Conan in Mono (again), What a shame... (1 Viewer)

[Mark Anthony]

Without meaning to be picky, but the original 1981 theatrical release of das boot was in dolby stereo, whether there was a dolby 6 track 70mm release I don't remember, obviously the longer 6 hour-ish version shown on german and british TV in the mid-1980's was in mono, due to the technical limitations of european tv broadcasting at the time.

But having said that I agree that remixes are great as long as the original tracks are included, I have the r4 edition of conan and to listen to the difference between the two tracks is incredible - the music was recorded originally for stereo playback and so hasn't been "pot-panned" it sounds authentic in 5.1 and evastly enriches the film-watching experience.

M

 

[Thomas T]

Re: "So it's OK if the director remixes the sound but its not OK if someone else does it?"
Yes, Douglas, whether we agree with it or not, whether we like it or not, it's okay for the director to re-mix the sound should he wish to do so but it's not okay if someone else does it. It's okay for the director to cut scenes out of his movie, too, but not okay for someone else. It's okay for a director to electronically change guns to walkie talkies (E.T.) if he wants to but not someone else. It's okay for a director to darken the genital area (Mulholland Drive) for the home video release but it's not okay for someone else. It's called an artist's perogative.
Damin, you nailed it. The double standard is positively mindblowing!

 

[Ronald Slender]

I can't imagine any fan of Conan ever listening to the mono soundtrack again after listening to the 5.1 mix of the R2 and R4 version. I got the R1 special edition as soon as it was released and it was one of my most watched dvd's ever.
When the R2 version ws released I was a bit sceptical at first but after hearing the opening scene in the new 5.1 mix I knew there was no way I'd ever listen to that flat mono mix again. the remix has been done so tastefully and the movie is so much more epic with the music being in stereo that it seems like you're watching the movie again for the first time.
The remix seems to have been done by people who really love the movie because I just can't imagine anyone doing a better job considering the original mono materials.
Anyone bashing a 5.1 mix of this movie should listen to it first before making comments.

 

[Douglas R]

When the R2 version ws released I was a bit sceptical at first but after hearing the opening scene in the new 5.1 mix I knew there was no way I'd ever listen to that flat mono mix again. the remix has been done so tastefully and the movie is so much more epic with the music being in stereo that it seems like you're watching the movie again for the first time.

I totally agree and I don't see any contradiction between being against pan & scan but preferring (as long as it's done right) a 5.1 sound mix over an original mono soundtrack. With pan & scan you are loosing picture area but with a 5.1 mix you are enhancing the film. Let's face it, the sound quality of films has always varied over the years depending in which theater you saw the film. Few audiences other than in big cities ever heard '50s Cinemascope films, for example, in stereo - they accepted them without complaint in mono and assumed that was how they were meant to hear them. The point I'm making is that sound in film has always been dependent on the quality of presentation and if it hadn't been for recalcitrant theatre owners stero sound would have been standard since the early '50s.

 

[James Reader]

But how much bandwidth does the original soundmix take? Especially if it is mono.
The original soundtrack should always be presented, giving people the choice. You know, user preference and all that?

 

[Jon Smith]

i know there are purists here who would prefer to listen to the Mono.

But why ?

sure that was the original soundtrack.

But if the remix provides enhanced music, im all for it. Especially in a film like Conan.

I mean if you were watching a silent movie. What would you prefer the soundtrack on a DVD or a live Orchestra ?

 

[Steve Christou]

The Terminator was originally released in mono in 1984, and only recently remastered in surround sound, would the so called 'purists' say that its wrong to prefer listening to the remixed sound for this film? I'm all for 'enhanced' sound if it benefits the movie, no its not the same as colorization, and in the case of Terminator the originally mono track is on the disc too.
Strange that 'Conan the Barbarian' was released in mono in 1982, when far cheaper fantasy films like 'Beastmaster' and 'Sword and the Sorcerer' were released with stereo sound in the same year. If Milius doesn't want his film in stereo thats his problem, doesn't make any difference to me, I'll happily carry on watching the remixed 5.1 version.

 

[James Reader]

Steve, I'm not against remixes in general. I just think that any DVD with a remixed soundtrack should include the original. It's no biggie, or shouldn't be anyway. I would have thought it would be natural for all DVD produces to include the original anyway.

MGM are doing it right. I think all of their discs with remixed soundtracks also include the original mono track (like Terminator) so no problem there. (Incidentally I don't think the R2 Terminator does include the mono track, but I would have to check).

And yes Jon Smith, I would prefer Silent Movies to be released with soundtracks matching the original compositions, or as close to the general music of the time as possible - for instance, I have little interest in viewing the 'rock' version of Metropolis (but I have no objections to be being released as a second sountrack giving viewers the option).

It's not complicated really. Remixes are alterations to the original film and no matter how well or subtle they are done, the original presentation should be included - especially in the instance of total remixes like Jaws which include new foley effects and has, in effect, replaced the original Oscar winning soundtrack. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Greg_Y]

Yeah, it's on the Out of Print DVD, not on the MGM one. The MGM one has a mono soundtrack that's quite different from the original.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

So it's OK if the director re-mixes the sound but it's not OK if someone else does it?

Basically, yes, it's his film, isn't it?
That said, some directors make mistakes when they revisit their films (Greedo shot first, anyone?).
Also, the Conan soundtrack is quite a subtle remix, unlike some others, so I'm not all that upset about my R2, but I would prefer if the original sountrack were also included...
The Terminator is not quite as subtle, on my R2 I really miss the original mono, while Jaws is quite good, but again, how much space would the mono rack require..?

 

[Paul McElligott]

So it's OK if the director re-mixes the sound but it's not OK if someone else does it?

Yes. The director's cut was a theatrical release of a new expanded cut of the film, with a new soundtrack prepared just for that version. Therefore, the DVD accurately reflects the film I saw in the theaters.

If there were a DVD of the original 1982 theatrical release, that would be a different matter. I'd want whatever the film originally came with, which I think was stereo.

 

[johnbr]

At one time Conan did have a 6 channel mix.But they did not take care of it and is no good now.

 

[Philip Verdieck]

2 or 3 weeks ago I caught Conan (TB) on TNT. When the first commerical came on, I said "What am I doing" and put in the SE DVD.

I was inspired to hunt down the OOP soundtrack CD. I found a copy in a local CD store for $36.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Hi Jon,

i know there are purists here who would prefer to listen to the Mono.

But why ?

sure that was the original soundtrack.

But if the remix provides enhanced music, im all for it.

The reason why we prefer to listen to the mono is because those who remix the soundtrack put themselves in the position of making artistic choices that the original filmmakers were not faced with.

 

[Douglas R]

The reason why we prefer to listen to the mono is because those who remix the soundtrack put themselves in the position of making artistic choices that the original filmmakers were not faced with.

In the case of Conan, I think it was a financial choice not an artistic one.

 

[Steve Christou]

In the case of Conan, I think it was a financial choice not an artistic one.

Well it hasn't been released in 5.1 in the US, so they missed out on earning a few more bucks for their remastered dvd. I think in the case of Conan they were merely righting wrongs.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Hi Douglas,

In the case of Conan, I think it was a financial choice not an artistic one.

I think you misunderstood my comment. What I mean is when one makes a 5.1 mix, he makes artistic decisions, i.e. should this sound come from the left or the right or the center. Milius and his original mixer were never faced with these decisions. How do we know that the re-mixer is making the same artistic decisions that the original filmmakers would have?

 

[Douglas R]

I think you misunderstood my comment. What I mean is when one makes a 5.1 mix, he makes artistic decisions, i.e. should this sound come from the left or the right or the center. Milius and his original mixer were never faced with these decisions. How do we know that the re-mixer is making the same artistic decisions that the original filmmakers would have?

I see your point Rob and I agree that there have been some 5.1 mixes of mono films which have been atrocious. However, in the case of the R2 and R4 CONAN it is just the music which is given spaciousness so the artistic considerations don't really apply and the music really does sound great.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

OOPS! my first ever double post.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

I see your point Rob and I agree that there have been some 5.1 mixes of mono films which have been atrocious. However, in the case of the R2 and R4 CONAN it is just the music which is given spaciousness so the artistic considerations don't really apply and the music really does sound great.

Actually I agree with that sentiment. Although I land on the "purist" side of the fence (I think the original mix should always be included along with the remix) I judge each film on a case-by-case basis. I would be thrilled if the remastered Stanley Kubrick films had their original mono tracks but I have to admit the 5.1 versions do not sound bad at all. The music is now in stereo, dialogue mostly out of the center, and sound effects where appropriate. The results is not distractingly different from the original. (In my opinion.)

However SUPERMAN is another story, in this case I can definitely notice different sound effects, or at least different EMPHASIS on particular sounds and the effect is somewhat distracting.

The one that really bothers me is A HARD DAY'S NIGHT. The final concert sequence was spoiled (in my opinion) by the fake "theater acoustics" effect that was applied. If the original mono were included I would have NO COMPLAINTS AT ALL about this disc and it would be on my top 10 for the year. As it is, I see it as a missed opportunity and thank my lucky stars that I did not dump the laserdisc.

Based on your comments as well as others in this thread, I'm sure CONAN sounds excellent in 5.1 and would fall into the first category above. But we can never predict whether they will do a good job.

And some films simply don't need a surround sound remix. GONE WITH THE WIND and WIZARD OF OZ have been beloved classics for half a century without the benefit of stereo separation.

My only wish is that the forum adopt a policy of OST as vigorously as we encourage OAR. I was disappointed that my complaints in the AHDN thread did not receive an enthusiastic response, while at the same time, undermatting (easily corrected with black cardboard) on RESERVOIR DOGS was a hot topic.