Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - quick review (2 Viewers)

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

Audio presentation in the cinema and the home is an apples-to-oranges comparison. The acoustics are so dramatically different that even preserving the exact same mix with the exact same compression will not result in the same audio experience.

You are making my point for me. The minute we get into a home presentation, we have already agreed to accept a translation from the theatrical presentation that incorporates differences in a variety of ways. As I said at the outset, I understand the desire for the film experienced theatrically -- and I'll go a step further and say that I'm always skeptical when I hear that a filmmaker has decided to reframe a film for the home version. But I'm sufficiently aware of the translation issues involved (and the judgment calls that accompany it) not to assume that the filmmaker is therefore an "egotistical vandal", in Edwin's colorful phrase, or that the result will be unwatchable, or that anyone who finds it acceptable has somehow betrayed the central tenets of HT or this forum or some other true faith.

The goal is to get as close as possible to the theatrical experience, taking into account the technological limitations and inherent differences between a movie theater and a home theater. Remixing the audio can sometimes help facilitate that, assuming the sound design has not been changed. Cropping or re-framing a film never does.

You say that last bit as if it's established truth. As a matter of opinion, I'm inclined to agree. As a categorical imperative, I'm not that arrogant, because too many people who know a helluva lot more about filmmaking than I do keep finding reasons to depart from it in specific circumstances. They include Cameron, Nolan, Kubrick, Coppola (who considered issuing Apocalypse Now on Blu in both ARs), and now Apted. I know that Edwin likes to say things like "directors put their pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us", but the real issue is the reverse. How many of us have taken a script (or written one), broken it down, planned a movie, shot, edited and finished it, then seen its impact on an audience? It takes a lot more to make a good film than an aspect ratio, and as important as the AR is, fetishizing it is just as much as mistake as being indifferent to it.

 

[AlexF]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben How many of us have taken a script (or written one), broken it down, planned a movie, shot, edited and finished it, then seen its impact on an audience? It takes a lot more to make a good film than an aspect ratio, and as important as the AR is, fetishizing it is just as much as mistake as being indifferent to it.

And how about filmmakers that change things from an initial film festival showing, or a "traveling movie" showing (ie Kevin Smith's Red State)?


Smith (for example) has noted that he's made several edits to the film since the first showing, based on his interactions with the crowd, and his viewing of the crowd's reactions. The logic presented above is that every single such version should thus be presented on the resulting home presentation.


It's one thing to Lucas a film (ie the original Star Wars film), but it's another to tweak as you see reactions, and realizing that what you presented initially did not quite work as hoped. But some of the logic presented in this thread is glaringly black and white. And, if there's one thing that I've learned about film from this site since I joined it... movies are never black and white... not even those presented in black and white!

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Chris Farmer




Yes, it is being an inflexible hard-liner. Tone matters as well as content, and when you abandon civility to insult the director of the movie, going so far as to say that you don't even consider him a filmmaker and calling him a fucking idiot, then you are being fanatical. Your intent clearly is not to engage in a rational discussion on the subject at hand but rather to get on a soapbox and rant at anyone who will listen. There's no consideration of the possibility that there are multiple ways to respect films, and that while an absolutist, "theatrical version or bust" approach is a reasonable point to hold, there is also merit in the position that a director can legitimately choose to optimize a film's presentation for different mediums. For some films there may not even be a definitive theatrical version to use as a standard (Avatar being a prime example: there's nothing that makes a 2.35 presentation inherently more representative of the movie as seen in theaters than 1.78, it's purely a matter of personal preference).


But in any case that's really beside the point. Your posts in this thread, regardless of the merits of your actual position, have been needlessly rude, inflammatory, and insulting. While you've targeted most of your venom at Apted himself, you've also made it quite clear by the tone of your posts that you consider anyone who thinks this decision is a valid one (regardless if they agree with the change; saying someone has the legitimacy to do something is not the same as agreeing with it) to be completely, absolutely in the wrong. And that's not an attitude that leaves much room for constructive discussion.


Edit: Trimmed back some of my harsher phrasing.

Then everyone on this site who used to shut down people defending Pan and Scan and open matte transfers should apologize because, obviously, there are multiple ways to respect films and no one way is better or more legitimate than another. At least, that is what I gather from that line. As for Avatar not having a definitive theatrical version, I don't agree. That film had two definitive aspect ratios. A 2.35:1 ratio for standard theatres and a 1.78:1 "IMAX" ratio. Both of the ratios should have been on the disc. Thanks to Cameron's ego that didn't occur; however, at least the ratio that was released was one that was actually used in the theatre. That is not the case here. The director of this film has decided that a non-theatrical aspect ratio is the only one that will be available for home viewing. This is all moot. It seems I'm on the wrong side in this argument. I'm supposed to be all hearts and flowers and full of respect for Apted and his wonderful decision to fill my TV screen, therefore, allowing me to get all "intimate" with his movie. Apparently, I'm now a fetishist for actually wanting to see films with the same framing that I saw in the theatre.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Well...


It's nice to see we can still be passionate about films around here.


For the record, I fall on the side of those who say MAR is MAR and the home presentation of Voyage of the Dawn Treader should be in it's theatrical 2.35:1. The statement much earlier in the thread that the director decided to go with the modified AR to make the film "more intimate for home viewing" is poppycock, if true. It smacks of the same ill-conceived mentality that took Cinemascope films and diced them up into 4:3 images not too long ago.

I have also fought the good fight in the absurdity that is Vittorio Storaro's decision to modify so many of his films--including the glorious The Last Emperor--and crop them because of some bizarre idea that home viewing devices wouldn't do them justice.

So continue on.


I'm only dropping in to remind everyone to watch their phraseology and temper the hyperbole. After all, the HTF is a place for civil discourse between its members on such emotional issues as AR:

Discussions on this forum are polite, cordial and respectful. We do not hesitate to express our opinion on matters involved, knowing other members may or may not share those opinions. We will always respect opinions of other members, even if we do not share a particular opinion ourselves. We will not verbally attack other members in a personal way, but instead try to contribute to the common knowledge about, and understanding of all applicable topics discussed.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S




Then everyone on this site who used to shut down people defending Pan and Scan and open matte transfers should apologize because, obviously, there are multiple ways to respect films and no one way is better or more legitimate than another.

In almost every instance in the past those alternate versions were released without the director/creator's consent. THAT is the difference in my book.

 

[Arild]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben


I certainly understand the desire of people for the film they experienced theatrically. What I don't understand is why this standard is applied inconsistently, to the point where the suggestion is advanced that anyone who doesn't agree in condemning a title like Dawn Treader has betrayed the forum's raison d'etre. The fact is, just about every Blu-ray out there, and certainly every one that I've reviewed, does not accurately convey the film as it played theatrically. And yet I don't see the same outcry over most of them.


Most Blu-rays contains lossless audio tracks. I have yet to be in a theater that plays such tracks. Most play lossy Dolby Digital, at a bitrate lower than that of even standard DVD and roughly half that of the rate commonly found on Blu-ray compatibility tracks.

Are you seriously comparing including lossless audio on a BD to not including the OAR? Because that's an apples and oranges situation if I ever saw one. The distinction, I feel, could not be more obvious: One of those changes is an alteration to the film at the artistic level - the actual content is altered. The other is merely a technical improvement in how the work is presented, resulting in a higher quality presentation of the same material. And yes, that happens on the visual side of things as well, all the time, and yes; people are just as accepting of that as they are of lossless audio if not more so. How many times have you read a DVD review of some recently restored classic film where the reviewer boasts, "This films hasn't looked this good since it premiered in theaters fifty years ago, and probably not even then!" or something like that? I think you know, there was never any outrage, any protests over such comments. For a more recent example, see the BD release of the original Toy Story. The movie was re-rendered for BD in a higher resolution than the original theatrical exhibition in 1995. I don't think anyone considered that a bad thing, because they didn't change the visuals per se - the compositoin, the animation - everything remained the same on the artistic level, it was merely an improved presentation of it from a technological standpoint.

In addition, most soundtracks for home video are remixed for "near field" listening

I'm not too knowledgeable about this subject, but I thought the point of doing that was precisely so that the home theater experience would more closely match that of the actual cinematic presentation (whereas a simple port of the theatrical audio would actually sound different because of the very different acoustics inherent in your home vs the theater)?


Look, I'm not at all as enraged about this particular alteration of Dawn Treader as some other posters are (despite the fact that I was the one who brought it up here in the first place) but neither do I approve of it. And I certainly think Edwin makes a good point about one thing - HTF members defending, even arguing in favor of, a non-OAR release? Really?


The sad thing about this, though, is that it seems Apted doesn't even realize that this alteration hurt his film. I've seen reviews and various commenters say the film has a "cheap" and "almost made-for-TV" look. Now, Dawn Treader wasn't exactly a masterpiece in its theatrical aspect ratio either, but the opening of the frame to 16:9 and the sloppy composition that results from it certainly doesn't do it any favors.

 

[Brian Borst]

Frankly, I don't really get this discussion. Since when is wanting the OAR a bad thing?

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst

Since when is wanting the OAR a bad thing?

Unless I missed it, no one has said any such thing.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway


In almost every instance in the past those alternate versions were released without the director/creator's consent. THAT is the difference in my book.

I think that's the difference in most people's book too. Personally, I don't think that there would be more intimacy created by seeing the movie at 1.78 and I completely understand people's desire to see the movie as it shown in theaters but I also think that Michael Apted knows more about the movie's look than me or anyone else here and I don't see a problem with his wishes (as odd or as unnecessary as I may find them) being respected.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway


I think that's the difference in most people's book too. Personally, I don't think that there would be more intimacy created by seeing the movie at 1.78 and I completely understand people's desire to see the movie as it shown in theaters but I also think that Michael Apted knows more about the movie's look than me or anyone else here and I don't see a problem with his wishes (as odd or as unnecessary as I may find them) being respected.

Director's approval (or cinematographer's approval) doesn't mean a thing to me in these instances. I'm pretty much black & white on the issue.

But I think it's safe to say we've narrowed the discussion to the crux of the disagreement.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway




In almost every instance in the past those alternate versions were released without the director/creator's consent. THAT is the difference in my book.

I think there were plenty of instances where directors/creators basically gave approval to have their films released P&S or open matte because, at the time, they felt that, based on screen shape and size, those types of releases looked better on a TV. However, I cannot prove my statement any more than you can prove that in almost every instance those types of releases were done without any approval or consultation with the original directors or creators.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S




I think there were plenty of instances where directors/creators basically gave approval to have their films released P&S or open matte because, at the time, they felt that, based on screen shape and size, those types of releases looked better on a TV. However, I cannot prove my statement any more than you can prove that in almost every instance those types of releases were done without any approval or consultation with the original directors or creators.

From my experience, most were not consulted, especially on catalog titles. While its true there were likely more that were approved than we are aware of, I would expect it to be the exception rather than the rule, especially in the VHS and very early DVD days (say, pre-2000).

 

[Edwin-S]

Point taken regarding the use of straw man and hypocrite. Like I said, I don't have a problem with using theatrical mixes on BD and I have stated plenty of other times that the original theatrical mix, whether it be mono, prologic or what have you, should be on home releases, along with any remix; therefore, there is no inconsistency in my position regarding home releases containing as many elements of the original theatrical release as possible. The only thing I state is that a massive visual change, in the form of something as basic as the picture framing, is going to be instantly noticed where the change to a "near field" audio mix from a theatrical mix is not going to be noticed by the majority of the human populace. There is a difference in noticing a change in aspect ratio and caring about it. Most people will realize that the picture shape has changed from the original, but won't give a damn. Most people won't notice a change in the type of audio codec used or that the audio has been re-mixed and wouldn't give a damn even if they could tell the difference.


In regards to lossy DD being a requirement on BD, I guess Dreamworks animation didn't get the message, because at least two of their recent releases, Megamind and How To Train Your Dragon apparently have no lossy DD track. All that is on the discs for the English tracks is Dolby TrueHD. At least, I could not find a DD track because with my present set up I can only listen to lossy tracks and my receiver would only play both of those discs in prologic, which is consistent with a downconversion of Dolby TrueHD over optical or coaxial. That is the reason why I wish the use of Dolby TrueHD would disappear if a lossless track is to be included. At least with DTS Master audio I can always be assured that I am going to be able to listen to the legacy lossy track.

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben ", etc.), but so careless with other people's. Nowhere did I refer to anyone as a hypocrite; at most, I pointed out an inconsistency.


As for the point being a "straw man", it doesn't fit the definition. A "straw man" argument is one that somebody sets up so that it's easy to refute -- and neither of us disputes that movie soundtracks change between the theater and the home. The only difference between us is that you don't think audio differences are "noticeable" enough to be worth a fuss:



So now you're saying it's OK to change the theatrical presentation as long as you (or the so-called "average person") don't notice. Leaving aside that there are people on this forum who routinely claim to be able to hear even minute differences in audio presentation, including between lossy and lossless formats, all of this starts to make that apparently bright line between the theatrical presentation and the home representation a lot dimmer. At the very least, a substantial element of subjectivity has been introduced. And are you sure you want to go with the "average person" as your standard? It's likely the the "average" viewer won't even notice the reformatting on Dawn Treader.


(BTW, Dolby would surprised to hear that DD is an "outdated" codec, and so would the BDA. DD is one of the required codecs in the Blu-ray spec, whereas TrueHD and DTS lossless are optional.)

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway




From my experience, most were not consulted, especially on catalog titles. While its true there were likely more that were approved than we are aware of, I would expect it to be the exception rather than the rule, especially in the VHS and very early DVD days (say, pre-2000).

It appears that you have direct contacts with people within the film industry. Since I have no direct experience with film industry people I can only defer to your experience. In regards to this discussion, if I have come across as not respecting yours or other posters position on the matter of "director privilege" that was not my intention. I can only try harder to respect the position taken; however, I also feel that I have no requirement to respect Apted for his decision and shouldn't be expected to.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

In regards to lossy DD being a requirement on BD, I guess Dreamworks animation didn't get the message, because at least two of their recent releases, Megamind and How To Train Your Dragon apparently have no lossy DD track. All that is on the discs for the English tracks is Dolby TrueHD. At least, I could not find a DD track because with my present set up I can only listen to lossy tracks and my receiver would only play both of those discs in prologic, which is consistent with a downconversion of Dolby TrueHD over optical or coaxial. That is the reason why I wish the use of Dolby TrueHD would disappear if a lossless track is to be included. At least with DTS Master audio I can always be assured that I am going to be able to listen to the legacy lossy track.

This thread is already way off-topic for a Movies discussion, but in brief:

1. A Blu-ray complies with the spec so long as it has any one of the three required formats: DD, DTS or PCM.
2. TrueHD cannot be "downconverted" for playback over optical or coaxial without special circuitry, which the vast majority of Blu-ray players lack. (By contrast, all HD DVD players had such circuitry, because TrueHD was a required format for HD DVD.) Unlike DTS-HD MA, TrueHD does not have a legacy "core" that is backwards compatible with older decoders.
3. Every disc that I've encountered where only a TrueHD track is listed has a "hidden" DD compatibility track that is automatically routed to optical or coaxial outputs. Since I don't own Megamind or Dragon, I can't tell you what's going on with those discs or why the compatibility track is outputting in ProLogic on your setup. I'm pretty sure, though, that there is a compatibility track, or you'd be getting silence.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S



It appears that you have direct contacts with people within the film industry. Since I have no direct experience with film industry people I can only defer to your experience. In regards to this discussion, if I have come across as not respecting yours or other posters position on the matter of "director privilege" that was not my intention. I can only try harder to respect the position taken; however, I also feel that I have no requirement to respect Apted for his decision and shouldn't be expected to.

I had no problem with your position nor your tone. My purpose was to find out who's decision the change was and frame in the appropriate context that is typical for a release like this one. Everyone has their lines in the sand when it comes to spending their own money on a product. I generally lean towards embracing a decision made by the person that has the most oversight on the film, which is usually (not always) the director. Even then I make exceptions here and there if I simply don't personally like the change, though I'll always concede the right for the creator of the product to make the change.


As or this particular release, I have yet to purchase it. Why? Because the packaging looks like a nightmare to deal with.

 

[Arild]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway
As or this particular release, I have yet to purchase it. Why? Because the packaging looks like a nightmare to deal with.

Unless I'm mistaken, the single disc version comes in a regular BD case.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Arild


EDIT: Can't find single-disc version online at amazon.com. Is it a brick-and-mortar store exclusive?


EDIT: However, further research reveals that the single-disc release is bare bones. Bummer.

 

[walnut186]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

I really don't care that it was the director's decision to do this. The fact of the matter is that this disc does not contain the theatrically released ratio and this forum used to be all about the presentation of films as they were seen in the theater. It pissed me off that Cameron did not put the 2.35:1 version of Avatar out on the BD home release. It also pisses me off that Tron: Legacy was released with only the "IMAX" version of the film; however, at least the BD releases of those films contained some version of the film that was actually seen theatrically. This one doesn't. This release contains only a modified version that never saw the inside of a theatre. Whether it was approved by the director or not doesn't matter a whit to me. If he wants this piece of shit composition out there, fine. However, the theatrical ratio should also be on there, because it was the only ratio that was originally used. Now we have a director telling us that we cannot even see the actual theatrical film if he so wishes and there are people here that are actually defending that? If you or Brandon are fine with that then that's your business and you're welcome to it. I don't agree with the view that the stupid decision of a director should always be deferred to just because he was the director.


Also nowhere did I refer to anyone on here as an "ignorant swine" or even infer that people here were "ignorant swine". I also don't think that I'm only that cares. I have read comments on here from others who also have concerns about this release. However, I do think that there are a lot less people on this board that care than there used to be.

I know that I'm a newbie to this board but not to the subject at hand. I've been a die-hard proponent of theatrical aspect ratios since I bought my first laserdisc way back when (when Widescreen Review didn't have snot dripping from it's bindings - jeez, those people have lost all touch with reality). It disgusts me what directors like Cameron and Apted are doing to the home theater viewers - just give us the damned theatrical ratio, please. I paid for it, ya know? I received VDT last week (had been on pre-order for two months) and I'm pissed. This - and Avatar - are causing me to re-think how I purchase BD's. I buy a lot of movies and most of them now are BD's. There are two main reasons why I buy vs. rent/stream (other than wanting to own it): (1) I want the original theatrical production, including aspect ratio; and (2) I want the maximum sound I can get including DTS, 7.1, x.1, LFE, etc. And I PAY for that. Maybe Joe X. pays his $4.95 (or whatever) to stream - that's fine for him. I pay five to six times that amount to get the theatrical product, not some dumbed-down piece of crap the studio wants to pump out.


Yesterday I watched a movie the critics generally hated - "Skyline" (which of course I own) and you know what? I LOVED it. Not for the stupid script but for the visuals and most importantly - the SOUND. It was the most entertaining sound stage I have listened to in years. I haven't enjoyed my HT that mush since THX came out with the original "Broadway" trailer. Buy the BD, set your system up for DTS HD MS (60 degree rear angle on the surround backs), crank up the volume (just below the point where your caulking cracks) and enjoy. Some movies are made for pure "take-me-away" entertainment and I think this is one of them.


What really ticks me off is that the directors profit from those of us who buy the BDs (this is my understanding). They shouldn't bite the hand that feeds them. I can hardly wait for my side-by-side comparison of TRON: Legacy on BD vs. TRON (original) on LD.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben




This thread is already way off-topic for a Movies discussion, but in brief:

1. A Blu-ray complies with the spec so long as it has any one of the three required formats: DD, DTS or PCM.
2. TrueHD cannot be "downconverted" for playback over optical or coaxial without special circuitry, which the vast majority of Blu-ray players lack. (By contrast, all HD DVD players had such circuitry, because TrueHD was a required format for HD DVD.) Unlike DTS-HD MA, TrueHD does not have a legacy "core" that is backwards compatible with older decoders.
3. Every disc that I've encountered where only a TrueHD track is listed has a "hidden" DD compatibility track that is automatically routed to optical or coaxial outputs. Since I don't own Megamind or Dragon, I can't tell you what's going on with those discs or why the compatibility track is outputting in ProLogic on your setup. I'm pretty sure, though, that there is a compatibility track, or you'd be getting silence.

Well, you've got me thinking. I should have known better regarding down conversion of TrueHD, as I've known for quite awhile that there is supposed to be a hidden track for compatability for legacy equipment. I'm using a PS3 and probably confused the way that player handles uncompressed PCM tracks with the handling of TrueHD tracks. I'll have to check the settings on my PS3; although, I've never had a problem with the player automatically extracting the core DTS stream from DTS Master audio, so I'm pretty sure it is set to bitstream.