The official BLADE RUNNER SE thread. (Check out page 8 and #790.) (2 Viewers)

[rich_d]

Somewhat off-topic, but, does anybody know why Paul Sammon's revised and expanded edition of his FUTURE NOIR has been published in the UK but not in the USA?

No knowledge whatsoever. However, it might likely tie to rights clearances. His book was published a while ago, thus he may have to clear/negotiate rights again. As different groups sometimes share worldwide rights to things like photos, it may be that he has UK rights and is still trying to clear USA rights.
That's only a guess.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Yup.The materials simply didn't exist to do a 5.1 mix of the DC since the film was only issued in 35mm and came at a time when Dolby Digital mixes were fairly rare.

Charlie would be able to shed more light on this than I, but keeping in mind that Dolby Digital had its public debut earlier in 1992 and that the theatrical release of the DC was pretty limited (it never broke 100 theatres), odds are that a 2.0 matrixed Dolby SR track was the only option given by Warners at the time. It seems unlikely that something like a DD 5.1 or CDS 5.1 soundtrack would have been considered feasible or economical.
Damin

 

[Will_B]

Somewhat off-topic, but, does anybody know why Paul Sammon's revised and expanded edition of his FUTURE NOIR has been published in the UK but not in the USA?

I too want to know if I should wait for a US edition, or import. If he could make an announcement that would be good.

 

[mike kaminski]

Charlie would be able to shed more light on this than I, but keeping in mind that Dolby Digital had its public debut earlier in 1992 and that the theatrical release of the DC was pretty limited (it never broke 100 theatres), odds are that a 2.0 matrixed Dolby SR track was the only option given by Warners at the time. It seems unlikely that something like a DD 5.1 or CDS 5.1 soundtrack would have been considered feasible or economical.
Damin

Based on Future Noir, it seemed to me that it might just be a 4-track stereo mix. It was made from the four-track stems, basically an exact copy of the original mix just with a few deletions and additions for the V.O. removal.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Based on Future Noir, it seemed to me that it might just be a 4-track stereo mix. It was made from the four-track stems, basically an exact copy of the original mix just with a few deletions and additions for the V.O. removal.

Presumably, for the theatrical release of the DC, such a soundtrack would only have been executed as a 2.0 matrixed Dolby SR track. It seems beyond unlikely that, say, discrete 4-track magnetic sound would have been used. Given that, it would appear that 2.0 matrixed surround track (as we have in the Final Cut sets) faithfully reproduces the original 1992 theatrical release sound format of the DC.
I'm taking this to be Charlie's point when he states that the DC is correctly "preserved" in the Final Cut sets. So, if one's goal is historically accurate presentation, the erroneous 5.1 track can be ignored as an unessential bonus feature gone awry.
Damin

 

[Lord Dalek]

As far as I am aware (and this is coming off Blade Zone which may or may not be accurate), only one 4-track magnetic print was struck for Blade Runner. This was for the London premiere of the International Cut where the film was presented in Quadrophonic Stereo.

 

[rich_d]

Presumably, for the theatrical release of the DC, such a soundtrack would only have been executed as a 2.0 matrixed Dolby SR track. It seems beyond unlikely that, say, discrete 4-track magnetic sound would have been used. Given that, it would appear that 2.0 matrixed surround track (as we have in the Final Cut sets) faithfully reproduces the original 1992 theatrical release sound format of the DC.
I'm taking this to be Charlie's point when he states that the DC is correctly "preserved" in the Final Cut sets. So, if one's goal is historically accurate presentation, the erroneous 5.1 track can be ignored as an unessential bonus feature gone awry.
Damin

If one's goal is truly an historically accurate presentation of the DC, that would mean watching it at a theatre where it was originally shown with pre-1992 speakers. I don't say that to be facetious, rather than get back to the real issue (at least to me).
Hopefully, most of us want what we pay for. You start going down the path of what is truly 'essential' versus 'non-essential' we'd all be in cars with manual roll-up windows. If we go down the route that a botched 5.1 track can be ignored, does one make the same argument to ignore the (correct) 5.1 track on the Final Cut? I doubt it. Thus, I just don't see any reason to sugar-coat the issue at hand.
Clearly, Charlie is not in a position to tell us more at this point. Let's wait and see what he has to say.

 

[mike kaminski]

I agree that the 2.0 track then could said to be a true preservation of the soundtrack in its original form. The 5.1 version is like an "enhanced home theater" re-mix, so though its not exactly faithful to the content of the original mix its a bit of a bonus anyway. Still a bit unfortunate though. But you know I think I'd rather have a perfect copy of the original soundtrack and a slightly botched home theater re-mix than a perfect home theater remix and a botched original mix. We're not losing anything, we just aren't gaining anything.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Quote:

I don't see the comparison to the Final Cut. I never said that all 5.1 tracks are irrelevant. It just so happens that (as best we can tell) 2.0 surround is the original format for the DC soundtrack, but 5.1 is the original format of the Final Cut. There's no comparison.
I think the much better argument is the one you bring up about getting what we pay for. Given that the Final Cut sets hold themselves out as containing a 5.1 track for the DC, that track should be error-free. This is why I limited my prior comment to the "goal [of] historically accurate presentation," and nothing more. This doesn't mean there's no argument whatsoever in favor of the 5.1 track being corrected (or, preferrably, having been correct from the start).
Damin

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Charlie would be able to shed more light on this than I, but keeping in mind that Dolby Digital had its public debut earlier in 1992 and that the theatrical release of the DC was pretty limited (it never broke 100 theatres), odds are that a 2.0 matrixed Dolby SR track was the only option given by Warners at the time. It seems unlikely that something like a DD 5.1 or CDS 5.1 soundtrack would have been considered feasible or economical.
Damin

Was it really that limited, because it played in Lethbridge, AB (city of about 60 000 @ the time), which would NEVER get that limited a release, unless it was a situation where the same 100 prints played for 1 week engagements in various centres.

 

[JediFonger]

uhhh, most people don't have speakers behind their front projection acoustically transparent screens. a lot of people may have FP's now, but acoustically transparent screens are still yet more rare.
therefore, having a soundtrack dump from the 35/70 original source does us no good since those mixes were for the cinema. that's why a lot of film soundtracks get remixed for HT settings with speakers to the left and right of the primary display device.

 

[Damin J Toell]

therefore, having a soundtrack dump from the 35/70 original source does us no good since those mixes were for the cinema. that's why a lot of film soundtracks get remixed for HT settings with speakers to the left and right of the primary display device.

As the original 1992 Dolby SR soundtrack for the DC was analog, there would be no such thing as a "dump" of that soundtrack into Dolby Digital. Given the various home video releases of the DC, I'm sure the mix was optimized for HT long ago.
Damin

 

[Will_B]

We're rooting for you, Sean!

 

[Lord Dalek]

Well if you think about it none of the 5.1 mixes on the archival disc are "unaltered" since the 70mm prints of Blade Runner were mono surround only and some stereoization has obviously been performed to the rears.

 

[mike kaminski]

Well if you think about it none of the 5.1 mixes on the archival disc are "unaltered" since the 70mm prints of Blade Runner were mono surround only and some stereoization has obviously been performed to the rears.

Do we know they were mono surround though? The stereo track was a surround matrix, after all. Why wouldn't the 70mm be?

 

[Lord Dalek]

Do we know they were mono surround though? The stereo track was a surround matrix, after all. Why wouldn't the 70mm be?

Well first of all dolby stereo tracks are surround matrix and all that means is you get two more channels off of the existing left and right (center and surround). Its basically a 4 track stereo where only two tracks are what we consider "discrete".
Now there is an easy way to tell whether or not a Dolby A-Type Baby Boom 70mm mix is mono surround or not. If you mute the center channel and dialogue is still coming out of the left and right then thats the key. Why this is the case is because the majority of 70mm mixes from the late 70's-early 80s simply used the same dolby mix except dematriced and laid on magnetically. The two additional tracks are LFE "boom" tracks and are mono dupes of each other (this was pre-subwoofer days).
However if the dialogue is coming out of the center then its what is called a split surround mix and thats true 5.1. Its also kinda rare for 80's movies since most studios didn't start using it until roughly 1987.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Well if you think about it none of the 5.1 mixes on the archival disc are "unaltered" since the 70mm prints of Blade Runner were mono surround only and some stereoization has obviously been performed to the rears.

According to in70mm.com, at least, it would have had mono surrounds. Their entry for Blade Runner lacks the "SS" notation for split surrounds.
Damin

 

[Lord Dalek]

lacks the "SS" notation for split surrounds.
Damin

That is true, but its important to note that in70mm has occasionally made some errors in their library listings. For instance Die Hard is clearly split yet they don't seem to think that.
However in this case they are correct.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Question for anybody who has a dvd-rom and the SD 4/5-disc set.

Is it just me or are the end credits (particularly the ones on black backgrounds as seen on the DC and the Mike Fenton/Jane Feinberg credit on the other two) on disc 3 interlaced? I say this because I just got a new monitor to replace my dying POS Sony and its become much more obvious.

Oh and more vertical edge enhancement than the 2006 release (which does not have this interlacing).

 

[Jonesy]

I caught Blade Runner last night at the Castro Theatre in San Francisco. It was in 35mm on a 45-foot wide screen, and it was absolutely stunning.
It was a great crowd (200-300), and the usher said that attendance has been heavy.
Hats off to Mr. Scott and Mr. de Lauzirika for a wonderful job. Thank you for using 4K intermediates to preserve resolution. Thank you for striking prints on film. And thank you for not "fixing" things that weren't broken.
Cheers,
Jones
MOVIE THEATRE REVIEWS