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

[Douglas Monce]

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?

Well again if the original sound stems for the director's cut are missing, they may have had to made do with a hybrid sound mix. Though I'm not sure why the Kowalski line or the original love scene music show up in there. It surely doesn't bother me and I'm not going to quibble about something so minor in what is otherwise a definitive release. I mean they could have just given us the final cut and nothing else.
Doug

 

[captainjoe]

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.

That's what i first thought until I watched it myself. It is quite clear that this isn't due to the new 5.1 track, the different music and "Kowalski" line are no where to be heard on the 2.0 track.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

That's why I said "majority"; it's clear that not all of the differences can be explained in the way I described.

 

[Jack Johnson]

Jack,
You ask a question and then draw a conclusion anyway ... seemingly 'well, whatever, I don't think WHV needs to correct this.'

The only conclusion I drew was about how I thought Warner might approach this. For what I think: of course, the mix ought to be correct. And of course, Warner ought to do something about it. I simply suggested an angle they were likely to approach this problem on.
--Jack

 

[mike kaminski]

Well again if the original sound stems for the director's cut are missing, they may have had to made do with a hybrid sound mix. Though I'm not sure why the Kowalski line or the original love scene music show up in there. It surely doesn't bother me and I'm not going to quibble about something so minor in what is otherwise a definitive release. I mean they could have just given us the final cut and nothing else.
Doug

But again--since the theatrical cut and FC have the elements that are missing from the DC, this is not an explanation.
Perhaps some of these issues may be due to a better--or proper--sound mix; the Deckard intro, and possibly the end credit. But something like workprint music and workprint dialog put into the film--this clearly is not the result of a matrix issue, or simply due to some new mixing technology, these elements clearly are not from the DC.
Its the same thing that happened with the Ultimate Superman collection--one disk wasn't even shipped (Superman III and Blade Runner Workprint) in the initial pressings and the sound mixes on the films themselves are not what they should be.
Warner Home Video should correct it. There should be a proper 5.1 mix of the Directors Cut.

 

[captainjoe]

That's why I said "majority"; it's clear that not all of the differences can be explained in the way I described.

Oh I got ya.

 

[Jack Johnson]

Its the same thing that happened with the Ultimate Superman collection--one disk wasn't even shipped (Superman III and Blade Runner Workprint) in the initial pressings and the sound mixes on the films themselves are not what they should be.
Warner Home Video should correct it. There should be a proper 5.1 mix of the Directors Cut.

For those who've been through this sort of thing before with Warner, how do they handle it? Request people with the incorrect dvds to mail them in for replacement?
Are they quick to respond, and is there any evidence this issue's gotten enough traction to attract their notice?
--Jack

 

[mike kaminski]

For those who've been through this sort of thing before with Warner, how do they handle it? Request people with the incorrect dvds to mail them in for replacement?
Are they quick to respond, and is there any evidence this issue's gotten enough traction to attract their notice?
--Jack

Well on the Superman DVD's it took a few weeks but people noticed those things right away, while this issue is much less visible. Warner doesn't have to do anything about it, they could just be lazy asses like Lucasfilm, but Warner has always been very good with its consumers and I'm going to hold them to the admirable standards they've established--and I think Charlie, if he was made aware of this issue, would agree that a replacement should be made available because otherwise the real Directors Cut is not part of the 2007 set, and thats a real kick in the pants considering all the work that went into making this the be-all-end-all archive.

 

[John H Ross]

For those who've been through this sort of thing before with Warner, how do they handle it? Request people with the incorrect dvds to mail them in for replacement?
Are they quick to respond, and is there any evidence this issue's gotten enough traction to attract their notice?
--Jack

Basically they send you replacement disc(s) in a paper slipcase and the disc(s) are scratched to hell.
Wonderful.

 

[Chris PC]

Ok, this sucks. I bought the HD-DVD 5-disc set that is within the Briefcase Ultimate edition. Now I hear there are issues with sound etc on the DC in this set. Now I hear that Warner is ditching HD-DVD, so it looks likely that HD-DVD could be a dying format in this lovely format war, and yet as I curiously look at the Blu-Ray 5-disc set, I see that it has other issues? This is a frickin dogs breakfast I tell you!

 

[mike kaminski]

Warner will support HD-DVD until May of 2008, and I would assume the Blu-Ray version has the same errors as the DVD and HD-DVD. I wouldn't worry about being left out--provided that they initiate a replacement program in the first place.

 

[JamesTLewis]

but, you could say.. .. well, seriously.. how may times am I actually going to watch the DC (which we all know was a rush job anyway) . does it matter?
The things I'm really interested in watching are the international, final and workprint. That's if I ever receive the damn thing from play.com!!

 

[rich_d]

but, you could say.. .. well, seriously.. how may times am I actually going to watch the DC (which we all know was a rush job anyway) . does it matter?

But, you could say .. .. well, seriously.. how many times is someone going to watch 4 out of the 5 of the versions NOT that person's favorite?
But, you could say .. .. well, seriously.. should we be discussing this stuff or working on the problem of world hunger. Does this whole forum matter?
James, it's not just you, but I'm tired of posters downplaying the issues raised. It's quite simple, if you believe that the wrong audio is acceptable on a DVD release, make your case.
These 'things could be worse' posts are about as helpful as knowing that a stopped clock shows the correct time twice a day.

 

[Chris PC]

but, you could say.. .. well, seriously.. how may times am I actually going to watch the DC (which we all know was a rush job anyway) . does it matter?
The things I'm really interested in watching are the international, final and workprint. That's if I ever receive the damn thing from play.com!!

I'm interested in viewing them all. I want to see the original 82 Theatrical, and the International Theatrical the most.
So how do we know for sure that these 'differences' on the DC were accidental or mistakes, rather than intended?
Does anybody know if the Blu-Ray workprint disc problem has been fixed? (I'll get around to checking my HD-DVD's soon. I have no display at the moment)

 

[Carter of Mars]

"I have included the four previously seen versions of the film in newly transferred anamorphic widescreen with original, unaltered 5.1 sound taken from archival six-tracks." (emphasis added)
-Ridley Scott
This is from the plastic insert that came with the briefcase. Clearly the 5.1 track is altered and goes against the film makers promises. There should be an exchange program set-up.
Incidentally, my third briefcase showed up from Amazon and finally that piece of plastic is not cracked.

 

[Lord Dalek]

taken from archival six-tracks." (emphasis added)
-Ridley Scott

Yeah but again its from a 70mm mix, which may or may not be completely different from the generally accepted 2.0 35mm track which is indeed included on this disc. To put it in perspective, the 70mm mixes of all three Star Wars films all featured different music and some altered lines of dialog from their 35mm counterparts. For all I know the 70mm mix of the Directors Cut (and one was prepared despite ultimately not being released) probably contained these quirks. They are not errors until someone officially says they are errors and until that happens I really don't see the point of this.
EDIT: Now that I am actually listening to the 5.1 in question, I am considering more and more that it is more of an issue with the 6-track element they used rather than any remixing problem. Correcting these errors would therefore be "altering" the "unaltered" elements and would be false advertising now wouldn't it? ;-)

 

[mike kaminski]

I see no reason to assume its deliberate. The changes made to the DC are very well documented (see Future Noir) and these new changes are very outside the nature of those ones (take out V.O., patch out and re-mix any gaps created by this, delete happy ending, insert unicorn). The Star Wars 70mm mixes are different because that was a continuous release platform where the 70mm mix is done first, then a 35mm stereo mix a few days later where new elements and changes are made, then the mono release a few days later when those prints open, which had more looped dialog recordings and more changes, and then the foreign prints which ship out a few weeks afterwards. There was only one mix of BR done as far as I know because its was just a limited run release with an unfortunate deadline--that was part of the problem, Scott couldn't continue to work on the film, they had something like 3 weeks to do everything and nothing more.
It also begs the question of how every single home video version did not have these elements--since they would be made from the original stems as well.
Its not impossible, I just see it as unlikely.

 

[Lord Dalek]

continue to work on the film, they had something like 3 weeks to do everything and nothing more.

Well that was the case for the first Star Wars, by the time ESB rolled arround they weren't doing separate mono mixes and those issues still remained (same case with Jedi as well and that came out after Blade Runner).
But if only one mix was made (and apparently there wasn't since Charlie had to dig through so many different elements for the Final Cut) then we return to the question of whether or not these issues exist because the 70mm mix of the director's cut is a rush job that wasn't used in 1992 (WB initially planned to run it in 70mm per their ad campaign but the film was ultimately only released in 35mm) and is only seeing the light of day now. Now I say this because the way its mixed and how the other mixes are presented doesn't seem to indicate its an error on behalf of the authoring, When I viewed the love scene about half an hour ago, Desolation Path seemed to enter and exit the mix as if it was always there not as is if it had been cut in by accident. I think its a side effect of having to dig up elements without the voice over and then trying to cut them back into the film using the crudest methods and least amount of time possible. And since the 70mm mix does have these faults it may explain why it was never used.
Again there's no reason to say "OMG! NOT THE REAL DIRECTOR'S CUT!!!!1" because of two or three mostly insignificant issues that might actually have been there to begin with but we never knew about since the 70mm version was never publicly released. There is a Dolby Surround track and its 100% accurate, you want your original Director's Cut without "modifications" watch it with that.

 

[Chris PC]

Ok, fair enough. I guess I'll wait and see if the 'errors' are acknowledged and an exchange is carried out. What a waste if it is a real error. I guess there are those who may keep their set containing the 'error' as a collector...lol...but I doubt it, since it won't be rare. Many people won't care or know about the problem and just ignore it.

 

[mike kaminski]

Now I say this because the way its mixed and how the other mixes are presented doesn't seem to indicate its an error on behalf of the authoring, When I viewed the love scene about half an hour ago, Desolation Path seemed to enter and exit the mix as if it was always there not as is if it had been cut in by accident.

I agree. But listen to the workprint--thats how the workprint is. Theres a segue and not just a crude cut. To me it seems as though its the workprint mix dropped in--but this seems completely illogical when you consider how this could have possibly occured. The only halfway rational explanation is that the workprint might have been considered to be included via branching but then axed and somehow the audio ended up attached for certain chapters--but this is pretty reaching.
But I think its important that we get some kind of explanation because its pretty jarring considering that no one has ever heard these elements in the film before. WHV I'm sure will just say "oh, its intentional" but maybe Charlie can shed light on it; though I wouldn't be surprised if he never even noticed these issues because they are so subtle and fleeting.
Its possible that these things were included on a 70mm mix that was created in 1992 but then never used and now is seeing the light of day for the first time--though technically that should be considered apocrypha since the only mix that was used and released was different. But this answer makes sense to me.