Re: remixes.
If the remix is done from the original individual sound elements I don't see it as anything but an improvement.

Where the only track available is the actual final mix then I agree its a waste of time .
The Anchor Bay remixes for the Amicus (and other British films of the 70's like The Amazing Mr Blunden ) produced terrible results with voices from mid air and were no better than the result you could get by using the "6 channel stereo" button on your amp.

A good film is a good film but a good film with an improved soundtrack is a better film in the case of movies like the Bond films where the sound and spectacle are as integral as the visuals.

Regarding Psycho the simple fact that the remix uncovered sounds that were put there in the first place but were lost due to the limited technology of the time shows that its a good idea.
Colorisation is not because it adds something that was never there but remixing the sound elements that were always there and making them sound better can only be a good thing.

For certain , watching Goldfinger in 6.1 surround takes the film to another level from watching it with its great sound and music all crowded together in a single centre channel.

Many dvd and Bluray offer the choice between the original mono and the remixes and there are not many where the mono is as good as the surround and I would say those that choose to listen that way do so purely on the basis of staying true to the original cinema version - but as you'll be watching it on home video anyway the argument that the remixed sound is a home video version is null and void because its a home video version regardless.

Hehe

We're definitely in agreement on all these points. Unfortunately, it's not always clear from film to film which ones utilise multi-track recordings and which ones are working from a 'final' mono mix. I'd rather err on the side of caution and adhere to the original format.


On the surface, that seems like a logical point, and I certainly don't begrudge people their choices. But these films were wildly successful in versions which are far removed from the home video revisions you mentioned. It might make them sound subjectively 'better', but that doesn't alter the fact that it's a revision, no more or less. I know you're you're not arguing any differently - your argument is that the revision is immaterial so long as the film is subjectively improved by it - but I'm saddened that film history is being rewritten in the 21st century just because the technology exists to do so. Really, the only thing that's 'improved' are the coffers of the rights-owners who insist on imposing these changes on 21st century audiences.

And it's made worse when those same rights-holders don't include the original mono soundtrack on the same disc, a practice which is more widespread than you might think. For example, Blue Underground's US Blu-ray version of THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE includes only a multichannel version, and the entire Dirty Harry series is now only available on home video with audio remixes. There are plenty of other examples, but you see my point.


But couldn't those sounds still be heard if, by using 21st century technology, we remastered the mono version to modern-day specifications? For instance, can you still hear those bird sounds you mentioned, on the mono track included with the disc? If so, why do we need an audio revision at all?


Well, as I mentioned, not all discs contain the original mix, which indicates the kind of thinking which goes into the manufacture of these home video releases. And yes, it's a home video version, but the point is that the viewer is supposed to be experiencing a version of the film that is as close to the original theatrical print as possible. Under the logic you're proposing, Vittorio Storaro is quite correct to remaster his early scope films from 2.35:1 to 2.00:1 because it's a 'home video version', though I don't think you'd find many people who agreed with him. Also, colourisation becomes acceptable under that logic, because ANY revision is rendered acceptable if we just say: "It's home video, so who cares what we do with it?"

C5 have done something right today. Mission To Mars is showing in 2.35:1. Clearly the same print that ITV4 have been showing for a while.

Previously, they showed a cropped version of Contact, with half the picture missing. That's a bit of a "Cont" then... #Illgetmecoat

Home Alone (Channel 4) is airing in correct aspect - 1:85:1

Yep, sounds like a right "Cont..." to me.

Unfortunately the multitude of language tracks required in the UK often mean the original mix is missed out.
All the US Bond Blurays I have contain the original mixes but none of the UK ones do as there is not enough space.

Cropping and coloring films change them from what they were as do new sound mixes.
In all cases as long as the original version is present then the purists are happy.
With sound I rarely go for a mono mix over a surround one as it makes the dialogue and effects much clearer and it often separates the music too so you can generally appreciate the individual sound elements far more than you can in mono.

If I watch Dr No I know I'm not hearing the sound in mono as it was originally but I am hearing all that the audiences of 1962 heard but clearer and better.
Just because the sounds come from different speakers instead of just one makes no difference to me .
I think this is why remixed sound is more accepted than other changes .
As long as the mixers don't try and add new sounds to improve things like Carlton did with Thunderbirds , where the original mono tracks have never been released since VHS

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is in 2.35:1 on Channel 4. As if there was any doubt!

Pirates Of The Caribbean on BBC1 is also in 2.35:1.

When you say "correct" do you mean as opposed to 1.78:1

Really? That's absolutely disgraceful! Thunderbirds is one of the greatest 'kids' TV shows ever made, and it's truly awful to hear it's been treated this way. That's like The World at War being 'remastered' for Blu-ray in a cropped 16:9 print. I don't care how 'carefully' they did it, or what their excuse might have been, it is completely unacceptable.

As I understand it, IVL applied the same kind of audio revisions to their catalogue of Shaw Brothers films in Hong Kong. Fans had waited YEARS to see these films released officially, since Shaw had been reluctant (for reasons unknown) to licence them for home video. After decades of putting up with shoddy bootlegs, along comes a company which promises video prints struck from new HD masters.

And what was the public given? Some of the films were letterboxed 4:3 with 5.1 revised soundtracks (no mono included), some had bird sounds added to the soundtracks (!!), and some were released with tracks where the music and ambient sound effects were completely buried in the mix, as though stifled beneath tons of cotton wool (the same problem which afflicted Anchor Bay's abortive DVD version of SUSPIRIA in the US and UK). Some of the Shaw films went out in 16:9 with original mono tracks, but too many were hopelessly compromised.

See what I mean about the perils of employing 21st century technology on 20th century material just because it's there?

Wall-E looking glorious in widescreen on BBC 1 HD

And VON RYAN'S EXPRESS looked equally glorious on More 4 this morning, too. I believe it's the first time VRE has played in its original 2.35:1 ratio outside the Sky channels. Second time for WALL•E, though.

Yes, correct ratio of 1.85:1.

When Carlton released Thunderbirds on dvd they added a new 5.1 soundtrack which is all well and good but unfortunately they decided to spruce it up and add additional sound effects .
There are a couple of extra explosion sounds in the closing moments of the opening credits for example.
The problem is that even if you choose the stereo mix over the 5.1 one the extra sounds are there.

The Bluray release of course is a perfect example of doing the opposite of what this thread is about .
They took a 4:3 image and cropped it to 16:9.
And the only HD masters that exist are 16:9.

Fortunately there was pressure from other companies that made them ensure there were HD masters in both 16:9 and 4:3 for Space 1999.
The Prisoner also preserved its 4:3 format but ITV pulled a fast one again with UFO.

ITV seem to go out of their way to be annoying.
I checked out OHMSS today and as expected after the opening jingle the image was cropped to 16:9 but then when the credits started instead of a correct 2.35:1 ratio across the screen we had the image zoomed OUT way too far so they played in a postcard sized frame so there were needless side bars and the top and bottom bars were far larger than they needed to be.

Having watched the film on dvd a few months back I must say the mono soundtrack was very dull compared to the superb 5.1 track the dvd had and it was nice to hear that much of the music that was incorrectly mixed for the dvd had been corrected just as they have done with other error correction between dvd and Bluray releases.

ITV also left the knife to the throat shot in which has been missing before and one of the ad breaks was just after the safecracking scene like it was last time but today they didn't jump to the caption a few seconds early like they did last time in what looked like a deliberate move to stop the fleeting glimpse of a topless Playboy centrefold

The bars around the credits sequence is to take into account any overscan.

Well, technically, for those who still crop their digiboxes to 4:3.

A Few Good Men was in 2.35:1 on C5 tonight, up until the end of the opening credits and then it cut to 16:9 as soon as Demi Moore entered the office for the first post-credits scene. Still one of my favourite opening credits sequences, though.

Clearly you didn't see it today.
The bars were about 5 times what was needed to compensate for overscan

I've not seen bars this large ever before.

Moonraker was nowhere near as large, at least not when I last saw it (didn't see it last week)

I've already explained this, 45 mins before your post. Why is this still confusing?

Because its not something we see often on any channel and even if your digibox was set to 4:3 you'd still lose some of the sides so doing it to such an extreme is unnecessary.

And each time I've seen a similar thing the bars are always different sizes at the sides

And if ITV cared about idiots with boxes set to 4:3 they would be panning and scanning the movie itself to cater for 4:3 ---but they don't

It'll have been zoomed out to place the text in the caption safe area, no?

It looks that way , but since when did any broadcaster adjust images to take into account those choosing a centre cut out of 4:3 ?

Since that's where they put the caption safe area. It's pretty commonplace for it to take this into account.

ITV do this a lot for Bond films. I'm sure I've seen it for others, too.


Ask them, then.

THE GREAT SIOUX MASSACRE cropped to 16:9 on Channel 4 this afternoon.

Boo! Hiss! Resignations! Heads on sticks! etc.