The official BLADE RUNNER SE thread. (Check out page 8 and #790.) (1 Viewer)

[mike kaminski]

It probably only seems louder due to the better dynamic range on the 5.1 track. Remember we are comparing this to a 17 year old 2.0 track.

This is what I am thinking. Don't forget, the 1992 DC is a total rush-job, so its highly plausible that they simply cut the track in a sort of crude manner such as this. I definitly didn't notice it in the 1997 disk, but the new audio mix is much crisper on the 2007 DC disk so I'm chalking this up to simply bringing out faults that the older, poorer transfer didn't reveal. The music issue in Deckard's intro struck me as a similar thing--I think its just the crisper audio transfer bringing out detail that previously was lost; its clearly different from the workprint mix, as Rich pointed out.
The "Kowalski" thing I first thought was maybe along similar lines--but then we have the workprint music in the "I dreamt music" section, which is a clear change from a totally different source, so its probable that "Kowalski" ended up in there in a similar manner. This is a pretty big mistake IMO, because its not a true archive of the DC--how the heck this happened, I haven't a clue, it seems so random the way workprint sound mix would get spliced into only one or two scenes (is the "Kowalski" audio from the FC?).
My question is that if none of these are apparently on the 2006 DC release, then whats the source of its sound mix? My assumption was that it was the proper mix and picture of the 2007 release, just released early while the rest of the 2007 were being readied. If its a totally independent transfer and re-mix (which to me makes little sense), then is the fact that the 2007 release is taken from remastered original elements a way of explaining the first two instances (end music swell and Deckard's intro) being simply more audio detail being brought out?
This is all very fishy.

 

[Chris PC]

I remember buying a new Blade Runner DVD earlier this year, guess I'll have to check it out again.

 

[joshEH]

DVD Verdict's 2007 "Golden Gavel Awards" are up, honoring their picks for the 10 best DVDs of the year...and guess which one nailed the top slot?
(You get three, and the first two don't count. Also, fittingly, the Twin Peaks Gold Box captured the #2 award.)

 

[captainjoe]

I just checked out my HD-DVD of those scenes in the Director's Cut including the violin strings at the end and can confirm these are authoring errors as the 2.0 Track on the same disc doesn't have this. So it seems only the 5.1 Dolby digital track is affected. This is an odd error....

 

[PaulP]

By the way, anyone received their Blade Runner 3CD album yet? Mine came last night, and first thing I did was rip it for my iPod - but, weirdly, it sounds like the first CD is mixed way too low. The other two discs sound fine, but the 1994 album you can barely hear... Am I (not) hearing things?

 

[Chris PC]

I just checked out my HD-DVD of those scenes in the Director's Cut including the violin strings at the end and can confirm these are authoring errors as the 2.0 Track on the same disc doesn't have this. So it seems only the 5.1 Dolby digital track is affected. This is an odd error....

A significant and expensive blunder. I wonder who is responsible for this mess-up? How could this happen? Oh well, I guess that's the way it goes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ok, I know there is no format war on HTF...but, now that I bought the HD-DVD briefcase, does anybody know if there are any differences in video and/or audio quality between the BD and HD versions?

 

[Jack Johnson]

A significant and expensive blunder. I wonder who is responsible for this mess-up? How could this happen? Oh well, I guess that's the way it goes.

What's the feeling on this, does it rise to the level of needing a fix from Warner, necessitating their implementing a massive replacement program?
By the way, if the 2.0 track is also offered, was it also restored, remixed for this release?
--Jack

 

[mike kaminski]

What's the feeling on this, does it rise to the level of needing a fix from Warner, necessitating their implementing a massive replacement program?
--Jack

I would say so. Given that the set is an "archival" of all the versions of the film, that it doesn't contain the proper DC is very significant.
I guess thats what happens when you are releasing a film in DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray--things get all confused and messed up; they already had to replace the workprint disks, and I'm convinced the massive delay in the SD set in Canada was due to a quiet warehouse recall--and now this.
Somone should e-mail WHV about setting up a replacement program.

 

[Lord Dalek]

By the way, if the 2.0 track is also offered, was it also restored, remixed for this release?

Nope, its the same old 2.0 on the previous two dvds.

 

[Lord Dalek]

By the way, anyone received their Blade Runner 3CD album yet? Mine came last night, and first thing I did was rip it for my iPod - but, weirdly, it sounds like the first CD is mixed way too low. The other two discs sound fine, but the 1994 album you can barely hear... Am I (not) hearing things?

Nah its the Loudness War at work.

 

[Chris PC]

So it's the earlier next to last DC in this release that is faulty? How do we know? Is it in comparison to the last DC release or the original DVD? We're not talking about the absolute newest Final Cut?

 

[mike kaminski]

So it's the earlier next to last DC in this release that is faulty? How do we know? Is it in comparison to the last DC release or the original DVD? We're not talking about the absolute newest Final Cut?

I'm not sure what your asking here but to clarify: the DC on the new 4/5-disk 2007 collection features a faulty sound mix.

 

[John H Ross]

I'm not sure what your asking here but to clarify: the DC on the new 4/5-disk 2007 collection features a faulty sound mix.

Well that's just... great. Is this the WB Superman debacle all over again?
So the question is, how does the 5.1 mix on this DC compare to the limited edition disc DC in 2006 that we all avoided because this one was coming? Was there even a 5.1 mix on that disc or did it only contain the old 2.0 track?

 

[Douglas Monce]

If you watch the Dangerous Days documentary you will find out that there was no complete sound track for any of the versions. Each cut of the film had SOME sound elements missing from the original sound stems. Some of them even had blank sections in the middle of an other wise normal track. This required the sound editors to make a new track using all existing elements and actually recording some new elements.

So it's not surprising that you will hear bits from different versions of the film.

Doug

 

[mike kaminski]

If you watch the Dangerous Days documentary you will find out that there was no complete sound track for any of the versions. Each cut of the film had SOME sound elements missing from the original sound stems. Some of them even had blank sections in the middle of an other wise normal track. This required the sound editors to make a new track using all existing elements and actually recording some new elements.
So it's not surprising that you will hear bits from different versions of the film.
Doug

Given that the theatrical version of the film and Final Cut have the correct music, and the theatrical version has the correct sound (ie no "Kowalski") this doesn't hold up as an answer.
The fact is that the DC is not the true DC.

 

[John H Ross]

So it's not surprising that you will hear bits from different versions of the film.Doug

But surely if the DC is being presented here in its "definitive" form, i.e. the form that it's been presented in since 1992, surely the 5.1 mix should at least match up to the 2.0 mix?

 

[Jack Johnson]

Just saw the Final Cut in lowly SD. Blew me away; the cumulative effect of the restoration and all the subtle tweaks I either noted or missed entirely, is that Blade Runner is still Blade Runner, but more vibrant and "current" than I've seen it before.

I've read contradictory statements about whether Scott integrated some--or all--of the additional violence of the International version into his Final Cut. Well, some or all of it is definitely in there. You just can't miss that signature nostril gouging from Pris. One of the most bizarre, elegant and exotic assaults on film; it's like "ballet attack," and true to character.

I didn't mind "I want more life, Father," since Roy seems genuinely hopeful there...that Tyrell will be his salvation. The rage comes later.

Regarding any audio glitches in the archival DC; since so much footage is shared by these cuts via seamless branching...would that same scene be represtented accurately in 5.1 in another version? I don't see Warner feeling the need to do anything about this.

--Jack

 

[John H Ross]

Regarding any audio glitches in the archival DC; since so much footage is shared by these cuts via seamless branching...would that same scene be represtented accurately in 5.1 in another version? I don't see Warner feeling the need to do anything about this.--Jack

That's not really the point though is it?

 

[rich_d]

Regarding any audio glitches in the archival DC; since so much footage is shared by these cuts via seamless branching...would that same scene be represtented accurately in 5.1 in another version? I don't see Warner feeling the need to do anything about this.

Jack,
You ask a question and then draw a conclusion anyway ... seemingly 'well, whatever, I don't think WHV needs to correct this.'
Say, for discussion purposes, you're rich and you buy five new cars. One of them doesn't run right. Your friend Chester says, 'well, the other cars run right, use one of them. You say, "Chester, I bought that car because I wanted it. It doesn't run right. What the **** does it matter about the other cars?"
You take your car to the dealer. He says, "well look, it mostly runs right going fast but not always. However, if you run it slow in 2nd gear (2.0) it will always run right. What do you tell him? Do you tell him to either fix the car or replace it or do you tell him that's understandable and go away?

 

[Stephen_J_H]

The thing that's been nagging at me is this: since 5.1 is discrete and 2.0 is matrix-encoded, is it possible that the majority of these glitches existed previously and just weren't apparent because every mix of BR up to now has been matrixed? I'm not apologizing for Warner on this, but just brainstorming in search of an explanation.
As I recall, when Warner corrected the 2.0 mix on the 4-disc Superman, there was hue and cry about the mix because the mix had dialogue leaking into the left and right channels. It turned out that this was how the theatrical mix was originally, because a matrixed mix simply cannot give the same amount of separation that is present in a discrete mix. I'm not saying that that's what happened here, but it is possible that since there is no longer any "leakage" between channels, things previously "buried" in the mix may be more apparent.
Just a thought.