Posted September 02 2006 - 04:25 PM
| I think re-mixing audio is different from re-recording audio. And re-filming effects from scratch as well. One reason people were pissed at the remix of JAWS with the goofy new sound FX. |
Ok, but am I wrong, I was thinking new pieces were recorded for LOTR (extended versions) so that the music would better flow into the long form versions. And that some films, like Vertigo, had music redone (same music re-recorded) to give it a more "full" feel within the film.
So, I get the complaint with Jaws, and I agree, but I think there have been plenty of times where this has done and I don't see people complain.
I'm using Vertigo as my example. When Harris & Katz re-did it, and made it available on Laserdisc in DTS format, there were a lot of complaints. Some of the audio-recordings were entirely redone, etc.
Now, ten years later, I own both the original print version and the Harris & Katz version, and I will tel you, the updated 1996 release, which has full approval of the Hitchcock estate looks and feels like what Hitchcock meant. There is no meaningful change, the music re-recorded by a modern symphony to replace the old soundtrack has pretty well been accepted.
I don't see a lot of fighting in the forums over it. Here, you're dealing with Rodenberry's 1960s style special effects - the best he could get on the budget he had. But that doesn't mean changing them to make them more impressive is some terrible violation.
Maybe I'm alone in thinking this. Anyway, I will definitely give them a shot