The Abyss 4K UHD (1989)

[bondfooll]

Originally Posted by Reflection

I don't know if this has been answered but... why is this movie so expensive, and why doesn't there seem to be a cheaper separate Blu Ray release for it? all of James Cameron's other movies have a separate Blu Ray releases except this one, why?

I'm hoping we'll get some discount for Black Friday. On the other hand, I think demand for this title is high enough that they may not feel a need to incentivize purchases, so we'll see.

[Reflection]

Originally Posted by bondfooll

I'm hoping we'll get some discount for Black Friday. On the other hand, I think demand for this title is high enough that they may not feel a need to incentivize purchases, so we'll see.

I didn't think the fan base was that into this, i thought people would be more into True Lies than this one, i like this film more than True Lies and the first Terminator, i just find it weird, not many people really talked about this before about wanting it on Blu Ray but LOADS talked about how True Lies wasn't out yet but now this one seems more popular.

[Special Feature]

Originally Posted by Reflection

I don't know if this has been answered but... why is this movie so expensive, and why doesn't there seem to be a cheaper separate Blu Ray release for it? all of James Cameron's other movies have a separate Blu Ray releases except this one, why?

I don't know whereabouts you are but I'm in Ireland where this remaster wasn't released (presumably because of the BBFC issue). I imported it from Spain for €24.75 delivered which I thought was a decent price considering.

[rubystone356]

Originally Posted by Reflection

I didn't think the fan base was that into this, i thought people would be more into True Lies than this one, i like this film more than True Lies and the first Terminator, i just find it weird, not many people really talked about this before about wanting it on Blu Ray but LOADS talked about how True Lies wasn't out yet but now this one seems more popular.

I am glad that its finally getting a proper respect.
I think the short theatre version hurt the box office. the special edition is considered the better version. I like this title more then even titanic and avatar.

its been a year that it was finally announced from the one time screening on December 6 to the home release in march of this year.. any thoughts.

I mean some fans been waiting a long time for a proper release. some didn't think it would ever come out. now here we are a year after the announcement..

The December 6 screening was great. I am glad that I got to attend.

I know many had to wait a while on the release. I got mine a few days after the release. some had to wait a few months.

Jacob

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I think if you fixate on these frivolous matters too much then ultimately you're not going to get as much enjoyment out of watching films as you could be, and you'll just end up missing out on fantastic home video releases because they're not "original audio".

I know, but as a purist I just hate getting the shaft.

I actually want to buy these titles. All I ask is for an original audio mix.

Yes, it's the principle. But I figure I should have at least one.

Edit: Now that I'm thinking about it; it could be that the 2.0 is the original stereo and the 5.1 may have been sourced from the 70mm soundtrack and put in 4.1. I doubt anyone on here can say for sure.

I can't read spectrograms and waveforms, etc. In the old days I used to just listen on headphones, switch between the tracks, and see if they sounded different. I tended to find the stereo mixes sounded wider and deeper (probably not the right terminology). I can only assume a 5.1>2.0 downmix would sound identical on headphones.

If your best guess is that UHD contains the OG stereo mix in 2.0 I'm inclined to give it a try.

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I know, but as a purist I just hate getting the shaft.

I actually want to buy these titles. All I ask is for an original audio mix.

Yes, it's the principle. But I figure I should have at least one.

I tend to also be a purist, but if a remix still resembles the original quite well then I can live with it. Yes of course I would prefer the original be included as well, but if something mostly resembles the original mix, then I won't pass up on it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

I tend to also be a purist, but if a remix still resembles the original quite well then I can live with it. Yes of course I would prefer the original be included as well, but if something mostly resembles the original mix, then I won't pass up on it.

Exactly this. If it's near enough then that's fine. Even if Ghostbusters only had the Atmos mix I wouldn't be sore about it because to my ears it's a very respectful remix, as was the previous 5.1. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, it's whether it still sounds congruent to the soundscape of the time and/or to my own memory of it.

[chewbabka]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I know, but as a purist I just hate getting the shaft.

I actually want to buy these titles. All I ask is for an original audio mix.

Yes, it's the principle. But I figure I should have at least one.



I can't read spectrograms and waveforms, etc. In the old days I used to just listen on headphones, switch between the tracks, and see if they sounded different. I tended to find the stereo mixes sounded wider and deeper (probably not the right terminology). I can only assume a 5.1>2.0 downmix would sound identical on headphones.

If your best guess is that UHD contains the OG stereo mix in 2.0 I'm inclined to give it a try.

If they’re this close that we can’t seem to figure out for sure, I’m sure they’re fine. You’re standing on principle over practicality here. If the only way to tell the difference is highly controlled comparisons or reading waveforms… we’ve lost the thread.

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Exactly this. If it's near enough then that's fine. Even if Ghostbusters only had the Atmos mix I wouldn't be sore about it because to my ears it's a very respectful remix, as was the previous 5.1. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, it's whether it still sounds congruent to the soundscape of the time and/or to my own memory of it.

There was also the 1998 remix of The Exorcist, it resembled the mono very well and if it was included instead of the actual mono, I'd be a bit sad but I could've lived with that too. I was actually kinda sad the theatrical cut's Atmos mix wasn't based off of that instead of that god awful extended cut remix track that had no reason to be reconformed to the theatrical cut.

[Reflection]

Originally Posted by rubystone356

I am glad that its finally getting a proper respect.
I think the short theatre version hurt the box office. the special edition is considered the better version. I like this title more then even titanic and avatar.

its been a year that it was finally announced from the one time screening on December 6 to the home release in march of this year.. any thoughts.

I mean some fans been waiting a long time for a proper release. some didn't think it would ever come out. now here we are a year after the announcement..

The December 6 screening was great. I am glad that I got to attend.

I know many had to wait a while on the release. I got mine a few days after the release. some had to wait a few months.

Jacob

I like it more than Titanic and Avatar as well! for me it's Aliens, Terminator 2, The abyss... in that order.

I expected all of James Cameron's movies to eventually come out on Blu Ray, i mean they have all been successful so you would think the studios would want to bring them out, but i guess with streaming taking over it made people doubt physical releases for some of them.

[rubystone356]

Originally Posted by Reflection

I like it more than Titanic and Avatar as well! for me it's Aliens, Terminator 2, The abyss... in that order.

I expected all of James Cameron's movies to eventually come out on Blu Ray, i mean they have all been successful so you would think the studios would want to bring them out, but i guess with streaming taking over it made people doubt physical releases for some of them.

the abyss is my number 1 Cameron film.. followed by terminator 1, avatar 1 and aliens.

I heard the abyss did okay box office wise. Nothing like his other films.

Jacob

[Special Feature]

Originally Posted by rubystone356

the abyss is my number 1 Cameron film.. followed by terminator 1, avatar 1 and aliens.

I heard the abyss did okay box office wise. Nothing like his other films.

Jacob

I don't know if IMDb's figures are accurate but it lists these for the box office:

Budget
$70,000,000 (estimated)


Gross US & Canada
$54,981,151

Opening weekend US & Canada
$9,319,797 (Aug 13, 1989)

Gross worldwide
$90,520,202

This note is on the Wikipedia page:

20th Century Fox put the official budget of The Abyss (1989) at $43 million; however, other estimates place the true cost in the $45–47 million range, while box office revenue tracker website The Numbers estimated it cost $70 million.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

On that last point, every AVR I've ever owned had an option to route low frequencies below whatever crossover to the subwoofer, so even with ye old Dobly Pro Logic it'd still use the sub.

Thankfully it's not something that's ever affected me personally, but I have tested systems where there was no option to do this with such tracks even with DPLII. Judging from comments I read on here, it seems a lot of people using DPL will be listening to these 2.0 tracks without there being any subwoofer activity.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Thankfully it's not something that's ever affected me personally, but I have tested systems where there was no option to do this with such tracks even with DPLII. Judging from comments I read on here, it seems a lot of people using DPL will be listening to these 2.0 tracks without there being any subwoofer activity.

Huh. Bass management has been there on my various Pioneers, Yamahas, Denons. It's not about what processing format is used, it's a global setting that filters off the bass from the main channels and sends it to the sub.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Huh. Bass management has been there on my various Pioneers, Yamahas, Denons. It's not about what processing format is used, it's a global setting that filters off the bass from the main channels and sends it to the sub.

I think it was some Onkyo systems I tested that had the issues although I guess I may have overlooked something and this was years ago. Just to be clear; are you saying you've had to manually select this in the settings instead of the receiver automatically doing it for you?

[Geoff D]

Yessir.

[crissrudd4554]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

I tend to also be a purist, but if a remix still resembles the original quite well then I can live with it. Yes of course I would prefer the original be included as well, but if something mostly resembles the original mix, then I won't pass up on it.

Yep if they are faithful and using the original elements, I’m fine with older mixes getting upgrades. The 2003 DVD of Scarface upgraded the audio to 5.1 but had the OG effects but in 2006 they made a new 5.1 mix that changed everything and that’s been the default ever since although current releases have an OG 2.0 track. Ohh well. As long as it ain’t Jaws, Terminator, Grease, Batman level of remixing I’m okay if the OG is left off.

[chewbabka]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I think it was some Onkyo systems I tested that had the issues although I guess I may have overlooked something and this was years ago. Just to be clear; are you saying you've had to manually select this in the settings instead of the receiver automatically doing it for you?

Onkyo… issues??? Crazy!!!

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

I tend to also be a purist, but if a remix still resembles the original quite well then I can live with it. Yes of course I would prefer the original be included as well, but if something mostly resembles the original mix, then I won't pass up on it.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Exactly this. If it's near enough then that's fine. Even if Ghostbusters only had the Atmos mix I wouldn't be sore about it because to my ears it's a very respectful remix, as was the previous 5.1. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, it's whether it still sounds congruent to the soundscape of the time and/or to my own memory of it.

Originally Posted by chewbabka

If they’re this close that we can’t seem to figure out for sure, I’m sure they’re fine. You’re standing on principle over practicality here. If the only way to tell the difference is highly controlled comparisons or reading waveforms… we’ve lost the thread.

Originally Posted by crissrudd4554

Yep if they are faithful and using the original elements, I’m fine with older mixes getting upgrades. The 2003 DVD of Scarface upgraded the audio to 5.1 but had the OG effects but in 2006 they made a new 5.1 mix that changed everything and that’s been the default ever since although current releases have an OG 2.0 track. Ohh well. As long as it ain’t Jaws, Terminator, Grease, Batman level of remixing I’m okay if the OG is left off.

I wish I were as laid back as you guys...



But... as it seems like the 2.0 track maybe the OG stereo I've gone ahead and ordered the Spanish UHD.

If it turns out not to be OG I will hunt each and every one of you down like dogs.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

There was also the 1998 remix of The Exorcist, it resembled the mono very well and if it was included instead of the actual mono, I'd be a bit sad but I could've lived with that too. I was actually kinda sad the theatrical cut's Atmos mix wasn't based off of that instead of that god awful extended cut remix track that had no reason to be reconformed to the theatrical cut.

I kind of wish they'd stuck the old '79 stereo remix that was on most of the laserdisc and VHS releases (and the very first DVD from '97) instead of the Atmos for the theatrical cut.

But I'm happy to have the mono on there.