Alterations to the film's original sound (merged w/"OSR: what about new sound mixes" (1 Viewer)

[Damin J Toell]

Quote:

and replace "picture" with "sound." quite simply, that's the argument for preserving the original sound format, and it's exactly the same as the argument for OAR. just because sounds aren't removed and, instead, only being moved to a different position, it's still recomposing the sound into something that never existed in the first place. imagine if a film's visuals were merely moved around in such a manner while not actually removing anything entirely. would OAR supporters scream bloody murder? you betcha. but when it happens to a soundtrack, it seems that most of those who own 5.1 systems cheer instead.
DJ

 

[Michael Reuben]

if the filmmakers are still alive and would like to re-work their films, i completely support them. however, when we're in a situation where no one is in a position to know what the filmmakers wanted, it should be left alone.

OK, let's test that with some examples:
Touch of Evil: Should Walter Murch have reedited it? Granted, he had the Welles memo, but who knows how reliable that was, given the odd context in which it was written?
Vertigo: Specifically the soundtrack restoration. Was it or wasn't it appropriate to do? (And remember, everyone: Robert Harris is a member here, so you never know who's reading! )
Superman: The soundtrack was substantially changed, but with Richard Donner's approval (though there is disagreement over the extent of his approval). OK or not OK?
M.

 

[Greg_Y]

Damin's points are very good, but I still think it is a losing battle. Maybe "we" have won a few OAR battles (Wonka, etc.), but I can't imagine people rallying around OSR, even HTF members. For example, the Jaws petition went nowhere, unfortunately.

And while I'll listen to the original soundtrack everytime, I will buy a DVD that doesn't have it; I won't buy a non-OAR DVD. Yes, it's a double standard. But, to me, not having the DVD is worse than having the DVD with a slightly opened-up soundtrack.

 

[Mike Broadman]

. if the filmmakers are still alive and would like to re-work their films, i completely support them.

Damin, do you support Lucas re-working Star Wars?

 

[GregK]

Regarding the various films being remixed to 5.1... Most

of them (IMO) are decent, but even when I like the remix,

it's good to know if the original mix is still included.

And even more so when I think the remix stinks. To me it

boils down to laziness on the studio's part: ..How hard

is it to include the original audio mix (be it mono, stereo,

4.1, 5.1, etc) along with the "souped up" version to

please "today's listeners"? (..hint hint Warner Brothers)

 

[Damin J Toell]

Quote:

yes. and just to help prevent lists of movies given to me later in the thread, i also support the various director re-workings of Close Encounters, Brazil, E.T., Blood Simple...
DJ

 

[Michael Reuben]

i think TOE is a fairly special case

The interesting examples always are!
M.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Cameron always wanted a remix to 5.1 of Terminator, and many times they can't find the original elements do do the remix, that's why sound FX get changed. The mono track sounds different because the MGM is 1.0, and the Image is 2.0 (still mono) and the bitrate is different

I do think that if the track has been altered that the original mix should be provided, but I'll almost always listen to a 5.1 if it's director approved.

I don't believe a single sound effect was changed in Star Wars, Lucas is notorious for keeping EVERYTHING.

 

[Edwin-S]

I think comparing remixing a soundtrack to Lucas's "enhancing" of the Star Wars trilogy is apples to oranges. Remixing a soundtrack to open it up or create a more immersive soundfield doesn't change the story or characterization. Lucas tinkering did cause aspects of the story to change (ex. Han Solo's characterization). If some people like that, more power to them but I at least would like the version I saw at the theatre.
Most 5.1 remixes that I have heard for older films are pretty mild anyway, being mostly musical ambiance with limited or no localization of sound effects. In fact, a lot of the remixes are so mild that they could be considered 5.1 in name only, IMO. After saying all that, the original recording of the soundtrack should be on the disc for those who want them. It might be said that they should presented without any cleanup of noise artifacts because the pops and clicks might actually have been part of the original recording...so taking them out could be considered a remix.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I don't believe a single sound effect was changed in Star Wars, Lucas is notorious for keeping EVERYTHING.

for at least one example, there have always been complaints about the odd sound of Leia's gun in the swinging-over-the-drawbridge scene in the Star Wars SE. it sounds more like a normal gun instead of a laser blaster like every other gun in the film.
Star Wars (that is, Episode IV) in particular has a strange soundtrack history. three different mixes existed during the original theatrical runs. first came the Dolby 6-track 70mm mix, and then the mix was revised for the 35mm Dolby Stereo track, as well as the 35mm mono track. they had a longer lead time for the 35mm mixes, so more thought was supposedly put into it. in 93, they created a new 4th mix for the Definitive LDs. things were changed yet again for the SE. like the modifications made in 93 some sound effects were changed, some alternate lines appear, some lines are removed or added, etc. the mix is again entirely different than any of the previous 4 mixes. so while Lucas certainly kept everything, it doesn't mean he used everything.
DJ

 

[Joe Caps]

I can't understand doing a new 5.1 for the sake of 5.1 when a original six or four track mix already exists. To me the worst case is the Camelot DVD which takes Dan Wallins Academy Award nomiated mix and dewstoprys it - in some cases using wrong musig cues, music missing in the final scene ( the camelot chorus overdubs) and in two songs "I Wonder What the king isDoing tonight" and What do the SimpleFolk Do" vocals mixed out of syn with the orchestra! Will we ever get the original widescreen stereo Camelot?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

A sound mix is a performance. If the performance is terrible, we usually don't mind hearing a new performance. If the performance was well regarded, then it should be preserved. Even when a remix is done with proper reverence to the original mix such as the Kubrick remasters, the original mix should be included as well.
I believe that Harris & Katz inquired about possibly including the original mono mix of Vertigo on the DVD as an additional audio track to satisfy the purists, but at the time (spring of 1998 or so), Universal was afraid that they would anger the laserdisc purchasers if they included additional features on the DVD that were not present on the laser. Ahhh... those were the days.
Regards,

 

[Damin J Toell]

If the performance is terrible, we usually don't mind hearing a new performance.

so let's keep changing a film over and over, despite the desires of the filmmakers, until "we" all like it?

DJ

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Anger me, dammit!

I have a big collection of laserdiscs. Anger me with original soundtracks that are not present on LDs! I need the anger!

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

You misunderstood. If there are known flaws, (e.g. wrong dialog, poor synchronization, stems pre-eq'd for mono optical), I say go ahead and fix them. I also went on to advocate always including the original mix, so I'm not sure we really are in disagreement about anything.

Regards,

 

[Anthony Hom]

I think P&S and remixes are very different beasts. P&S, by its very nature, is contrary to the intentions of the film makers. On the other hand, sound remixes could be used to realize what the film makers would have done if the technology was available at the time.

I'm sorry but the argument that filmakers would have wanted to use the technology if it was available is such a tired and old argument.

The fact is, they did use the best technology at the time.

If a movie is truly a noteworthy film that is enjoayble to watch or stirs your soul, then it will stand on it's own regardless if the sound is in mono or 5.1

 

[paul o'donnell]

I've been known to bring this up quite often, yet I've managed to miss a 2-page thread dedicated to it. *slaps self around the head*
Honestly, OSP is easily likened to OAR in its principles. It usually plays out differently based on lack of information. Its easy (usually) to tell that new SFX have been used, ratio been cropped etc. It is a lot more difficult to acertain whether new sounds have been recorded for remixes etc.
As a rule, I watch the original presentation of the soundtrack whenever possible. I understand that remixing is much more prefferable to P&S, especially if the film contains lots of music etc.
The fact remains that changing the sound mix is changing the movie, maybe along the lines of brightening up shots that are a little murky because it looks better when you can see everything, even though they weren't shot that way. Not too noticable to people unfamiliar with the film.
Altering is altering, and thats that. It should be looked at like director's cuts; when a director goes back to a film that is say, 20 years old and adds things in (even though they were happy with the original cut - Gilliam/Brazil etc exempt). I'm fine with that, but the original version should be offered too.
Its not like my stance on P&S where I don't want it available at all. If they want to remix, let them. Just put the original on there too please.
Ooh, also...I dislike the technological determinism arguements. If the technology were available at the time, sure they might well have used 5.1. Plenty more films from the 40s may be in colour (yes I know it was around, but financially not sensible).
If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts...

 

[David Lambert]

Ooh, also...I dislike the technological determinism arguements. If the technology were available at the time, sure they might well have used 5.1. Plenty more films from the 40s may be in colour (yes I know it was around, but financially not sensible).

See, Paul's got the most sensible arguement. If you're in favour of taking a mono film and making it stereo, or a stereo film and making it 5.1, or whatever...then are you okay with colourizing a black and white film, too? Why not? Isn't it the same thing?

Let's all sit down at this time next year and watch Citizen Kane in color with a 5.1 soundtrack! Oooooh!

 

[Alex Shk]

A lot of arguments are presented that the soundtrack should be presented as the filmmakers intended but how do you determine if a filmmaker really intended his movie to only have a mono track? He/she could have been limited due to money constraints or lack of available technology.

Hmmmm... and if Mozart had synthesizers, or better yet - developed a fondness for reggae - the 40th symphony might be the best jammin groove evah, mon!

Filmmakers put a great deal of thought into the presenation of their work. As they compose the visual with the technology at hand, they mix the sound to be effective based on the same availability. As many directors ultimately cannot understand the FAILURE of one of their films, do they really understand one's success? Somehow I fear that in an effort to revisit their prior accomplishments, they may loose an elusive "something" (elusive even to themselves) that marked the sucess of the original film. It may sound BETTER, but "something" is different....

That said - I often find I prefer the re-mix. I don't think I'll ever watch Yellow Submarine with the mono track on. On the other hand - I can barely sit through The Wizard of Oz in 5.1. It goes both ways I guess.

 

[Charles J P]

Edwin-S gets an award (which unfortunately is a big fat nothing) for being the first person to bring up my strongest argument for multichannel remixes being much different and more acceptable than MAR'ed films. The reason... directors made "acadamy ratio" (or any other ratio) films because they were mimicing whatever was a popular format at the time. Aspect ratio was not limited by budget or technology after about the 1940s or 50s IMO. Sound was. You cannot compare the two. Mono was used because that was all they realisitcallyhad, not because thats the way the directer wanted it.