2 "Prince..." and "They..." are good as well...

D

You know, I was going to post that very thought in THIS thread....STOP STEALING MY THOUGHTS!!!

I think the only 2 commentaries that I've actually simply shut off early because they were so bad/boring were Bowling For Columbine (with the interns) and The Player (with Robert Altman).

Altman just was slow, boring and wasn't really adding much to the movie. The interns seemed to be a bunch of college age kids who have very black and white views of the world, laughing at their in jokes and contributing nothing to the background of the movie.

I think I turned them both off around the 30 minute mark (hey, I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt!).

I agree that the Altman track on the DVD of The Player isn't all that great. But in Altman's defense, he'd already done a great commentary on the film not too long before, for the Criterion laserdisc edition. It's gotta be harder to work up the enthusiasm to do that a second time...

Well, Carpenter is a scholar on the works of (sometimes) western director Howard Hawks, He recently professored a master class on the great filmmaker at the British Film Institute and is preparing a biographical documentary film and book on him, and with Hawks being no small contributor to the Western genera I don't mind his participation.
I wouldn't be surprised if his section was the best of the bunch.

Hey Dan! If you still pop into this thread, we do miss you here. Hope things across the pond are well, as I am certain the weather is a bit nasty now.

I used the word "entitlement", not really referring to HTF, but more towards basic consumers in the States. I see it elsewhere far more than here...a general attitude that there are goods DUE the buyer. It's a process, not a step...you get what you pay for. And that comment does not apply to any members of the HTF.

Of course we all want the goods...but as with films, certain folks look for certain things out of commentaries. What I like may be disliked by another...and vice versa. I don't even listen but to a fraction of the commentaries anyway...just no time. So I try and be choosy about which ones to listen to. I appreciate them all...every one I get

I'm meandering,
Chuck

Something I would really find useful: a site that only reviewed commentary tracks. A database searchable by disc, title, or participants, with reviews submitted by the public and averaged into some kind of grade.

Something to give you an idea of what to expect from a particular track would be great... I could've avoided losing two hours of my life to The Matrix commentary that way.

I'm sorry to hear that, because I enjoyed his Wrath of Khan commentary and was looking forward to hearing what he had to say about ST6.

We've already established that most participants don't get paid for their commentaries, so for those of you who say they shouldn't be included if they're not interesting or don't fill up the entire space, do you honestly expect the studio to ask someone to take the time to record the commentary, book the recording time and then just abandon it? Then they're supposed to tell the participant that it wasn't good enough to be included on the disk? You don't always know beforehand if the commentary is going to suck.

And then of course everyone on HTF would be moaning about the fact that there's a recorded commentary that's not included!

But what about the point of these long pauses? I still have a hard time believing that someone (involved in the movie) can't tell stories for a few hours, yet a lot of people just sit there and act dumbfounded for long gaps at a time.

I've read this thread with some interest, as I am rather interested in finding out which commentaries are the ones to be avoided. I don't usually watch commentaries because much of the time I feel like the info I'm getting I could have gotten elsewhere, like in the documentaries and so on, or because they're just simply bad.

My own "stay away" warning has to go to the director's commentary on "Equilibrium". I love the film, and director Kurt Wimmer has some interesting things to say, and there are some cool anecdotes related...but by the five thousandth time I heard him say "but, at the end of the day..." I wanted to SCREAM.

Pixar's commentaries are always good, and the LOTR commentaries have been mostly entertaining (although sometimes the design team tracks get a little dry). I prefer commentaries that are recorded with several of the participants in the same room, because I like hearing them play off each other (although I haven't heard the much-maligned Goonies track that's been mentioned here).

I also like seeing Visual Commentary tracks, where you get the audio commentary plus additional bits on the visual effects of the films. Disney's "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" and Pixar's "Finding Nemo" are the only ones I can think of offhand that have this feature. Others?

cheers,
Phil

"Treasure Planet" has this as well. There are other discs that have branching/angle features where you can choose video from the actual commentary session, but that's not quite the same thing. The Terminator 2 Extreme Edition has a similar if not exactly the same feature as well in it's "interactive" mode. It's keyed more to the subtitle commentaries than the audio commentary, IIRC.

Regards,

Now I remember seeing this advertised when the EE was released. I didn't pick that one up because I already own the "Ultimate Edition" of T2 -- or is it the "Special Edition"? I lose track of superlatives sometimes, particularly when the companies keep making us double-dip and triple-dip. Bastards.

cheers,
Phil

I was someone who commented on the Goonies Track. If multiple participants is your thing, I think you would enjoy it. It also has the aforementioned video segments where you get to see the commentary session in progress. I don't think it's a bad track. It's definately lively and it has some good anticdotes. But, you are not going to learn very much about the film itself and there was at least one instance of one of the commentators trying to get a story in but can't because he kept being cut off. Those are just a couple of critisisms.

One notion that I found amusing was the visual commentaries on Highlander Season Three (I think there may have been one on Season Two as well, but I'm not sure). These are basically edited-down versions of the full-blown audio commentaries, but with the camera for the most part on the speaker. It catches the best bits, and anything visual the commentator is doing. If you're short on time those are handy samples. And there's only one per disc so there isn't the chorelike aspect and mind-numbing repetition that you have with The Simpsons.