Why do studios release pan and scan DVDs in 2007? (1 Viewer)

[Mathew B]

What about those who have no choice? Europe, in particular, only gets remixes if they're available (Jaws, Duel, The Terminator all stand out from my collection as examples). I don't mind a remix as long as they don't go tinkering with any of the actual effects, but I dislike I have no choice of what to listen to.

 

[CraigF]

Aaron, I understand your point, bit of an audio junkie here. But, it's a difference between an opinion and a fact:

there is no question that MAR (P&S etc.) is inferior, it's an undeniable fact that picture info is missing,

it is only an opinion whether a 5.1 remix sounds inferior to the original mono etc., there is not necessarily any sound info "missing".

So it's not really a question of original or purity we're talking here, after all we aren't watching the original filmstock with a period sound system etc. so we've totally blown that deal.

Many people here do get upset if the original soundtrack isn't provided. Not nearly as many as when the AR is messed with.

I still think it's a matter of education. And there will always be people who choose an "inferior" product in any market just because they like it better, even if they know better and the price is the same.

 

[WillG]

Well, I do think sound is a slighly different animal than AR. While AR is fixed and is a delibarate choice of the filmmaker. Sound continues to evolve over the years and in many cases a film can benefit from a properely done multichannel mix.

Whereas AR is a chosen metric (and filmmakes can even have different attitudes regarding ARs based on changing technology. James Cameron has suggested in retrospect that he would have filmed "Aliens" in 2.35 instead of 1.85 had Super35 been more of an option back then) I think ound has pretty much revolved around what was available (economically for most films) at the time. It would be pretty rare today for a new film not to have a multichannel mix (excluding Woody Allen)

I doubt you would hear a director back then say, "Who cares what the future may hold, this film is mono and will change over my dead body" (exculding Woody Allen) You don't see too many directors protest the practice of multi channel remixes. And a remix generally does not cause you to lose audio information as a P&S transfer causes you to lose the cinematography.

Of course I also would prefer the original audio mix available on the disc as well.

 

[WillG]

Sorry, for some reason my post got copied multiple times

 

[WillG]

Duplicate

 

[WillG]

Duplicate

 

[WillG]

Duplicate

 

[WillG]

Duplicate

 

[WillG]

Duplicate

 

[WillG]

Duplicate

 

[WillG]

Duplicate....Sorry!

 

[cafink]

This is simply not true.

First of all, many MAR transfers are not missing any visual information. Many such films are presented open-matte on DVD.

And even those that are missing visual information are not "unquestionably inferior." You and I and even the film's director or cinematographer might prefer the original widescreen composition, but that doesn't make it intrinsically superior, and indeed, many people prefer the cropped version.

Further, many 5.1 remixes of mono soundtracks are indeed missing audio elements from the original track.

 

[CraigF]

^ You are sure being nit-picky. But I think you now what I meant in the context of THIS thread and THAT post! I was being general, not specific about any PARTICULAR film transfer...

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I think you guys are pretty strongly making my point for me -- you're supporting alterations to the film for home video viewing without the original being available because it's an alteration that you prefer. Is that not the very opposite of purism?


So are you a supporter of the colourization of black and white films? Photography has continued to evolve over the years and in many cases a film can benefit from properly done colourization. I doubt that you'd hear a director in 1930 say "Who cares what the future may hold, this film is black and white and will change over my dead body".

It's not a difference between opinion and fact -- it's a difference between opinion and other opinion. There is no wrong choice when it comes to what you prefer! They're your preferences, and preferring a remixed film, or one where the mattes have been opened up to fill up your TV, or one where some of the sides of the picture have been cut off, or one where colour has been added where it was not present before does not make you stupid or ignorant.

That is my point. People like what they like. They're not bad people for liking something that you don't like. I can't stand Justin Timberlake, but that doesn't make the 50,000 who packed the Air Canada Centre the last couple of nights to see him stupid or ignorant or lesser than me in any way.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Sure it does.


j/k



Aaron: I'm not seeing many posters in this thread renounce the purism of the HTF mission statement. In fact, I believe everyone on this page agrees with you that tampered soundtracks are inferior.

It would be incorrect (read: impolite) to say someone is stupid for preferring an MAR film presentation. It would NOT be incorrect for a member of this forum to say they're wrong for preferring that MAR'd film. In fact, it would be expected. And in thousands of separate posts over the years this forum has been in existence, members have told their stories of trying to educate those who don't "get" OAR.

But I don't think that's the issue in this thread.

I also think the members of this forum should support original soundtrack presentations and oppose colorization.

But those aren't really the issues of this thread either.

Who can convincingly make the case that P&S discs are sold in 2007 because "people like them better?" THAT is what I see as the issue of this thread.

 

[MielR]

Like the featurette they show on TCM now and then. Unfortunately, they're preaching to the choir.

 

[MielR]

You're lucky- and hopefully it will be more like that in the states soon (It seems like it will, based on the amount of 16:9 vs 4:3 sets I see on store shelves nowadays). The one downside, of course, is when 4:3 material is cropped to make it 16:9, like the QUEEN videos volumes 1 & 2.