Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > DVD Talk
Reload this Page >

Jaws rerelease 6/14/05 (with mono audio track included)

DVD Talk Talk about DVDs and Movies on DVD including Covers and Cases

Jaws rerelease 6/14/05 (with mono audio track included)

Old 03-26-05, 07:41 PM
  #51  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mr. Cinema's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 18,044
If Spielberg is one of the few directors who basically has total control on his movies, then why did he accept such a so called "flawed" remix of one of his biggest films?
Mr. Cinema is offline  
Old 03-26-05, 07:42 PM
  #52  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,263
Originally Posted by scott1598
don't manipulate my posts! it's stupid and not at all what i intended. doing something like that is some sort of plagiarism and i think, not condoned here.
djtoell's remastering of your post is not in violation of any DVDTalk rule. Neither is being a crybaby, but that is definately subject to ridicule.
SFranke is offline  
Old 03-26-05, 08:14 PM
  #53  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Astoria, NY, USA
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by scott1598
don't manipulate my posts! it's stupid and not at all what i intended.
You mean modifying something against the creator's intentions to make it fit your own personal desires is wrong?!

doing something like that is some sort of plagiarism and i think, not condoned here.
I take it you really haven't caught on to DVDTalk humor yet, eh?

DJ
djtoell is offline  
Old 03-26-05, 08:17 PM
  #54  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 510
Universal's preorder page here. Not much there yet.


By the way, if we can't get a Spielberg commentary, why not one by Scheider, Dreyfuss and others? Or maybe and isolated score?
stinkeye is offline  
Old 03-26-05, 08:41 PM
  #55  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 1,021
Originally Posted by ThatGuamGuy
So, basically, you'd rather have Fullspeaker (perhaps some will later re-dub this "Foolspeaker") than the Original Oscar winning mix.
Is it possible that they created a mono mix for Jaws because most theaters only had the ability to play mono sound at that time? Does that mean a multi-channel mix wasn't desired or that it wouldn't have been preferred?
Wannabe is offline  
Old 03-26-05, 08:44 PM
  #56  
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 196
Stinkeye isolated score? please this is must have film score for any music fan.
I have both the org-cd and 20th on cd's there is no need for a isolated score.
By the way maybe they will do jaws 2 next.
ROBERTCOP34 is offline  
Old 03-26-05, 08:48 PM
  #57  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Astoria, NY, USA
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by Wannabe
Is it possible that they created a mono mix for Jaws because most theaters only had the ability to play mono sound at that time?
It's not only possible, it's likely. Realistically speaking (since Dolby Stereo was still very much in its infancy), a stereo soundtrack would've required either a 4-track magnetic 35mm print or a 70mm print. Either option was expensive.

Does that mean a multi-channel mix wasn't desired or that it wouldn't have been preferred?
Woody Allen aside, I would imagine that quite a lot of the filmmakers who released films in mono due to technology and/or budget restrictions would've preferred a multichannel mix. Many silent filmmakers may have preferred sound had it been possible, and many black-and-white filmmakers may have preferred color had it been practicable. So what?

DJ

Last edited by djtoell; 03-26-05 at 08:54 PM.
djtoell is offline  
Old 03-26-05, 08:51 PM
  #58  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,263
Originally Posted by Wannabe
Is it possible that they created a mono mix for Jaws because most theaters only had the ability to play mono sound at that time? Does that mean a multi-channel mix wasn't desired or that it wouldn't have been preferred?
So you're saying you like the Star Wars Special Editions?
SFranke is offline  
Old 03-26-05, 09:10 PM
  #59  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 30,010
Originally Posted by djtoell
It's not only possible, it's likely. Realistically speaking (since Dolby Stereo was still very much in its infancy), a stereo soundtrack would've required either a 4-track magnetic 35mm print or a 70mm print. Either option was expensive.

Woody Allen aside, I would imagine that quite a lot of the filmmakers who released films in mono due to technology and/or budget restrictions would've preferred a multichannel mix. Many silent filmmakers may have preferred sound had it been possible, and many black-and-white filmmakers may have preferred color had it been practicable. So what?

DJ
So, it doesn't make wanting to listen to a 5.1 mix "wrong" anymore than it makes wanting to listen to the original soundtrack silly because better technology is available today.
eXcentris is offline  
Old 03-26-05, 09:11 PM
  #60  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Astoria, NY, USA
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by eXcentris
So, it doesn't make wanting to listen to a 5.1 mix "wrong" anymore than it makes wanting to listen to the original soundtrack silly because better technology is available today.
So then we should also be colorizing black-and-white films and recording sound for silent films, yes?

DJ
djtoell is offline  
Old 03-26-05, 10:00 PM
  #61  
Moderator
 
Geofferson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Village Green
Posts: 39,198
I'll be double-dipping on this as well.
Geofferson is offline  
Old 03-26-05, 10:22 PM
  #62  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lakeland, FL
Posts: 268
This may seem like a stupid question, but does anyone know if the documentary included on the current single disc is the same as the one in the double VHS version? Or is this another documentary entirely?

I was pretty dissapointed with the disc that's out now, so will probably double dip sometime in the future.
JCFantasy23 is offline  
Old 03-26-05, 11:02 PM
  #63  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,232
So glad I didn't buy the 25th Anniversary Edition. It was tempting, but I wasn't pleased that the two-hour documentary from the laserdisc had been cut in half.

News of this 30th Anniversary Edition is totally exciting. If it features the documentary in its entirety, along with the other special features from the previous release, as well as some new ones hopefully, I will probably add Jaws to my collection at long last. Guess I won't need that letterboxed recording from Turner Classics anymore.

Originally posted by ROBERTCOP34

By the way maybe they will do jaws 2 next.
You know, I think it would be great if they did. Give it the two-disc treatment and all. Would love to see that. But realistically, I doubt it will happen. Most sequels are rarely reissued, from what I've seen. If the initial release is non-anamorphic or pan-and-scan/open matte, then yes, they will probably revisit the title once (see Jaws 3, Jaws: The Revenge, Halloween III, etc), and at least give it the anamorphic widescreen treatment. Otherwise, they don't seem to pay it much mind.

(Speaking of that reissue of Jaws: The Revenge, I'm hoping they do something more with THAT one. The original, non-anamorphic DVD included footage not seen in theaters, as well as possibly the alternate ending. Yet the new one features none of that. What gives? Aren't we supposed to make each new edition BETTER than the one before? Well, ideally, yes, but...take a look around.)

Fortunately the current release of Jaws 2 is good in its own right. I don't have it, but I've read the review at DVDFILE.com. Anamorphic transfer, 45-minute documentary, featurettes (including one about John Williams and the music), multiple deleted scenes, trailers, etc. For a sequel, that's more than acceptable.

--THX
CertifiedTHX is offline  
Old 03-26-05, 11:24 PM
  #64  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,688
I think most people who are so for 5.1 must only care more about the technology and their sound system,than they do the actual film itself.

There are plenty of films made today(of varying quality) that are perfect for 'testing out' your systems and giving them a 'workout'. So why do you expect films not made in 5.1 to be 'upgraded' to that when it was not intended?

A true film fan is able to appreciate films in their original state,without 'updated' audio and effects. Restored audio is different than 'updated' audio. Restored audio takes the original mix,cleans it up and lets it do its job. 'Updated' audio(ie-remixes) alters the original mix,usually discarding it's effectivness in favor of more 'enhancements' to get as much speaker action as possible(ie-making everything more obvious..even if not originally intended).


You do know that their is more to sound mixing than the amount of speakers used right? A mono mix,like Jaws for example can have many layers of audio in the mix that help create the atmosphere. Every effect is placed in just the right area and at just the right level to help enhance the experiance and make it come 'alive'.


Jaws has a very lively well mixed multilayered soundmix. How anyone could say it is 'lousy' 'outdated' 'badly recorded/low garbled quality' 'shrill' or any of the negative things 5.1 junkies say for all things mono is beyond me.


I think they should attempt watching the film itself,instead of wondering "Will I get enough speaker action from this film? Hey where is the background speaker noise? Why isn't their surround sound,I didn't pay(insert absurd amount of money here) for my 5.1 system for nothing!".



I find it very easy to go from watching a film in 5.1 to mono without a problem. Since I actually watch and enjoy the films themselves and with well mixed audio. It is always an enjoyable listening and viewing experiance.


The first film I watched when I got my 5.1 system last year was Total Recall. It was quite a nice energetic bass filled mix.

Did I become a 5.1 junkie wanting to only watch films in 5.1 after that? Not at all,since the second dvd I watched on my system was Straw Dogs in 1.0 mono . You can't get a more subtle soundmix than that!

Mostly dialogue,but with alot of background audio 'action'(though subtle) which helps create its isolated,boiling tension filled atmosphere along with some loud bursts when appropriate(gun fire,record player playing the bagpipe music).

Had all the subtle background audio been 'enhanced' to 5.1 to make it more obvious(ie-hitting you over the head with it). The film would be severely different and not for the better. For one,the rising tension would now be lost. Since the audio keeps cranking up everything as much as possible.



But if someone is set in their loving all things DTS 5.1 as the 'god' of audio. I doubt they will ever change their ways and give mono(or non-5.1 audio) a fair chance.
Julie Walker is offline  
Old 03-27-05, 12:42 AM
  #65  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 30,010
Originally Posted by djtoell
So then we should also be colorizing black-and-white films and recording sound for silent films, yes?

DJ
No. And the examples you have given are called a slippery slope argument. I woudn't want to watch a film noir in color anymore than I'd want to watch a silent film with added dialogue. The reason I don't entirely agree with the purist "we must watch a movie as it was originally intended" argument is because it's a silly black or white one. I have no problem watching films with a mono soundtrack but I also fully realize that having a 5.1 track on some films might offer a more pleasing cinematic experience. I don't see that as the "wrong" way to watch a film, I see it as a "different" way. And as long as the original mono track is also included, and since the DVD medium allows it, I don't see a problem.

Should conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler's recordings of the 1920-30's be available on SACD's?

Last edited by eXcentris; 03-27-05 at 12:48 AM.
eXcentris is offline  
Old 03-27-05, 06:06 AM
  #66  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Update: BACK
Posts: 2,642
Originally Posted by Julie Walker
But if someone is set in their loving all things DTS 5.1 as the 'god' of audio. I doubt they will ever change their ways and give mono(or non-5.1 audio) a fair chance.
That's pretty extreme. I love DTS, but I can easily watch anything that is mono, and I'm sure the majority of the movies I watch are in mono actually.

The point I have a problem with is people comparing the "original mono soundtrack" argument with the OAR argument. They aren't the same thing, as a director wouldn't go back and change the aspect ratio of his film if he could (what need would there be?) But I'm sure many of them would loved to have heard their film originally in thundering surround sound.
naitram is offline  
Old 03-27-05, 09:33 AM
  #67  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 15,957
Originally Posted by CertifiedTHX
(Speaking of that reissue of Jaws: The Revenge, I'm hoping they do something more with THAT one. The original, non-anamorphic DVD included footage not seen in theaters, as well as possibly the alternate ending. Yet the new one features none of that. What gives? Aren't we supposed to make each new edition BETTER than the one before? Well, ideally, yes, but...take a look around.)
--THX
Not true. The original Jaws: The Revenge disc is exactly the same as the Universal one content-wise. The movie has the same "home video" ending with footage not seen in theaters. The original ending (which is also the better one) has never been available on home video in any format.
digitalfreaknyc is offline  
Old 03-27-05, 11:14 AM
  #68  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 510
Originally Posted by ROBERTCOP34
Stinkeye isolated score? please this is must have film score for any music fan.
I have both the org-cd and 20th on cd's there is no need for a isolated score.
By the way maybe they will do jaws 2 next.

No need for you . It's cool that you have both cd releases though. I don't think it's too much to ask for, nor for a commentary by the cast and production crew (lord knows Gottlieb can't talk enough about this film).

I agree with others that the current Jaws 2 is a very good release for a sequel, one that's considered less worthy than the original. Most of the time sequels are revisited only to sell movie tickets for a new film (ala Predator 2 and the inevitable Superman reissues). I'd rather see Universal apply all their resources to the original classic.
stinkeye is offline  
Old 03-27-05, 11:55 AM
  #69  
Inane Thread Master, 2018 TOTY
 
OldBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Are any of us really anywhere?
Posts: 38,083
Originally Posted by evitagen
djtoell's remastering of your post is in violation of every DVDTalk rule. Being a crybaby (as I clearly am as well), is definitely subject to banishment.
thanks for the defense, i do appreciate!
OldBoy is offline  
Old 03-27-05, 11:58 AM
  #70  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Astoria, NY, USA
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by eXcentris
No. And the examples you have given are called a slippery slope argument. I woudn't want to watch a film noir in color anymore than I'd want to watch a silent film with added dialogue.
But why? How are those example different from modifying a soundtrack to fit with what filmmakers might have intended had other options been available? (And I never limited my question to only colorizing noir, though it's interesting that you objected only to that category.)

It's not a slippery slope argument, it's reductio ad absurdum: the proposition you support leads to conclusions so absurd that even you reject them. This indicates that the basis of the argument (i.e., "they would've done it had they been able to, so it's OK to do it now") is itself untenable. That you can offer no rational differentiation between remixing a mono film to surround and recording new sound for a silent film proves the proposition as wholly untenable even in your own eyes.

DJ
djtoell is offline  
Old 03-27-05, 12:59 PM
  #71  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,263
Originally Posted by scott1598
thanks for the defense, i do appreciate!
Please, let's not start a flame war.
SFranke is offline  
Old 03-27-05, 01:20 PM
  #72  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 30,010
Originally Posted by djtoell
But why
It's not a slippery slope argument, it's reductio ad absurdum: the proposition you support leads to conclusions so absurd that even you reject them.
Yes, I reject them because they are absurd. The same way I reject the argument that if you allow gays to marry, then you must also allow polygamy and people marrying sheep.
It is a slippery slope argument.

This indicates that the basis of the argument (i.e., "they would've done it had they been able to, so it's OK to do it now") is itself untenable.
I never used that as the basis of my argument. Whether "they" would have done it or not is immaterial.
I'll repeat: I have no problem with having a surround sound remix if the original soundtrack is also included. If it bothers you don't listen to it.

That you can offer no rational differentiation between remixing a mono film to surround and recording new sound for a silent film proves the proposition as wholly untenable even in your own eyes.

DJ
What has more impact on a film, remixing sound on Jaws or adding dialogue to a silent film?

Your position is that absolutely no changes should be made to the original film. Mine is that some are acceptable. The problem with your argument is that you put all such changes in the same boat.
eXcentris is offline  
Old 03-27-05, 03:17 PM
  #73  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Mountain Biker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,416
Originally Posted by Julie Walker
if someone is set in their loving all things DTS 5.1 as the 'god' of audio. I doubt they will ever change their ways and give mono(or non-5.1 audio) a fair chance.

Exactly, so why do you give the same sermon everytime this topic is brought up? People have different preferences, just accept it.
Mountain Biker is offline  
Old 03-27-05, 04:17 PM
  #74  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 331
Surely Mono or for that matter non-5.1 audio, have been given more than their fair chance in the past?


I read a review of a movie recently which stated, "Audio is in mono, which is perfectly acceptable, but understandably lacks any form of excitement!" and that just about sums up my feelings on mono soundtracks.

Originally Posted by Wannabe
Is it possible that they created a mono mix for Jaws because most theaters only had the ability to play mono sound at that time? Does that mean a multi-channel mix wasn't desired or that it wouldn't have been preferred?
I couldn't agree more my friend.
Rad14 is offline  
Old 03-27-05, 05:12 PM
  #75  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Astoria, NY, USA
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by eXcentris
Yes, I reject them because they are absurd. The same way I reject the argument that if you allow gays to marry, then you must also allow polygamy and people marrying sheep.
It is a slippery slope argument.
The "gay marriage" argument you put forth is a slippery slope, but my argument thus far has not been. I didn't say anything about what "must" happen. I didn't say, "if we start remixing mono films to surround, next thing you know we'll be colorizing black-and-white films and cloning gay people." That would be a slipperly slope argument, and it's specifically not what I said. I didn't paint any kind of nightmare scenario about things that I claimed would happen. I didn't even say that things would be likely to happen. I asked you if you would support other things that would logically follow based upon the proposition you have supported. And, indeed, you have rejected those logical results as absurd. It's a textbook reductio ad absurdum argument. If you don't get it, you may need to freshen up on your logic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...0ad%20absurdum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...ery-slope.html

I never used that as the basis of my argument.
Odd, then. Someone else put forth that proposition, which I questioned. I asked that person, "So what?" with regard to the results of that proposition. You responded, "So, it doesn't make wanting to listen to a 5.1 mix "wrong" anymore than it makes wanting to listen to the original soundtrack silly because better technology is available today." Thus, you provided the results of the proposition. You specifically stated your argument argument as coming forth out of the "they would've done it had they been able to, so it's OK to do it now" proposition. If that's not what you intended, you went about it rather sloppily.

What has more impact on a film, remixing sound on Jaws or adding dialogue to a silent film?
So the acceptability of changes hinges on the level of "impact" to the film? So we could, say, keep digitally adding Abe Vigoda into the background of films, as that will surely have little impact on the film, yes?

(HINT: The above isn't a slippery slope argument. Let's see if you can correctly identify the rhetorical tool in use.)

Your position is that absolutely no changes should be made to the original film. Mine is that some are acceptable. The problem with your argument is that you put all such changes in the same boat.
If you consider it to be a "problem" that I respect artists and works of art to the point where I don't think other people should just jump in and modify artwork for no particular reason other than to please themselves, then I am indeed very problematic. That you find respect for art to be a problem is rather interesting.

DJ

Last edited by djtoell; 03-27-05 at 05:20 PM.
djtoell is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.