3.0 Surround ? Zardoz (sean Connery)

Discussion in 'DVD' started by RichardA, Jan 14, 2004.

  1. RichardA

    RichardA Agent

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just picked up the Zardoz DVD with Sean Connery and it states that it is 3.0 Surround. How is this different from 2.0 surround? I assume this is not digital surround.
    Is it just an addition of a sound track for the back speakers?

    Any ideas

    Thx

    Richard
     
  2. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    1,098
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    It's actually just the three front channels: left, center, right without surround. On ZARDOZ, it emulates the original magnetic stereo theatrical release.
     
  3. Gordon McMurphy

    Gordon McMurphy Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [​IMG]

    Any excuse to post that picture. [​IMG]
     
  4. Paul Arnette

    Paul Arnette Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [​IMG]
     
  5. Gordon McMurphy

    Gordon McMurphy Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Indeed. The picture of Cush is most appropriate, also! [​IMG]
     
  6. John Watson

    John Watson Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,937
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I prefer the picture of Ursula Andress with a dagger on a beach, from one of the Bond movies [​IMG] If Gordon can post that, I'll save it!

    I just picked up Zardoz for about $8 a few months ago, and was surprised I actually liked what is a much loathed film.

    Of course, Charlotte Rampant had something to do with it [​IMG]
     
  7. RichardA

    RichardA Agent

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I got the DVD for just over $8 Canadian. I liked it when I was a kid (must of been the breast scene) so I couldn't resist. One of those quirky sci-fi flicks, you either get it or you don't. Bit like Blade Runner, but that is a better movie.

    R.
     
  8. Grant B

    Grant B Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2000
    Messages:
    3,210
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just got it myself. Pretty original film. Didn't know it was a much loathed film.
    Because of the groovy costumes?
     
  9. Mikael Soderholm

    Mikael Soderholm Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 1999
    Messages:
    623
    Likes Received:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    610
    Location:
    Stockholm, SWEDEN
    Real Name:
    Mikael Söderholm

    If it's on DVD, it's digital, DVDs have no analogue tracks. Even a mono track encoded in Doldy Digital (or another digital format such as dts, PCM, MPEG) is, erm, digital [​IMG].
     
  10. RichardA

    RichardA Agent

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks Mikae

    When I say digital I'm referring as to how the info was designed to be processed in the receiver. Dolby 2.0 might be on a DVD in digital form but receivers that were specifically designed to use 2.0 and 3.0 (I think) need it in analog form before any processing occurs. 5.1 receivers are a different story.

    So my question; Was 3.0 originally designed to be processed in the receiver digitally or analog, which by the way uses frequency and the right and left channels for processing.

    Anyway I'm pretty sure it is analog.
     
  11. CraigF

    CraigF Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,666
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Location:
    Toronto area, Canada
    Real Name:
    Craig


    I think it's much "misunderstood", assuming there was really anything to understand, besides the blatantly obvious (the comparison to The Man Who Fell to Earth here today is exactly what I think). IMO it's a lousy and cheesy-looking movie, Sean Connery is unusually abysmal in it, but then he didn't have much to work with. Though I don't think it's a good movie, I have watched it a few times, because of ***Charlotte Rampling*** (hmmm, maybe that's why I got Swimming Pool), and a few couples of other things, it's fine late-night stuff especially if you're in an altered state.
     
  12. Jeff Ulmer

    Jeff Ulmer Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 1998
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would disagree that Connery is bad, I think this is one of his finer performances. I also disagree with it being cheesy-looking. People like to make fun of the costuming, but I could easily say the same thing about many of today's "styles". There is a lot of depth to the subject matter, and the nonlinear nature tends to confuse some people. It is a brilliant piece of hard sci-fi, with an imaginitive script, excellent cinematography, and a cast of very good actors. It is by no means perfect, but it is certainly one of a kind, and I am proud to have contributed to its release on DVD.

    As stated above, the sound is digital LCR.
     
  13. Mikael Soderholm

    Mikael Soderholm Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 1999
    Messages:
    623
    Likes Received:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    610
    Location:
    Stockholm, SWEDEN
    Real Name:
    Mikael Söderholm
    Well, this might be slightly OT (or belong in the hardware section) but before discrete digital multi channel sound, stereo tracks could have a matrixed four channel signal embedded in them (actually, they still can...). This was decoded by using phase differences etc like you say, and could be done in the digital or analogue domain. Modern processors/receivers normally handle this digitally, regardless of whether fed a 2.0 matrixed stereo signal (Pro Logic) or a discrete 5.1 signal. There is no signal I know of that spceifically need to be analogue before it is processed, that is a matter of processor design.

    Of course, there was also analogue discrete multi channel formats in cimenas (but not at home) long before any digital sound formats were around, this 3.0 being one of them. I believe there was no need for any processing, it was simply three discerete channels being fed to three separate speakers.

    Am I making any sense at all? What I am trying to say is that you can have multi channel sound without any digital processing, and you can have digital sound that is not multi channel, so I guess this sound format wasn't designed to be processed at all, just amplified lika any other signal.
     
  14. Walter Kittel

    Walter Kittel Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 1998
    Messages:
    5,928
    Likes Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    9,110


    You betcha! Great film from a period when cinematic SF was much closer to its literary roots.

    - Walter.
     
  15. CraigF

    CraigF Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,666
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Location:
    Toronto area, Canada
    Real Name:
    Craig
    Umm, that could explain it: in general I really don't much like the literary SF of that era either. I do not confuse obfuscation and deep meaning, and there was a time when being complicated just had to mean you were saying something significant and/or new. Even Boorman said this movie was confusing, and if I had been the editor, there are some short but confusing scenes that I would have cut, and I think I could have had a better smoother-flowing movie - I appreciate the work of editors.

    I still think Connery was really wasted in this movie, to me he looked like he was totally lost and confused, and I don't just mean because of the part he was playing. He also looked like he was kinda having fun though, hardly surprising with a mostly young female cast.
     
  16. soop.spoon

    soop.spoon Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 1998
    Messages:
    757
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I opened this post for one reason and one reason only... to see if Jeff Ulmer had replied yet! [​IMG]



    Great movie, great dvd.
     
  17. Vic Cordova

    Vic Cordova Agent

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    haven't seen this movie and years, and should get around to buying it...

    can anybody tell me, btw, what classical song is used in the score??? its been haunting me for years... i KNOW i should know this...
     
  18. Jeff Ulmer

    Jeff Ulmer Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 1998
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That would be the Allegretto from Beethoven's 7th symphony.
     
  19. Vic Cordova

    Vic Cordova Agent

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thanks jeff
     
  20. Mark_TS

    Mark_TS Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2000
    Messages:
    1,704
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I, too was in love with the "theme"-as used in the Titles and in the film-Symphony No. 7, as performed by the late David Munro.

    I once walked into a locally owned classical music store in town here, and inquired if there had ever been an OST of ZARDOZ. The owner could find no evidence.

    When I described the music to him, he seemed horrified-and snotily stated, that he didnt think such a piece of musical travesty was even worth releasing, and IF it were available, he WOULD NOT allow it into his store!
     

Share This Page