Questions, re: changes between an "old" and "new" film

[takearushfan]

Hi all,

I should preface this by clarifying on a couple issues pointed out above each post:
"Forum post rules" "Do NOT give, link, ask, provide or advocate WAREZ." "Warez includes downloaded copyrighted movies and TV-series/shows and copying rented movies."... I'm not sure if what I'm going to provide a link to infringes on these rules or not...
The link is a zip file, containing clips (not full movies) from DVDs that I have purchased, not rented. Just to be safe, I'll add that the clips are intended for educational use only, as you'll see in the following text. That said:
I have some questions about the "old" version of A Nightmare On Elm Street, released in 2001 (I think), and the "new" version, released in '06. Before I go on, I'll mention that the back of the DVD's box says "Restored from the original film negative". What does this mean, exactly? If you look at the front of the box to the '01 version, it already says it's remastered Anyway, here:

Old/new 1 - In the "old" version, the light is off before she goes to sleep, then on when she wakes up. I'm assuming the "new" version attempted to fix this goof by making it dark both before and after she wakes up. Is this something they'd do?

Old/new 2 - Why did they change the sound effect that's heard when her foot first steps into the stair? I don't understand this, as the effect heard in the "old" version is the theatrical release's

Old/new 3 - Notice within the first two seconds of the "old" version, when her mother is reaching into the boiler, you can see what looks like a slight skip between frames. In the "new" version, it looks like they attempted to fix that glitch. Is this also something they'd do?

A link to these examples can be found here: "http://www.sendspace.com/file/1mz7ql". Just scroll and the way down and you'll see the link. Yes, it is a rather large file, but the download speed is suitable for such a size.

IMHO, overall, the "old" version looks better and maintains the integrity of the theatrical release. The "new" version has the three things I pointed out, as well as a plethora of other things I didn't even get into... one of them being the the "new" version seems to have a sort of blue (and darker) tint throughout the whole film than the original did

Am I crazy, or is it possible that the "old" version is perhaps better than the "new"?

Thanks for you input,

Justin

P.S. - Again, if I've infringed on the rules, please just let me know (specifically) what I did, rather than delete me. Though, I think I'm in the clear here 8)

[jagabo]

Am I crazy, or is it possible that the "old" version is perhaps better than the "new"? :|

You're not crazy. Look at what George Lucas has done with the 1977 Star Wars. Or all the new CGI effects added to recent 1966 TV Star Trek release. They make these changes to get people to buy the same movies over and over again.

[takearushfan]

Am I crazy, or is it possible that the "old" version is perhaps better than the "new"?

You're not crazy. Look at what George Lucas has done with the 1977 Star Wars. Or all the new CGI effects added to recent 1966 TV Star Trek release. They make these changes to get people to buy the same movies over and over again.

That's a shame.
It gets downright absurd and old after a very short time. I mean, exactly how many times can you remaster a remaster of a remaster?!
The Exorcist is a (somewhat) similar example as with ANoES. They re-released the film with CGI images, some footage that was originally left out of the original, tampered a bit with the sound effects and the score as well. Don't get me wrong... it was interesting to see the new footage, but after I've done that once, I want it back to how it was released theatrically in the first place. After all, if that's what made the final cut in '73, then that's obviously how the director, producer, writer, etc. intended for it to be

[jagabo]

I have mixed feelings about the practice. When The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly was first shown in the USA about 20 minutes of the original Italian release was cut. The latest DVD release restored most of that footage. Some scenes were from the original negatives, some from various prints they were able to recover from around the world. Some of the prints were in poor shape and you can see it on the DVD. But they do help out with the continuity of the story. The actors went back to the studio to record English dialog for the restored scenes (one was dead so they used an impersonator) and you can hear the difference 40 years makes in their voices. That was a case where I thought the re-release was worthwhile. I probably wouldn't have bought it if I had an earlier DVD release though.

[lordsmurf]

Music changes are usually over rights. In some cases, this may cover sound effects.

Fixing glitches, understandable.

Sometimes editing errors make it to the final version by accident, and can now be fixed with CG.

[Noahtuck]

I have mixed feelings about the practice. When The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly was first shown in the USA about 20 minutes of the original Italian release was cut. The latest DVD release restored most of that footage.

Wow!!
This is the first i have heard of it!!

Now i am going to have to track down the extended re-released version!!
I have the original on dvd from years ago when it was first released.

But i agree with the mixed feelings.
I hate the new versions of star wars with the newly added CGI, some of it is okay, some of it sucks, like having greedo shoot first, or what was it, where they edited E.T. with CGI and removed certain elements to seem more PC ?
But i also was right on it when i found the extended version of DUNE from overseas that had the extra footage that they cut from the U.S. release for what ? 20 years!! Some years ago before the re-release in the U.S. a couple of years ago.
But about 99.99999% of people i know could not sit through the U.S. version let alone the full uncut version

Some is good, some they just screw it up worse trying to make it better, some are just trying to make more $$$ with no concern for the art or story.

[AlanHK]

Am I crazy, or is it possible that the "old" version is perhaps better than the "new"?

You're not crazy. Look at what George Lucas has done with the 1977 Star Wars. Or all the new CGI effects added to recent 1966 TV Star Trek release. They make these changes to get people to buy the same movies over and over again.

Regarding the "remastered" Star Trek TOS, I found that this was an excellent, and respectful, project.
I first saw Star Trek on a 20" b/w screen, and I have no nostalgia for that experience.

They didn't do any of the messing around with the story, like "Greedo shot first" in Star Wars, the major thing was simply to rescan the original 35mm film to produce a truly beautiful, clear video, much much better than any previous release. They didn't reframe it to make it 16:9, it's still 4:3.

You can see all the imperfections in Nimoy's "Spock" makeup if you zoom in.

The effects shots (and these only take up a very small part of each episode) were redone digitally, mostly things like exterior spaceships, planets, video screen displays. The planets now actually look like planets, not spraypainted beach balls.
The Blueray edition has both versions.

Reviews and comparisons of the remastered and previous release:
http://trekmovie.com/tos-in-hd/hdtv-star-trek-tos-episode-order/
http://www.denofgeek.com/trek/archive/

[guns1inger]

I have mixed feelings about the practice. When The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly was first shown in the USA about 20 minutes of the original Italian release was cut. The latest DVD release restored most of that footage.

Wow!!
This is the first i have heard of it!!

Now i am going to have to track down the extended re-released version!!
I have the original on dvd from years ago when it was first released.

But i agree with the mixed feelings.
I hate the new versions of star wars with the newly added CGI, some of it is okay, some of it sucks, like having greedo shoot first, or what was it, where they edited E.T. with CGI and removed certain elements to seem more PC ?
But i also was right on it when i found the extended version of DUNE from overseas that had the extra footage that they cut from the U.S. release for what ? 20 years!! Some years ago before the re-release in the U.S. a couple of years ago.
But about 99.99999% of people i know could not sit through the U.S. version let alone the full uncut version

Some is good, some they just screw it up worse trying to make it better, some are just trying to make more $$$ with no concern for the art or story.

The cuts to The Good, The Bad and The Ugly were made after the Rome premiere, and were in all prints released world wide. Because the cuts were made before wider release of the film, and because it was, for the most part, shot silient and dubbed afterward, none of this footage had English dialogue recorded for it. The original DVD release has these clips with the original Italian dialogue and subtitles as an extra. The restoration job done a couple of years ago included putting these scenes back in, dubbing new dialogue with Clint Eastward and Eli Wallach - and a Lee Van Cleef impersonator ! - and remixing the original mono audio to 5.1.

Personally, I don't believe it works very well. The new mix still sounds false, the cast can't match the dialogue recorded 40 years earlier - Tuco sounds like an 80 year old man in the re-dubbed scenes - and the extra scenes don't really add anything to the story. In this case the cuts were Sergio's decision, not something a studio hack did afterwards, so this isn't really a director's cut in that sense.

The long cut of Dune is the Alan Smithee cut, and was put together for US television release as a 2 part mini-series.

[jman98]

Hi all,

I should preface this by clarifying on a couple issues pointed out above each post:
"Forum post rules" "Do NOT give, link, ask, provide or advocate WAREZ." "Warez includes downloaded copyrighted movies and TV-series/shows and copying rented movies."... I'm not sure if what I'm going to provide a link to infringes on these rules or not...
The link is a zip file, containing clips (not full movies) from DVDs that I have purchased, not rented. Just to be safe, I'll add that the clips are intended for educational use only, as you'll see in the following text.

Short excerpts should be OK. In the USA they might be considered "Fair Use" although honestly a court would have to decide that. So don't worry about the links. It's not like you are telling people where to download the whole movie, which is what the policy is about.

Old/new 2 - Why did they change the sound effect that's heard when her foot first steps into the stair? I don't understand this, as the effect heard in the "old" version is the theatrical release's

The American buying public is mostly convinced that any audio that is not 5.1 is a ripoff. IMDB says that the original sound for this movie was mono, so my guess is that the sound effects were added for re-release to get the sound into 5.1 format. This happens all the time where effects/foley stuff gets done years later to provide some sort of surround sound feel to an original mono soundtrack. I hate the practice, but the buying public basically demands it.

[takearushfan]

Music changes are usually over rights. In some cases, this may cover sound effects.

Fixing glitches, understandable.

Sometimes editing errors make it to the final version by accident, and can now be fixed with CG.

For some reason (in this case) I don't mind how they fixed the "jump" between frames, but that's about the only thing I can tolerate. I hate how they replaced the sound effect on the stairs. Also, I don't like that they fixed the lighting situation in Nancy's bedroom, but I don't know why; I think it's because it's just not the original... not sure how to describe what I mean. How about the whole blueish-tint and darker image quality, throughout the whole film? ... I don't understand why they did that; maybe something to do with using a different print? Though, it seems too drastic for that to be the case. To me, it really looks like they purposely darkened most of the film... ugh!

[takearushfan]

...or what was it, where they edited E.T. with CGI and removed certain elements to seem more PC ?

Yeah, I think I read that they replaced the policemen's guns with walkie-talkies, which (again) I find to be criminal.

[takearushfan]

The American buying public is mostly convinced that any audio that is not 5.1 is a ripoff. IMDB says that the original sound for this movie was mono, so my guess is that the sound effects were added for re-release to get the sound into 5.1 format. This happens all the time where effects/foley stuff gets done years later to provide some sort of surround sound feel to an original mono soundtrack. I hate the practice, but the buying public basically demands it.

I don't care for the effects/foley stuff being added years later either... if it wasn't there in the first place it shouldn't be there now, IMHO. I hate the practice as well.
However, I do believe there are situations where a 5.1 mix is acceptable and even welcomed. I talked to Cornucopia (?) a few years ago, regarding When a Stranger Calls, the original. I know enough about audio editing, not to mention simply listening to the film, to know that Sony (Sony!) did a very half-a**ed job with that film:
The only available audio is English or French Mono. Even if they didn't do a 5.1, they could of at least done Stereo.
It's painfully obvious that absolutely no audio restoration was done at all. Now, don't get me wrong... I don't mean that they didn't add anything. I already mentioned how I don't like that. What I mean is that there's a significant amount of hiss, noise, hum, artifacts, deterioration; you name it.
The video is insulting as well. When you watch the film, you'd think they used a 5,000th generation print, taken from a fire, dumpster or an old cat lady's basement.
Not to dwell, but I'm already talking about the film so... I will admit that when you watch it, a great deal of all that's seen would be in the Center channel anyway. However, there are also many moments where certain sounds, voices, etc. could be placed/panned in a Surround manner. I've done enough work/experimenting with the film myself to know. I also know enough about 5.1 mixes to easily be able to "picture" how various channels would be used throughout the film... but I digress
Really though, it's so obvious that Sony basically said "It's old, nobody will notice and we don't give a sh*t, so just release it as simplisticly as possible."...