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

[Frank@N]

I also have to believe that reasoning behind the film's mono release was more financial that artistic.

Who would create a sweeping epic / action movie in the 80's and then down-mix to mono?

Has Milius ever addressed the sound issue in an interview or commentary? (I didn't listen to it yet)

I'm not saying that the mono track shouldn't be included, if only for historical reasons.

What bugs me is that Universal has 'cheaped out' several times now with Conan.

You could almost forgive the mono release in 1981 when the film's popularity was undetermined, but in 2000?

At $25, Conan Collector's Edition is by far my most expensive single DVD movie.

For this kind of money, a remix (even just stereo) should have been included.

 

[James Zos]

"Sorry, but saying that a mono film should be re-mixed into multi-channel is the same thing as saying that a black and white film should be colorized"

Sorry, but this kind of argument makes no sense to me. You can't compare a film shot in black and white to a film recorded in mono. Black and white is not a limitation. I love black and white films and directors still choose to shoot in black and white because it can be so exquisite.

But MONO? Come on! Show me a director who made an "artistic choice" to record in mono when 5.1 or stereo was available and then MAYBE I'll buy your "purist" argument.

Until then, I believe mono is a limitation. That doesn't mean a bad 5.1 mix will improve on mono - but a good 5.1 or stereo mix sure as hell will.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Until then, I believe mono is a limitation.

May I suggest you listen to some Motown, Phil Spector, Beach Boys, or Beatles LPs in their original mono mixes.
(edited to add a couple words here and there)

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

But MONO? Come on! Show me a director who made an "artistic choice" to record in mono when 5.1 or stereo was available and then MAYBE I'll buy your "purist" argument.

Stanley Kubrick used mono sound for his films well into the stereo era. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) was in stereophonic sound, but four of his subsequent features - A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket - did not use stereo sound. In interviews, Kubrick said that he did not trust most theater's sound systems to accurately reproduce stereo soundtracks. With the advent of digital sound in the home and in theaters, he finally trusted that his mixes could be played back with accuracy and used stereo sound again with his final film, Eyes Wide Shut.
Woody Allen has also used mono sound on all his films (with maybe one or two exceptions).
Are those two directors "artistic" enough for you?
EDIT - Damn, Rob beat me by a couple of minutes!

 

[James Zos]

"Are those two directors "artistic" enough for you?"

Damn. I should have known you'd be able to come up with examples. Yes, they are "artistic" enough, but I said MAYBE I'd buy the purist argument, remember?
Allen I think makes the strongest case in that I don't really see his films benefiting all that much from stronger soundtracks anyway. They mostly deal with conversation and naturally center on the, uh, center channel.
For Kubrick though, I think it is a different story. Full Metal Jacket sounds better in mono because he was suspicous about stero/surround implementation in theaters? So that's why I shouldn't listen to it in 5.1 on my system?

Still, point taken. I asked for examples and you have provided them. Touche.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Until then, I believe mono is a limitation.

Mono is no more a limitation than 1.37:1 or black and white film are limitations. There is nothing inherently "better" about multichannel sound, just as there is nothing inherently "better" about widescreen formats or color film. They're all tools to be used in their own way and to certain ends, and none are somehow better or less limiting. You may see mono as a limitation upon what might be your artistic choices, but that doesn't mean that all artists who have chosen mono feel similarly limited.

DJ

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Exactly. Some filmmakers choose not to express themselves using stereo separation. David Cronenberg has no interest in utilizing the Cinemascope ratio. I hear Hitchcock wasn't too keen on widescreen either, although he did a great job with it. Many recording artists of the 60s chose to mix their records in mono well after the availability of stereo. Filmmakers sometimes choose to use black & white, or shoot on video if that is what a project calls for.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Also I should add that while I may consider myself a purist most of the time, I do make exceptions. One would be the film in my signature, PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK. I have heard the mono track on the Japanese LD and even taking into account that it was transferred from a beat-up release print, it sounds shabby. A lot of the dialogue was not very clear. The remixed version that I heard in the theatrical re-release (which is where I first saw the film anyway) was far superior and I have no problem with the surround mix on the DVD. I also prefer the director's cut to the original. The one extra scene in the original version is unnecessary in my opinion, so I have no problem accepting the re-cut, re-mixed version of the film as the definitive version. I guess I would call myself a purist but not an absolutist.

 

[James Zos]

"Mono is no more a limitation than 1.37:1 or black and white film are limitations."

Again, I don't buy this argument, even if some notable directors don't bother to work with - or don't like to work with - more than one audio channel.

Black and white can ADD to a cinematic experience. There are images and environments which are enhanced in black and white. I would never argue that black and white is a limitation as it provides advantages.

Can you tell me what advantages mono provides over stereo or 5.1? What, exactly, does it add?

 

[Damin J Toell]

Can you tell me what advantages mono provides over stereo or 5.1?

A more controlled listening experience: the sound designer need not worry that speaker placement (in a theater, in a home) will give varying results in the way a film is heard by the audience. This is one of the main reasons Brian Wilson chose only to release the Beach Boys album "Pet Sounds" in mono (in addition to the fact that he's mostly deaf in one ear, anyway, and could not experience the effect of stereo).

It's a simply a choice available to artists, no better or worse than multichannel sound. If that choice is made, it should be as respected as any other choice by a filmmaker. It shouldn't be ignored simply because you don't think it can add to the cinematic experience; your opinions about other people's films shouldn't guide how those films are presented.

DJ

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Some examples of the artistic use of mono, although they are from the recording industry rather than the film industry.
From Back to Mono:

Some reissue producers out there — for example, John Sellards of the VanMeter label — insist that to the extent the mono version reflects the wishes of the performers and producers, it should be reissued in preference to the stereo version. Allen Klein's Abkco Music, which owns the American rights to all the early Rolling Stones material, claimed that their mostly-mono issues reflected an aesthetic judgment, mostly by erstwhile Stones producer Andrew Loog Oldham. Having heard "Satisfaction" (London 9766) in its extant stereo mix, which banishes the sterling Wyman-Watts rhythm section to the far left and leaves the right side gasping for breath, I'd find it hard to disagree.

 

[James Reader]

Look, this is all getting off the point. Some people prefer the original mono track while others don't. It's going to be a circular argument which nobody will actually end up winning because - as much as I hate to say it - the bulk of the arguments come down to personal opinion.

But, (and it's a big but folks), unlike the other 'enhancements' to films - Pan and Scan and Colorisation - it is totally possible to include the original mono soundtrack and the remixed soundtrack on the same disc.

How much space does a mono soundtrack take up? It's not like you need to encode a whole different version of the movie on the disc.

Put it on the disc, and then people have the choice, and nobody can say that having the choice is wrong. Not having a choice however, is wrong. I don't really see why this thread is as long as it is – I'm sure even people who have posted that they prefer the remixed soundtracks wouldn't begrudge the inclusion of an original mono mix.

 

[Mike_Richardson]

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.

There is NOTHING "artistic" about CONAN originally being in mono. Go ask John Milius or Basil Poledouris, who both wanted the movie to be IN STEREO. The reason why it wasn't is pure and simple economics -- Dino DeLaurentiis made the movie and REFUSED to pony up for a Dolby Stereo mix. Pure and simple. The "original filmmakers" thought the movie was going to be in stereo.

Poledouris said in interviews before the Universal DVD came out how disappointed he was that there wasn't a 5.1 stereo remix. Apparently Fox (which released the DVD outside the US) cared more about undertaking a stereo remix than Universal did.

I own the Euro version of CONAN and it's one of the best 5.1 mixes I've ever heard -- and opens up the movie far more than the compressed mono soundtrack on the Universal US DVD. It's not a radical overhaul of the soundtrack, just an "expansion" if you will into stereo. And boy does it add what was missing to the movie sound-wise.

One last point: I agree about putting the original mono mix on a DVD. JAWS was one of the best mono mixes of all-time on laser.

However, such non-Dolby Digital soundtracks are typically compressed, down-coverted, etc. to 2.0/1.0 on DVD and often sound HORRIBLE. Take any LaserDisc (or hell, even a good hi-fi VHS) mono mix and compare it to a DVD -- nearly every time the LD is going to have a much fuller-bodied, detailed soundtrack, so the DVD's often compressed and tinny mono track isn't exactly representative of what audiences heard originally, either.

 

[Damin J Toell]

There is NOTHING "artistic" about CONAN originally being in mono. Go ask John Milius or Basil Poledouris, who both wanted the movie to be IN STEREO. The reason why it wasn't is pure and simple economics -- Dino DeLaurentiis made the movie and REFUSED to pony up for a Dolby Stereo mix. Pure and simple. The "original filmmakers" thought the movie was going to be in stereo.

Budget limitations set by producers force filmmakers to make all sorts of decisions they would not prefer, such as choice of actors or special effects. Indeed, there are an infinite number of ways in which limitations such budget and time affect a film. Does this mean that those elements of the film are therefore not "artistic"? Does this mean that those elements can be modified at will (e.g., digitally replacing an actor in the film, re-doing the special effects) by outside parties without harm to the artistic integrity of the film? For me, the answer to both is in the negative. Once a budgetary constraint is placed upon a film, the choices made within that constraint absolutely become artistic choices.

I'm all for filmmakers who want to modify their own films, and if Milius approved a 5.1 track, I'd be quite happy with it. The problem I have is the notion that elements of a film that were the result of various constraints can be replaced willy-nilly without any harm whatsoever to the film. I don't want to hear what some random person unrelated to the production of the film thinks sounds good in 5.1, even if mono was the result of a budgetary constraint, just as I wouldn't want a film's special effects to be re-done by a random person unrelated to the film because the original effects were hampered by budgetary constraints.

DJ

 

[Rob Gardiner]

There is NOTHING "artistic" about CONAN originally being in mono. Go ask John Milius or Basil Poledouris, who both wanted the movie to be IN STEREO. The reason why it wasn't is pure and simple economics -- Dino DeLaurentiis made the movie and REFUSED to pony up for a Dolby Stereo mix. Pure and simple. The "original filmmakers" thought the movie was going to be in stereo.

Mike, you misunderstood my comment. I did not mean that the filmmakers chose to mix in mono rather than stereo. What I mean is that THOSE WHO MAKE THE STEREO MIX HAVE TO MAKE ARTISTIC CHOICES. Everyone agrees here that a 5.1 mix "adds" something to the experience of watching a film. That is precisely my objection. I do not like it when a man in a suit "adds" stereo separation effects to a soundtrack that were not there in the first place. I'M NOT COMMENTING ON CONAN SPECIFICALLY as I have never heard the 5.1 mix. But whoever mixed A HARD DAY'S NIGHT in 5.1 made artistic choices that Dick Lester and The Beatles were not faced with because they mixed in mono. In my opinion, they made some wrong choices. Whoever put their hands on SUPERMAN made artistic choices that Richard Donner did not make in 1978. Even VERTIGO contains sound effects that were not in the original. While I have tremendous respect for Mr. Robert Harris and his fantastic work, I do not agree with all the choices that were made in regards to the new soundtrack to VERTIGO. Do I wish the original soundtrack to VERTIGO was available? No, as I understand it is pretty crummy. What I would like however is a RESTORED mono soundtrack that preserves all the artistic choices made by Hitch and his men in 58 yet with the benefit of modern re-recording techniques.

Everyone acknowledges that a 5.1 mix "adds" to the experience of a film, but not everyone will acknowledge that "adding" material to a classic film is not necessarily a good thing.

 

[Ken Stuart]

Basically, yes, it's his film, isn't it?

There are three assumptions here that I find are not always true.
The first one is that the Director of a film is The Artist, and all the other thousands of people involved are just implementing His Vision. Basically, this is Official Hollywood poppycock. Often, what makes a particular director great is simply his ability to judge the talent of the artists who actually do the film. There a number of directors who I think are famous merely because they were smart enought to hire the same brilliant cinematographer every time. Other directors have a great sense for which stories will make great films.
The second one is that an Artist actually knows what is good about his work of art, and that the whole process is one of creation something one intends. I don't know any Directors socially, but I do know a number of major musical artists, and the best ones just do something almost instinctive - the intentional part merely comes into the part of making a polished releasable product (ie craftsmanship). There is a famous band leader who was disgusted at their performance at a concert, and actually threw the bass player down the stairs -- and when he later heard tapes of the concert, he was surprised to find that not only was it not bad, it was actually quite good!
The third one is that the Artist (assuming that we can identify who that is - see point one) owns the work of Art. First off, there is the matter that in many cases - such as a TV series - the work of art is commissioned by someone else who pays for it. If I pay the neighborhood kid to mow my lawn, don't I have the right to specify how high he cuts it? Does he end up owning the lawn when he is done? And, aside from that, without the audience, a work of art is largely unsuccessful. Don't the public then have at least part ownership? Think of the Statue of Liberty, for example.
All of this was made clear to me, when I listened to the remix by Iggy Pop of his classic album "Raw Power". He is an acquaintance of mine, whom I quite like, but I feel his remix removes a lot of the unique quality of the original release - which was mixed by David Bowie. However, Columbia now only issues the more mediocre Iggy remix - which I feel is unfortunate for everyone, especially young listeners who will never really hear why this was such a influential album...

 

[Douglas R]

You make some good points Ken. Too often we talk about the director as if he (or she) alone is responsible for the film and therefore the film mustn't be altered in any way. But film has always been a collaborative effort and there are only a very few directors (Kubrick comes to mind) who you could say have exercised total control over a film so as to make it their vision.

 

[DeanWalsh]

However, such non-Dolby Digital soundtracks are typically compressed, down-coverted, etc. to 2.0/1.0 on DVD and often sound HORRIBLE. Take any LaserDisc (or hell, even a good hi-fi VHS) mono mix and compare it to a DVD -- nearly every time the LD is going to have a much fuller-bodied, detailed soundtrack, so the DVD's often compressed and tinny mono track isn't exactly representative of what audiences heard originally, either.

I'm glad someone pointed that out... just about all mono (and stereo) soundtracks compressed into 1.0 or 2.0 for DVD are just as much a bastardization of the original source material as a remix. Even if the mono track was included on the Jaws dvd, it would be stripped of it's original fidelity thus defeating the purpose. I'd have no problem with mono soundtracks if they were included at higher bitrates, surely 384kbps would be able to reproduce a mono track transparently?
Also another consideration here... the music for many mono films were originally recorded in stereo, isn't downmixing them to mono a limiting factor in the first place? Why then is it so abhorrent to reinstate the original stereo score while leaving the rest of the mix alone (which from the comments here seems to be the case with Conan)?

 

[Terry St]

Once again I am perplexed by members who would be aghast at a pan and scan alteration of Conan but long for alterations to its original soundtrack!
I guess consistency in fidelity to the original source material goes out the window when you want your surround stereo system to get a good workout while watching your DVDs.

Conan would never had made it into my collection without Poledouris' thunderous score. I consider it to be the biggest star of the film, beyond even Ahnold. Was this score origionally recorded in mono and later remixed to stereo for release on CD? Put the music in the stereo channels and keep the action/dialogue in mono. Then you'd have a mix true to the origional sources. The non-R1 discs actually do this pretty well, with only a few fudges.
I have the R2 version from Japan. (I haven't noticed any cut scenes different from my R1 copy... It must be just the U.K. version that got butchered) The music sounds immensely better than the R1 mono track. The action remains primarily mono. Oddly enough, there did seem to be a few oddities to the R2 mix... There were a few sounds added in that sounded very out of place. It sounded like they recorded a few grunts and slams in a reference-quality soundstage and then rammed them into the old mono track without trying to make them blend in.
There were also a couple sounds from the origional mix that were actually *missing*! For example, after the swede with the hammer gets impaled by Conan's booby-trap, Conan stands in front of him, and the swede grasps at Conan's shield as he dies. In the R1 mono version, you hear a soft metallic "bong" when the swedes hand makes contact with Conan's shield. In the R2 5.1 mix, nothing. Silence. It's not exactly a big deal, but it made me say "Hey!" during a crucial dramatic moment.
Perhaps a more important issue is that both the R1 and R2 special editions have respliced in some rather dubious footage. For example, Conan and Subotai's discussion about the "spring breeze" right before the battle of the mound. Conan sounds like he's reading his lines from a cue card, and Subotai lapses into a california surfer accent. The scene might add an tiny bit of character development but it interrupts the flow leading up to the battle of the mound. Milius was right to leave it out of the theatrical version. It belongs in the deleted scenes section, IMHO.
Neither the 5.1 or mono versions are perfect. They force you to choose between a few messed up sound effects and a film-long butchery of the score. Given the choice, I'll take the 5.1 mix any day, but it doesn't mean I don't hope for a better mix and a theatrical cut.

 

[Benson R]

Someone mentioned Kubrick released his films in mono well into the stereo era. Well I believe this was addressed in discusions about the release of his films in 5.1. It was stated that Kubrick only chose mono because he felt at the time that most theaters reproduced stereo soundtracks poorly but mono sound systems were more reliable.

I think what many purists forget is that because of differeces between theaters and home video equipment it is impossible to perfectly recreate what was heard in the cinema. My position is if no original sound elements are replaced then there is no problem.