Originally Posted by mllfap:
“Have to disagree there.
Many films benefit from surround remixes and the soundtrack is often a huge improvement .
The sounds available are often lost and not even heard when all buried away in a single mono channel.
The new surround remix of the original Psycho uncovered sounds in the track that even those who worked on the film had never heard before, like the bird sounds in mothers bedroom as the PI approaches it before his murder.
Granted , some films don't need surround remixes and some that are done are not very good but the Bond films and so many other movies really do benefit.
Purists sometimes have the option on dvd/bluray”
[
Sharp intake of breath] We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I'm afraid.
There's a case to be made for these remixes when multi-channel versions can be extracted from the original recordings. But '5.1' has become the mantra of a generation weaned on DVD (and now Blu-ray), where the technology exists to take any old soundtrack and tart it up with a flurry of audio bells 'n' whistles. Whether or not the remix unearths new sounds is immaterial, since it still represents a
home video revision of the original film. Like colourisation of black and white movies, as I mentioned earlier.
The revision of soundtracks has come about exclusively because the technology is there, not because it's especially warranted. A good film is a good film (or a bad film is... etc.) whether mono, stereo or digital 5.1. What matters - or, at least, what
should matter - is that the film is recreated to the original theatrical specifications, unless there are very good reasons for doing otherwise.
Why else would the likes of high-end distributors like the BFI in the UK and Criterion in the US opt ONLY for the original audiovisual materials when recreating movies for home consumption? Other companies choose 5.1 because they think it will generate more money, and certainly not for 'artistic' reasons!
And though I understand what you mean when you refer to people like myself as 'purists', I've never liked that word in this context, because it suggests there's something peripheral about people who make the case for original soundtracks (these are the same people who have campaigned for original ratios since the destructive days of VHS), as though audio revisions are somehow acceptable just because they're viewed as a commercial imperative. For example, it makes me angry to see so many thick-headed online reviewers demonstrate so little knowledge of film history when they 'review' the 5.1 or 7.1 version of a film originally released in mono or 2-channel (or 4-channel), and then either ignore the original version altogether or dismiss it as something for the 'purists'. The original sound is as important as the original ratio, no matter what the subjective view of a 5.1 or 7.1 revision might be!
I know you'll offer further debate on this one (and very welcome, too!), but I've discussed this topic (for and against) with many other online commentators, and I promise you, there is not a single argument you can bring to the table which will change my mind on this issue. Like the subject of cruelty to animals for the sake of 'entertainment', you'll find me completely intractable.
In the immortal words of the beloved Mrs. Slocombe: I am unanimous in that!
