'Day of the Dead: SE' audio dubs identified-NOT THAT BAD (1 Viewer)

[JeffMc]

No, but the original INTACT mono track still exists - it's out there - it's been on EVERY video and DVD version prior to this one. I couldn't give a **** about all this 6.1 remix crap that these companies spend so much time and energy on - just give us the movie's original track intact! If they can't license the original version of the film with it's original soundtrack, then at least mention that it's altered.

So if the DAWN OF THE DEAD 'licensors' only have stems for the film missing ALL the curse words even though EVERY other video version prior was INTACT, will you be defending Anchor Bay when they release that one saying it wasn't their fault? "They didn't have the stems."

These stems don't need to "magically appear" - the original tracks have been available for years on all formats. Maybe that's not good enough for 6.1 - so just give us mono. And as far as legal issues regarding having rights to the original dialog track of a film, it's preposterous to think that the licensor would own the entire track except for a couple of "shits" and gunshots.

 

[Damin J Toell]

And as far as legal issues regarding having rights to the original dialog track of a film, it's preposterous to think that the licensor would own the entire track except for a couple of "shits" and gunshots.

What they own and what they provided to AB to use are two very different things. No one has said anything about what the licensor "owns," as far as I can tell.

DJ

 

[Edward Schatz]

Is it not an editorial position to decide what is "important" in a soundtrack? Based on what Gregory said, it's clear to me that Anchor Bay made a decision that the dubs weren't important enough to correct. It would be an entirely different story if they tried to find the original audio track but were unable to do so and ADMITTED it on the packaging. It seems to me they care more about a marketing gimmick (DTS on this film) than getting the right audio track.

I would like to know who provided them the new "mix". I don't think it deserves to be called that being that by all accounts, the dubs are not by the original actors.

Damin, do you not see any damage in what Anchor Bay is doing by not admitting the fact that this is not the original soundtrack? As I said above, it would be one thing if it were different lines by the original actors, but the impression I have gotten is that these are not dubs done by the actors. I admit I have not watched the disc myself, but this is what I've gathered. Now, we obviously don't know what happened but I will propose a theory. Perhaps the original mono track stems were not good enough for them to mix a DTS track. Instead, they found this track which had a few dubs but nothing egregious. They decided to go ahead with these stems in order to put that DTS track on the box and pass it off without too much of a controversy. Then again, I could be entirely wrong. Just my opinion.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Damin, do you not see any damage in what Anchor Bay is doing by not admitting the fact that this is not the original soundtrack?

Hasn't Michael Felsher already admitted that the soundtrack was changed? Or do you mean "admitting" it on the back of the case? If the latter, I don't see much damage. It's not a new thing. Studios uses soundtracks with modified music, effects, and/or dialogue all the time without disclaimers. While it's certainly not the situation I'd prefer, there is no new "damage" from AB doing it this time.

DJ

 

[JeffMc]

All your points are valid and I do understand where you are coming from.

All I'm saying is that the film is altered and it doesn't look like Anchor Bay made ANY sort of effort to rectify this in advance. If they noticed these changes, did they ever go back to the licensor and inquire about it? Look elsewhere for a source with the correct stems? Did they even consider using the intact mono track as a back-up? We actually don't know the definite answers to any of these questions, but based on what Anchor Bay has done in the past, I'd bet my money on it that they just said "just release what we got". And I agree that these few changes may be MINUTE and barely noticeable, but where do you draw the line? What if one gore scene was cut, would you say "well 99% of the other gore is there - maybe the negative just got damaged in that part - oh well." The changes on the DAY OF THE DEAD disc are thankfully very minor, but what's next? If they knowingly let such a thing slide here, they may let even worse things happen on future titles.

As far as disclaimers go, it's not required, but it's definitely a nice professional gesture if they are going to release an altered version. It seems companies used these disclaimers a LOT more regularly back in the VHS days than they are doing now on DVD. To be quite honest, I don't think I've seen any DVD mention "Some music has been rescored" or whatnot - whereas on VHS, I saw this quite a bit. It's a big issue for me when it comes to music - that's why I was nervous about the recent "Last American Virgin" disc - thankfully MGM came through on that one. However, they altered music in "Valley Girl" (a title I didn't want) and didn't mention these changes on the case. Now, some buyers are upset they even bought the thing (see separate thread).

Thank God for these forums so that everyone can make an intelligent decision on what they want or don't want to buy. It all comes down to personal choice. If nothing else comes from this DOTD release, at least I think Anchor Bay may now "realize" that they aren't going to pull one over on us again. Or maybe they are just thrilled with all the discussion going on (no publicity is bad publicity). Either way, I'm sure the disc is selling really well despite all the controversy.

 

[Edward Schatz]

It doesn't deserve to be called a "mix" because it doesn't feature the original actors' voices? Huh? What

What I mean is that I usually perceive a "mix" as something like a DTS mix (a la Suspiria) or a new Dolby Digital mix, etc. I don't believe "mixes" include altered dialogue but I could be mistaken. It's hard to follow the ever changing lingo.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Mixes can and often do include altered dialog. I'm not really sure where the confusion lies here.

For example, the Star Wars Special Editions used elements from the 70mm 6-track mags as the basis for a new sound remix of all three films. There were several different dialog bits I noticed. "You're lucky you don't taste very good" became "You're lucky you got out of there." Do we cry foul and say "that's not the original dialog!" We could, but I'm not sure we'd be right. Those 70mm tracks were prepared for the original release, after all. So which is the right dialog? I guess they both are.

I'm not saying this is what happened with Day of the Dead (somehow I doubt that film got a 70mm release), but it does provide food for thought.

 

[Edward Schatz]

If the lines were rerecorded by different actors for a censored TV release, do we call that a different mix?

This reminds me of Anchor Bay's lame excuse for the 10 seconds missing at the beginning of A Better Tomorrow, "a different mix".

 

[Brett C]

Elite released a Laserdisc with a 1411kbps PCM track of the orig mix, had AB wanted to correct the dialog and if the right clearances were given, it could of been used as a source for ripping and isolating those moments, not the same as using separate stems of course, but the next best thing,specially with the track only being presented at a rate on the DVD of 754kbps on the DTS track. But maybe thats just wishful thinking on my part.

 

[Scott Calvert]

I dunno why I'm getting into a silly semantics argument, but yes, Edward, we would call that a different mix.

 

[Edward Schatz]

It's not silly. Your argument this is a valid recording it utterly flawed.

I guess then I could rerecord the entire film's dialogue and just call it a new mix. Calling it a mix gives it stature that it does not deserve. It comes with the premise that this mix has equal value to that of the original soundtrack, which is not true. This "mix" was never used by George Romero, et. al. under any circumstance for Day of the Dead. It was most likely (my opinion) used for a television and/or censored released, not a different "mix" that was approved by the original players. This "mix" as you would call it does not deserve to be recognized as such. It should be viewed as censored/dubbed tracks and should not be included as a faithful recording. It does not represent (along with the DTS mixes) what the film was and has been remastered to fit Anchor Bay's marketing purposes.

 

[Damin J Toell]

It comes with the premise that this mix has equal value to that of the original soundtrack, which is not true. This mix was never used by George Romero, et. al. under any circumstance for Day of the Dead.

Your references here to the altered soundtrack as "this mix" prove that "mix" is a factual description, not a qualitative one. In the midst of your own invented semantics on why the altered soundtrack isn't actually a "mix," even you could not avoid referring to it as such.

DJ

 

[Edward Schatz]

You are correct, I neglected to use quotes around the word "mix" which I have now done to satisfy your qualitative versus factual point. In regard to my giving the word mix more value than it has, I don't think that argument is going to go much further. I do believe that using a mix that is not the original soundtrack and passing it off as original gives the mix "stature". I do agree the word "mix" has no inherent validity; using it on the DVD without stating the alterations is wrong in my opinion. I realize that it is not feasible every time a DVD is released to note every little alteration. I wished that original soundtracks were included more often.

 

[Michael Allred]

Well, much like with the "Halloween" 25th Ann. DVD, I broke down and bought the new 'DotD' set.

I'm fairly familiar with the film and to be honest, none of the dialogue changes stood out...in fact I just didn't notice them at all. Go figure.

I'll have to echo another poster's thoughts here...the color screw-up on "Halloween" bothered me a LOT more.

It seems Anchor Bay Has a hard time getting things right on their major releases.

Anyway, I still have the older versions of "Halloween" and "Day of the Dead" so if I ever wanna just watch the original versions of the films, I have those copies to fall back on. I only bought the new DVD's for the extras anyway.

 

[ChuckSolo]

I just got my copy in the mail yesterday and watched it first thing, expecting to be totally disappointed by all the "flaws" in the audio that are mentioned in this thread. To my surprise, I didn't even notice them, since I was delighted at the superb transfer of the video. Having watched this countless times on the Media VHS version I can honestly say that ANY perceived problems that the audio has were completely forgotten once I started to watch the movie. I saw things in the DVD that I NEVER saw on the VHS version. The Zombie's faces were so much clearer and overall the picture was just superb. I for one am very satisfied with the DVD. The extras are great too, with the 39 minute featurette featuring Tom Savini, George Romero, Lori Cardille, and Joe Pilato being the best "extra" I have seen on a DVD in a long while.

 

[Nick Graham]

Picked this up at Target today. Superb disc, the transfer blows me away (in comparison to previous incarnations of this film on home video), and the extras are great. The "notepad" booklet of liner notes is a nice touch as well. The Halloween H25 thing took a bit of the wind out of my sales (though after watching my friend's copy, I think I will snag it for the extras), but Anchor Bay redeems themselves with a top-notch set like this. Now I just want to know when the Dawn of the Dead Ultra Mega Super Deluxe Divimax is coming out.

 

[Jim Peavy]

The orig. Star Wars had a different dub for Aunt Beru (sp?) on the mono and stereo prints. Same actress doing the dub on each, but different "takes" for her scenes.

As I've said elsewhere, I simply can't comprehend anyone who is a Day of the Dead fan who would avoid this release for these tiny dubbing differences. Boggles my mind. And no, I don't work for Anchor Bay...!

 

[Adam_WM]

Well, I just watched DAY for the first time since my first time (years ago). As expected, I didn't notice the audio problem. My question is: Did anyone else think that the DTS-ES 6.1 was the most worthless DTS 6.1 track ever?

 

[Edward Schatz]

Those dubs are different. George Lucas made the decision to go with those, not some DVD company. The DotD dubs were made for a censored release at some point, not alternate takes.

 

[Edward Schatz]

Adam, I haven't watched it yet but I believe spending the time to make a DTS track on a movie like this was not worth it. It was very low budget and probably did not have a lot of surround effects (being mono).