|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.91.201.174
Last night while watching :The Terminator" for perhaps the fiftieth time a thought occurred to me. The 1984 film was released in mono and all video versions including the first DVD were in mono, much to the chagrin of fans of the Cameron classic. The current DVD has 5.1 Dolby Digital and it is amazing how modern it sounds, with the exception of the dyanmaics of gunshots, etc. This adds much to the overall enjoyment.
I guess at heart that I'm a sort of purist, hating any tampering with the original like colorizing and insisting on the correct aspect ratio. Yet I have no problem with using Dolby Pro Logic II (Music mode) to add a feeling of spaciousness to plain stereo material, and I have no problem with updating stereo films themselves like "Vertigo" in the remastering processs.But I got to wondering. What if they were to "suroundize" older classics like "The Day the Earth Stood Still" or (getting to the heart of the matter) "It happened One Night" or "Casablanca" or (dare he say it?) "Citizen Kane"?
Leaving existing protection wording in place on some of these aside, what say you guys and gals?
Follow Ups:
Few older films have the kind of audio content that would really benefit from multi-channel and high dynamics. Chances are, at least for serious films, that mucking with the audio will detract. Further, it opens the door for contemporary music editors to "improve" masterpieces with trendy junk music.There are, however, exceptions aplenty. One of my movie peeves is with Brit films from the 60s, e.g., most of the early Bond films; with glaring music tracks that seems totally disjointed from sound in the film.
I want the films as they were made and meant to be seen and heard.
If you were to watch the latest DVD versions of "Barry Lyndon" and "Full Metal Jacket" you would opt for the mono sound track? You would do mono on the latest DVD of "The Terminator"? You'd do mono on the latest DVD of "Chinatown"? Mono on "Bullitt"? Etc.
I'm not inot revisionist film making.
What if the directr approves of the "revision"? Do you refuse to watch the Scott Director's cut of "Blade Runner? Or the Coen director's cut of "Blood Simple", How about Kubrick's excising of 19 minutes of ""2001..." AFTER it opened?
It really depends on the circumstances. Genuine directors cuts are the real original work as it was made at that time. I am all for these things being released. But when we are talking about directors going back and revising things years after the fact I find it tends to get a bit dodgey. Just look at what Lucas did to his own work with Star Wars. I thought the new version of the Exorcist was interesting along with the discussion of the revisions by Friedkin and Blatty. I found their discussions very enlightning and their revisions to be very thoughtful. In the end I liked the original better. In fact I gained a new and greater appreciation for it. I think studios coming in and modernizing sound tracks for the sake of sales is not much different than colorizing black and white films for the same reason. I'd rather see the original intent. In many cases that would be the revised director's cut. Rarely is it the new surround sound version of a vintage movie.
Only one word: horror.
Imagine a silent picture with 5.1 synthetiser music. Like in Metropolis...Brrrrrrrr
Moroder was the bastard.
For luck we have this sound knob...
I have a laser disc of Greed" with an original score by Carl Davis, who also conducts. It is in stereo and I play it back using the dolby Pro Logic II Music codec in my pre-amp/processor. It in NO way detracts from the film's magnificence and,indeed, increases my suspension of disbelief and involvement. I wish it were in full discrete Dolby Digital 5.1 ES or, better yet, its DTS counterpart. We're talking MUSIC here, not dialogue or effects.
DTS Movie sound much better than DDII, on most all the films I have tried.
I spoke of mono movies, for the stereo it is also my finding.
I wasn't advocating sound codecs as much as I was directly commenting on your paost that a 5.1 version of a silent film would be "horrors".
But for me.
for every time they actually get lucky and don't disrupt the original balance of a film there will be dozens of proverbial abortions in surrouns sound. The thing is every movie is made in a time and place with the given technologies and sensibilities of that time and place and those artists that made the film. All artistic decisions affect all other artistic decisions in the shooting ,cutting and scoring of a film. To go in and radically atler one element without upsetting the balances of the other elements and the sensibilities of the artists in that time and that place. I'd much rather have any resources spent on film preservation and restoration. Use new ideas and new technologies on new films
For instance, most classic silent films are being reissued with orchestral 5.1 surround soundtracks; the bigger issues are whether a silent film should be released with music that isn't contemporaneous to the film and whether the music sounds appropriate to what is on the screen.> > > "But I got to wondering. What if they were to "suroundize" older classics like "The Day the Earth Stood Still" or (getting to the heart of the matter) "It happened One Night" or "Casablanca" or (dare he say it?) "Citizen Kane"?" < < <
30's, 40's & 50's sound films with soundtracks are an "iffy" proposition. Music and certain rechanneled effects 'might' be okay for surround enhancement under a few unusual circumstances and dependent upon the film (it is reasonable, for instance, to speculate that SF films such as Day the Earth Stood Still, This Island Earth, War of The Worlds, Forbidden Planet, etc., 'might' benefit from a surround sountrack, especially if the original mono or stereo soundtrack recorded with the original is included as an alternative, for comparisons sake).
The bottom line: It boils down to whether the implimentation draws too much attention to itself; I'm refering to music and effects as opposed to dailogue (which shouldn't be tampered with). Note: I can even imagine rare circumstances where colorization might be deemed okay for ALTERNATIVE versions of B films, serials and action pictures, but the jury is still out on that one because few folks, if any, want to see phony color finding it's way into single-inventory re-releases of classic films.
You bring up some interesting points. I think that modern sound engineers understand the need for respect and subtlety, which they have learned painfully ever since the origianl "Ben Hur" soundtrack mixed a cow mooing from the rear in the manger sequence and test audiences all turned around away from the film. Since very little except ambiant noise is mixed in the rear channels anyway I think that judicious use of 5.1 could be successful, especailly in the SF films you cite and anly (as you also say) if the original soundtrack was provided for purisits.BTW, I enjoy the directional dialog of early stereo films like "The Fly".
Its just one opinion, but I've always found rear channel sound a distraction and a gimmick in movies and music. I don't think the human brain does well when the ear inputs are spatially in conflict with what the eyes' see.
Are you sure you have the rear channels set at equal volume to the mains by meter? many people run the rears too loud and also the sub too loud. Very little is mixed in the rear channels and you should NEVER notice them except for the beiginnigs of a fly over or some other effect the film makers specifically intend. Surrounmd adds anbience only and you should only notice it by its absense when you collapse the sound stage down to plain stereo.
I have two-channel at home. I only hear multichannel at the theater or when visiting someone with it. Never cared for the effect. Deafening and distracting audio has effectively driven me out of theaters.
That's incompetent or stupid projectionists or theatehr owners, not surround sound per se. Many theaters play everything too loud, especielly trailers.Good surround adds to a movie, that's why there are three competing formats (Dolby, DTS, SDDS) and that's why film makrs use it. Since you have a pre 1980s' i.e., stereo) system for watching movies at home, are you really giving home theater surround a chance? Have you hear a properly set up home theater system showing a non car chase non explosion surround movie?
Them's fightin' words. Sorry, Rico, I'll stick with (very) high quality two-channel. Its what comes out of the speakers, not how many places it comes out...!
I ahve been an audiophile for 51 years and ,like you, stuck with stereo and analog for a long time into the surround and then the digital eras. But surround sound for films has been with us since 1977, 30 years now, and I think it is high time that the luddites get on board and give adequately presented surround sound for both movies and music a chance.I have done extensive A/B-ing of pure stereo material and the same material on the superb Dolby Pro Logic II Music codec (developed for Dolby Labs by famed surround guru Jim Fosgate) and I now listen to all lps, tapes, laserdiscs, FM, and stereo only DVDs in this format. it has brought new life to my entire collections. It provides exactly what hi fi/stereo buffs have been seeking for years: the gestalt of the live performance, a musicality, presense (in the good sens of that overused word), warmth (ditto) and what is for me the ultinate in music sound, timbre. It also provides a truer sense of the acoustic space of the recording venue (I know, this CANNOT be true of movie sound, which has been equalized to the limit)
As for the disctrete codecs,Dolby Digital and DTS, these add an involvment and aid in the important suspension of disbelief, just as stereo did over mono.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: