The Terminator: SE 5.1 Audio Track -- Thumbs Down! (1 Viewer)

[Matt_Stevens]

Fans who had been ecstatic over the new disc have started to change their tone, despite my suspicion that the vast majority of them would never have noticed the alterations until they read about them in point form on the internet.

Count me out of that group. I noticed something was wrong before reading about it on the Internet. The music volume seemed low. I just did not seem right and it didn't pull me in like it should, so I did a comparison and found not only was the music volume lowered, but that numerous other changes were made.
I'll say this again: If Anchor Bay had just included the ORIGINAL 4.0 soundtrack instead of that lame 2.0 downmix from the 5.1 remix, nobody would be complaining. NOBODY! The purists would have their outstanding original soundtrack to listen. But Nooooooo! Anchor Bay had to throw that out and include a 2.0 re-mix that is utterly useless. This is not rocket science.
------------------
www.deceptions.net/superman

 

[Jeff Ashforth]

I for one enjoyed the 5.1 remix of Terminator. I also think it is important to include the original. Having said that, I think its important for us all to remember that there is no such thing as a perfect DVD. Someone will always find a fault with any release. I think that the best releases are the ones that try to satisfy the VAST MAJORITY of DVD buyers. I think MGM has done that. They have given us the film in it's OAR anamorphically encoded from a hi-def master, a very nice 5.1 DD-EX soundtrack as well as the original mono. All in all, I'd say thats a good release. Perfect? Probably not, but its a great effort by MGM to cover its bases.
By the way, in one of the easter eggs on the DVD, James Cameron says the reason why the film was originally presented in mono was: "A stereo mix was going to cost an extra $40,000 and Hemdale was too cheap to give us the money for it. There's something about a number like that that you never forget."
Its pretty obvious that Cameron wanted to go stereo but couldn't. Since its his movie and he doesn't have a problem with re-mixing it, then neither do I.
------------------
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~drashforth/_uimages/flaggif
"Historians of science have long said: A body of knowledge that does not fit in with prevailing ideas, will be ignored as if it does not exist, no matter how scientifically valid it is."
My Spare time larcenists
The worst HT in America.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

The idea that there are going to be a significant number of people who are going to purchase this DVD without having seen The Terminator before is ridiculous, not to mention being beside the point.
The point is whether the new 5.1 mix has altered the original feel of the movie to a noticeable extent. In my opinion, it has made a significant difference to the movie, invoking different emotions at various points throughout the movie than the original soundtrack invoked. The result is a movie that does not invoke the same response as the original...not by a long shot!
Like I said earlier in this thread, I am not necessarily opposed to new 5.1 mixes, as long as they are done conservatively and allow the original soundtrack to remain largely in place. In my opinion, this was not even close to being the case with The Terminator SE.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Once again, sound purists to me =

!
This movie rocks in 5.1! I couldn't believe my ears, some parts actually startled me!
I'm going to catch hell fire for this, but liking a lame mono soundtrack like Terminator had just because it "came first" is too ridiculous for words!
------------------
God bless the USA and the men and woman of our military and their families!

 

[Wes]

Come on guys, its not a historical document, its only a flipping motion picture filmed in the 80's for entertainment. I swear some around here suck the entertainment right out of movie viewing. I listened to the 5.1 track today and thought it sounded great and with a feel of the early 80's sound track left in it also. If it makes you all feel better I am sure somewhere someone has the original mono soundtrack tucked away for safe preservation. And as for the 5.1 EX track its merely like me drawing a mustache on a copied print of the Monalisa, not the original painted canvas.
Wes

 

[cafink]

I'm going to catch hell fire for this, but liking a lame mono soundtrack like Terminator had just because it "came first" is too ridiculous for words!

If it was released with a pan-and-scan transfer, would you say the same thing to the complainers THEN? It's not a matter of what anyone — you, me, or even the director himself — likes or dislikes. After all, a LOT of people LIKE to watch pan-and-scan versions of their movies.
It's a matter of which version is CORRECT. "The Terminator" is a film that has a mono soundtrack. This is not my personal opinion. It's not a matter of taste. It is a FACT. Look it up! It can be verified through a number of sources. By definition, any presentation of this film that doesn't include a mono soundtrack is INCORRECT. You may prefer it. That's fine, it's a free country. But it's not "The Terminator."

 

[Reginald Trent]

What makes you think you can control the creative mind of film makers? Film makers have every right to enhance their own works. How many of you tell your boss how to do their job? It's their work and if the want to edit, remix and enhance their work so what.
BTW The pan and scan argument is not valid here because the original mono track is on the DVD.
[Edited last by Reginald Trent on October 02, 2001 at 11:09 PM]

 

[Mike_G]

I loved the new mix, and I'm a HUGE fan of this film. I even almost bought a 35mm print of it in stereo (yes, it did exist).
Here's my thought on mono - it sucks. I'm sorry, but I don't care how "pure" people want the DVD transfer to be, there's no depth to a mono mix. What I hate even more is when the music is recorded in stereo and it's melded poorly into the mono soundtrack. Bleh.
I've stated before that there are 5.1 remixes the irked me. Superman was one. This one was very, VERY good. The movie's audio finally has some DEPTH.
Mike
[Edited last by Mike_G on October 02, 2001 at 11:14 PM]

 

[Tom De Rosa]

So many complaints, so little time.
However, comparing OAR/P&S and MONO/5.1 remixes is apples and oranges.
From what I've read Terminator's soundtrack was originally in MONO because of budget constraints, not because of Cameron's "artistic" choice. If he would have had the money, he would have done it in stereo/Dolby. AND if DD/DTS was available, I'm sure he would have used both. See T2. I'm also sure he had some input as to the new remix as well. Van Ling, used to(still does?) work at Lightstorm.
How this comapres to OAR is beyond me. Aspect ratios can be maintained, soundtracks can not. Depending on the theater, there are 3-4 encoding choices, different 5.1/6.1/8/9 3/2, etc. channels. So not everyone's experience will be the same. BitRates vary from theater to theater and from theater to home.
Granted, the re-mix may suck, I haven't heard it yet. However, if the filmmaker's sought fit to remix it (and they are the "artists") who are we to quibble?
They included the original MONO, or did they? Does it sound the same as the Image Laserdisc, DVD, VHS tape. My understanding is that Image "pumped-up" the soundtrack.
All these experts, yet how many complain about Dolby 2 channel being "upgraded" to 5.1. Doesn't that ruin the "original, theatrical experience?"
If these sound technologies were around 90 years ago, most filmmakers would have used them and I could have The Wizard of Oz in stunning DTS-ES.

 

[Alex Spindler]

The only problem I have with the new mix are the pistol shots. They're so far removed from the original sound that they really stick out.
I for one will follow the original artists anywhere. I'll go out of my way to get director's cuts of films and find the best possible approved edition. So if they bless a 5.1 mix, it's OK with me.
Just my opinion, although most of the listed arguments seem sound and valid.
------------------
Bombardment Society - Member

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Yes, I KNOW that 'The Terminator' is mono originaly, I believe you, but the pan n scan argument doesn't hold up. Changing a films original aspect ratio can only do harm to the film, BUT the audio CAN be improved on, added to, changed around to provide a much better presentation of the film.
'The Terminator' is still 'The Terminator' even with the new mix, and better IMO. If Cameron had DD EX at his disposal when he made the film, don't you think he would have used it? As Tom De Rossa pointed out, the purists here seem to be under the impression that he actually INTENDED the film to be mono as an artistic choice, he only used it because that's all he had available to him with his budget. The mono track may have come first, but that doesn't mean that it was intended.
Don't you think he was probably walking around for years after it's release saying to people "Yes The Terminator was my first big break. Too bad it sounds like shit, but I did what I could with what I had." I think he must have, given the perfectionist that he is, it must have just ate away at him, so now with this dvd, we have his corrected version, a version of the film that he probably always wanted. If you can provide me with indesputable proof that he intended the film to be mono all along, i'll gladly zip it, but I doubt anyone can give me that proof, or else he wouldn't have done this new track, he would have left the film as is.
Let me ask the sound purists a question, what if say 'The Phantom Menace' was originaly released in mono and you guys have heard it for years, THEN they redo the audio mix to sound like the current DD EX LD, you mean you would still want that crappy mono mix!?! Come on.
I guess my point is, as long as a new audio track is done with full consent by the original filmmaker, it's fine with me. Now if somene who was not involved with the film just started tinkering around with the audio just for kicks, then i'd have a problem.
------------------
God bless the USA and the men and woman of our military and their families!
[Edited last by John Williamson on October 03, 2001 at 06:00 AM]
[Edited last by John Williamson on October 03, 2001 at 06:07 AM]
[Edited last by John Williamson on October 03, 2001 at 06:19 AM]
[Edited last by John Williamson on October 03, 2001 at 06:22 AM]

 

[Anthony Thorne]

Just an additional note to this thread, (which I'm enjoying, BTW).
James Cameron mentioned in an interview a few years ago - it might have been CINEFEX, it might have been some other mag, I can't remember at the moment - that he specifically asked Orion Pictures for an additional $30,000 to mix THE TERMINATOR into stereo during the film's original post-production schedule. Orion refused him the additional funding, and the film was released in mono. Cameron's feelings on the matter were expressed via the following quote: "Orion treated me like dogshit."
I'll presume that if Cameron liked mono that much, THE ABYSS, T2, TRUE LIES and TITANIC would have all had monophonic, centre-channel sound mixes. The original TERMINATOR is really the odd man out, sound wise.

 

[Scott_MacD]

All these experts, yet how many complain about Dolby 2 channel being "upgraded" to 5.1. Doesn't that ruin the "original, theatrical experience?"

Almost all my 5.1 remixed DVDs (aside from Superman) used the original sound effects stems as far as possible. It's open to interpretation, but the guns have different impact for me. I always thought it was an artistic choice to have the guns drowning out everything else, since Arnold was an unstoppable killer. Sigh, never mind.. I can still fool myself with the mono mix.
Now we have bullet hits making more of an impact around the soundstage. Terminator's .45/laser gun sounds like a high pitched squeak, rather than Dirty Harry's all-stopping hand cannon.
I say again, I'm delighted at the fact that both mixes are on the DVD. (and IMHO, the Image release almost certainly had an overcooked mix.)

 

[Lou Sytsma]

John & Anthony like you I prefer multichannel remixes to mono/stereo.
The point the others are making - is from a historical standpoint - the original soundtrack should be a standard item on a DVD. If the original is mono, stereo, 4.0, 5.0 it should be included in it's unaltered form.
I don't have a problem with that. My choice will be whatever presentation gives the best viewing enjoyment. For me, so far, every 5.1 remix has been more enjoyable than the original mono etc.

 

[Scott_MacD]

The point the others are making - is from a historical standpoint.

No, I promise, It's because I prefer the original mix. There's nothing historical about it. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Alex Spindler]

I just miss the old sound they used in the Lethal Enforcer's game. It was so distinctive.
------------------
Bombardment Society - Member

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Scott, let me ask you a simple question, can you please tell me in as much detail as you can, exactly WHY you prefer the original mix.
I ask this because sometimes it seems as though people say they prefer the original mix without REALLY knowing why, their just following everyone else. I'm not saying you are Scott, but some people. Also, I am all for having the original mono track included on the disc for those who, for reasons that i'll never fathom, prefer it.
If someone was to give you a bowl of ice cream, and you wait an hour before eating it and it all melts, then someone gives you another fresh bowl, are you going to eat the original melted bowl because it was the original, or are you going to eat the clearly superior fresh bowl? Strange analogy sure, but true.
------------------
God bless the USA and the men and woman of our military and their families!
[Edited last by John Williamson on October 03, 2001 at 08:07 AM]

 

[Richard Kim]

I can see both sides of the arguement here. I understand that Cameron was forced to used mono because of budgetary constraints. The 5.1 EX soundtrack sounds great, but some of the sound effects were altered, like the Dirty Harry magnum gunshots of the T-800 were replaced with something else with less impact. Still, at least MGM had the good sense to include both soundtracks (something other studios still neglect.)

 

[Scott_MacD]

I'm not expecting to change your opinion, so to avoid repeated back and forth arguments on the forum, I'll email you later, if that's okay. And if you wish to put the collaborative results on the forum, I'm okay with that too.

If someone was to give you a bowl of ice cream, and you wait an hour before eating it and it all melts, then someone gives you another fresh bowl, are you going to eat the original melted bowl because it was the original, or are you going to eat the clearly superior fresh bowl? Strange analogy sure, but true.

Ice cream decays over time, and stops being ice cream. There has been no decay of the mono mix of The Terminator over time, it's the same as it was in 1984, and so the ice cream is as cold as in which it was served. Someone decided to put chocolate syrup all over this new serving of ice cream though, and anyone who knows me knows I hate chocolate syrup. Other people like it, and that's cool.
Regards,
Scott

 

[Rob Gillespie]

because sometimes it seems as though people say they prefer the original mix without REALLY knowing why

I know why I prefer it. Because it sounds better. I don't mean in terms of fidelity or whoop-ass split surround effects, but purely in terms of coherence with the image onscreen. As I said earlier, I find many of these 'remixes' to sound too 'new' compared to what I'm seeing with my eyes. Perhaps it's because the psychological link between the image and sound in a familiar movie has been changed to the point where I just can't get used to it.
Anyway, the big question is - why do they feel the need to change?
Answer: $$$
New soundtrack = more sales