Superman: The Movie 4K UHD (1978)

[starmike]

So I checked on Amazon and they do have the 2018 slip as the image for the film, and even mention "+ Digital". This is the one people are buying now and getting the non-digital, 2.0 audio track? I just want to be clear that Amazon changed their stock and kept the image the same....and probably because nobody there knows that the UPC is the same, but the disc contents is different and there's no digital code.

Looks like the only solution to knowing 100% that you have the right one is to walk into a store.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by captainsolo

You can’t be serious…finally redoing the series and having to reissue STM where you could actually address the video issues in an early format release…but you touch nothing EXCEPT to remove the best sounding theatrical mix of the film that was finally presented discrete if lossy 5.1 and previously had only appeared as matrixed 2.0 back in 1990 on the letterbox Laserdisc release.
Does Warner try to find new ways to screw stuff up? It seems like it.
This is major.

Anyone who has the unfortunate experience of hearing the original Dolby stereo mix in a theater knows just how pitifully bad it is. It is MUCH worse in a theater than at home. It practically plays better when not decoded and just left stereo. The mono mix (which I’ve only heard short clips of) is probably better overall.

It almost seems as if Warner is trying to make the single disc worse so to encourage those to buy the likely remaster down the road (with perhaps re-adding the track lol).

[KC-Technerd]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's different in terms of fidelity as the 2.0 is severely degraded. It was early days for Dobly and in the rush to finish the film the filmmakers piled dubs atop of dubs, i.e. not going back to the original elements when they needed to make changes but taking the re-recorded sound and then re-recording that, many times over in some cases. They also used lots of old optical audio effects rather than mag so they were very low quality to begin with. It's not that the 70mm audio didn't come from this same source material because it did, but they laid down the 70mm first (inc split surrounds) and then the subsequent 35mm Dolby Stereo and mono mixes. But as they weren't recording multichannel stems (groups of dialogue, music and effects elements for archival purposes) they had to newly mix each mix and although they tried to make them sound the same they just don't, the 2.0 is a pale imitation of the 70mm.

Interesting. I hadn't previously seen this explanation for the obvious differences between the Dolby 6-track and Dolby Stereo. I think it's been common for the Dolby Stereo/Surround mixes to be created directly from the 4 main channels of the Dolby 6-track master. Apparently this didn't happen with Superman, (possibly due to the directional dialog in the 6-track?). Also I've seen it speculated that Superman might have had a dedicated monaural mix (rather than simply monaural compatible Dolby SVA prints, or mono mix-down from the Dolby Stereo), but have not seen confirmation of that. "Star Wars" is the only movie released in Dolby Stereo that I know of where that was done for certain.

Edit: I found Michael Thau's comments that contain some of the above explanation (which I think I did read long ago), but I have to highly question anything that he's stated that can't be backed up from other sources. His following comments concerning "Superman" are obviously BS:

"They mixed in split surrounds but they did not use the surrounds very much, especially in a stereo way because it was very new and they were very scared of it."

"So they mixed it for stereo surround, but it was never released that way and the fact is that there wasn't much difference anyway."

"There really isn't much of a difference in the 6-track or 4, except in volume and bass."

Regarding directional dialog: "It doesn't work that well and sounds strange. Stereo was kind of a new gadget and I think they were just playing with the new toy. Dialog is best kept in the center channel for clarity." (Use of directional dialog in multi-channel movies went back to the beginning in the 1950s, although WB typically didn't use it.)

"As far as the restoration goes, Dick and I sat down and watched the film first and talked about restoring some of the scenes into it. I had to talk about the stuff with Dick before we went to the DVD department and pitched them on what we wanted to do. So we ran Dick's personal print of Superman, which was made in 1984 or 1985, and we were just shocked to hear how mono the mix was. Dick swore, and I agreed with him too, that the titles would fly past you to the right and the left of you and they didn't. They just stayed very in the center speaker, in mono. We got the sound engineers up to the projection room and double-checking that everything was set up correctly. There was some stereo-ness to the music and sound effects, so we pitched on redoing the sound."

Obviously they were listening to Dolby Stereo from a 35mm print. I think Thau was largely just pitching, promoting, and defending his new mix for the SE by down playing and denigrating the 70mm 6-track mix. I also seem to remember that part of the reason for all new sound effects in his mix was the lack of any stem that had the original sound effects isolated.

[KC-Technerd]

Originally Posted by punisher

whoa..hey I saw it it opening weekend and it sounded awesome back in the day..the crowd was cheering, the theater was sold out every show..unfortunate..I think not

But where did you see it? Were they running 70mm Dolby 6-track, or 35mm Dolby Stereo?

[punisher]

opening weekend in 1978....duh....

who knew and who cared what sound was being used back then...it looked great, sounded great and a great time was had for all. It was in a large big screen theater like all theaters were back then. Other than the Ziegfeld in Manhattan, there were no"specialty" movie houses in New York. Well maybe a Cinerama theater here or there..lol.A few were equipped with the phony 'Sensurround" if that matters to you.

Back then people went to the movies to be entertained and Superman delivered the goods

[captainsolo]

Originally Posted by KC-Technerd

Interesting. I hadn't previously seen this explanation for the obvious differences between the Dolby 6-track and Dolby Stereo. I think it's been common for the Dolby Stereo/Surround mixes to be created directly from the 4 main channels of the Dolby 6-track master. Apparently this didn't happen with Superman, (possibly due to the directional dialog in the 6-track?). Also I've seen it speculated that Superman might have had a dedicated monaural mix (rather than simply monaural compatible Dolby SVA prints, or mono mix-down from the Dolby Stereo), but have not seen confirmation of that. "Star Wars" is the only movie released in Dolby Stereo that I know of where that was done for certain.

Edit: I found Michael Thau's comments that contain some of the above explanation (which I think I did read long ago), but I have to highly question anything that he's stated that can't be backed up from other sources. His following comments concerning "Superman" are obviously BS:

"They mixed in split surrounds but they did not use the surrounds very much, especially in a stereo way because it was very new and they were very scared of it."

"So they mixed it for stereo surround, but it was never released that way and the fact is that there wasn't much difference anyway."

"There really isn't much of a difference in the 6-track or 4, except in volume and bass."

Regarding directional dialog: "It doesn't work that well and sounds strange. Stereo was kind of a new gadget and I think they were just playing with the new toy. Dialog is best kept in the center channel for clarity." (Use of directional dialog in multi-channel movies went back to the beginning in the 1950s, although WB typically didn't use it.)

"As far as the restoration goes, Dick and I sat down and watched the film first and talked about restoring some of the scenes into it. I had to talk about the stuff with Dick before we went to the DVD department and pitched them on what we wanted to do. So we ran Dick's personal print of Superman, which was made in 1984 or 1985, and we were just shocked to hear how mono the mix was. Dick swore, and I agreed with him too, that the titles would fly past you to the right and the left of you and they didn't. They just stayed very in the center speaker, in mono. We got the sound engineers up to the projection room and double-checking that everything was set up correctly. There was some stereo-ness to the music and sound effects, so we pitched on redoing the sound."

Obviously they were listening to Dolby Stereo from a 35mm print. I think Thau was largely just pitching, promoting, and defending his new mix for the SE by down playing and denigrating the 70mm 6-track mix. I also seem to remember that part of the reason for all new sound effects in his mix was the lack of any stem that had the original sound effects isolated.

When I read this particular quote the first time I didn't think about it. Later on when I knew of the supposedly unused (what was thought until more recently) split surround 70mm version I started wondering what the 70mm mix may have sounded like. Eventually I found someone talking about this amazing sound transition on the credits of the film's LD release and wondered what that was about. I had thought it was just the stereo mix tossed on as PCM on the disc. I picked it up out of curiosity....
Whoa boy were they not kidding. That became my go-to viewing copy for years. That opening mono to stereo and then surround transition for the opening prologue into the credits is one of the best moments in film sound as far as I'm concerned. Aside from the one theatrical screening I have NEVER watched the film with the stereo mix again. Somehow this matrixed version appeared back then and only resurfaced again as lossy 5.1 on the UHD.

I don't think Thau and Donner at the time had access to this version or were aware of its existence because I'm sure in the mess of holdings all over between WB and the Salkinds it was likely lost in the shuffle. If they heard this mix they would've never seen the need to do a remix.

Most mixes were a 4 channel LCRS base master after a certain point and would have a 70mm, 35mm stereo and mono track made. Sometimes these would be custom jobs (Star Wars, Raiders, ESB) or at least making sure the result came out correctly. (ROTJ) In the first few years of Dolby Stereo there were kinks that had to be worked out and some releases didn't have a good mix. The post on STM was very fraught and rushed. I think the Stereo mix was a major casualty of this. It may be the biggest example of a flat sounding early Dolby Stereo title.

Until news of a couple screenings using the split surround mix arrived the general thought was it was a test mix that was deemed too much and people were afraid to sue it. It wasn't until Apocalypse Now that the concept was fully utilized and brought into the 70mm release.

I HATE it when people insist directional dialogue doesn't work or is bad and especially when they take it upon themselves to remove it from catalog titles. This happens frequently unfortunately. It was a common practice in roadshow films and when done right can be really immersive. It can also be gimmicky when done badly. Another reason for doing it was to spread the sound in the large theaters while using all five of the screen channels. Dolby was the big reason why directional dialogue was dropped as they didn't like it plus it interfered with their matrixed audio decoding. This is when the center channel took dominance over everything else. Eventually in 70mm and blowups you were getting the 4 track LCRS mix with the two extra screen channels providing emphasis or nothing. Dolby took these and converted them into the "baby boom" iteration of what would now be dedicated LFE.

[starmike]

Maybe it's the time I grew up, but I really think that a lot of people here don't understand what it was like to figure out where you were going to see the next big movie based on which theater was playing it in 70mm.

I still have three years' worth of NY Times full-page ads of movie ads.

[KC-Technerd]

Originally Posted by punisher

opening weekend in 1978....duh....

who knew and who cared what sound was being used back then...it looked great, sounded great and a great time was had for all. It was in a large big screen theater like all theaters were back then. Other than the Ziegfeld in Manhattan, there were no"specialty" movie houses in New York. Well maybe a Cinerama theater here or there..lol.A few were equipped with the phony 'Sensurround" if that matters to you.

Back then people went to the movies to be entertained and Superman delivered the goods

I didn't ask when, I asked where, as in what theater, and I think you're missing the point. "Unfortunate" was only referring to the audio experience in theaters that were showing 35mm Dolby Stereo prints. If you saw it somewhere that was showing 70mm Dolby 6-track, then no wonder it looked and sounded great.

The following theaters in New York City had Superman in 70mm at the opening:

Murray Hill
Astor Plaza
Orpheum Twin

2 others had it later.

[KC-Technerd]

Originally Posted by captainsolo

I don't think Thau and Donner at the time had access to this version or were aware of its existence because I'm sure in the mess of holdings all over between WB and the Salkinds it was likely lost in the shuffle. If they heard this mix they would've never seen the need to do a remix.

I'm assuming that the "70mm full-coat" that Thau referred to in the following statement was the master for the 6-track.

"We grabbed the original 70mm full-coat that actually had the label from the Pinewood stage on it; it had a date of November 1978. We put it up in a dubbing stage. We had Dolby down there a couple times verifying that the set up on the Dolby units, the decoding, was correct."

He was certainly aware of the Dolby 6-track split surround:

"Superman was the first film that was originally recorded in a 70mm 6-track split surround but here's the rub that no one knows about but it's the truth. They mixed in split surrounds but they did not use the surrounds very much, especially in a stereo way because it was very new and they were very scared of it. At the last second, here in America, they brought it over to do some final mastering on the 70mm and they chickened out and the film was only released with mono surround in the 70mm format. So they mixed it for stereo surround, but it was never released that way and the fact is that there wasn't much difference anyway."

[captainsolo]

Originally Posted by KC-Technerd

I'm assuming that the "70mm full-coat" that Thau referred to in the following statement was the master for the 6-track.

"We grabbed the original 70mm full-coat that actually had the label from the Pinewood stage on it; it had a date of November 1978. We put it up in a dubbing stage. We had Dolby down there a couple times verifying that the set up on the Dolby units, the decoding, was correct."

He was certainly aware of the Dolby 6-track split surround:

"Superman was the first film that was originally recorded in a 70mm 6-track split surround but here's the rub that no one knows about but it's the truth. They mixed in split surrounds but they did not use the surrounds very much, especially in a stereo way because it was very new and they were very scared of it. At the last second, here in America, they brought it over to do some final mastering on the 70mm and they chickened out and the film was only released with mono surround in the 70mm format. So they mixed it for stereo surround, but it was never released that way and the fact is that there wasn't much difference anyway."

I’m still not sure why he says that it didn’t sound good. Maybe what they looked at was somehow an alternate version or there’s a significant difference in the split surround version versus the general release 70mm mono surround version.

Or who knows maybe by that point they were used to modern sound and wanted it to be as beefed up as a discrete 5.1 mix.

[MartinScorsesefan]

Originally Posted by Ruined

That's fine, the problem is the 2018 release has the 5.1 track married to the problematic video transfer. My point is, I'll take (and I think most would take) a release with a better video transfer that rectifies the video issues of the 2018 release + atmos track only any day of the week, regardless how good the 5.1 track is; all the tracks of course is best (atmos, 5.1, 2.0), but as you know that isn't always an option. I believe the Superman reboot comes out in 2025, so there will likely be a deluge of catalog releases leading up to or alongside that release where I assume we'll see this new video transfer on disc.

Been doing this too long to worry about which disc with the crappy video transfer sounds better when both will be irrelevant in short order.

How do you know this? There's no guarantee that a new transfer will be released any time in the near future. For all we know, this could be the last time Superman is ever released on physical format.

[punisher]

Originally Posted by KC-Technerd

I didn't ask when, I asked where, as in what theater, and I think you're missing the point. "Unfortunate" was only referring to the audio experience in theaters that were showing 35mm Dolby Stereo prints. If you saw it somewhere that was showing 70mm Dobly 6-track, then no wonder it looked and sounded great.

The following theaters in New York City had Superman in 70mm at the opening:

Murray Hill
Astor Plaza
Orpheum Twin

2 others had it later.

gotcha

nope none of those..

hey I found it!!

http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/16697

[KC-Technerd]

Originally Posted by punisher

gotcha

nope none of those..

hey I found it!!

http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/16697

Yeah, I think that would have been 35mm Dolby Stereo. I only saw it in the theater once, which I think was sometime in 1979, and don't remember what the sound was like. It wasn't a theater where I was expecting great sound. It was definitely 35mm Dolby Stereo because there were never any 70mm prints of "Superman" shown anywhere in my region.

With the different memories of the sound quality from 35mm Dolby Stereo theatrically, and from the Dolby Surround 2.0 on LaserDisc, I'm wondering if the Dolby Stereo/Surround in the theater and on the LD is the same as that which has been on the DVDs and Blu-rays. I have the pan&scan LD, but my player quit working some time ago, so I can't compare now.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by KC-Technerd

I didn't ask when, I asked where, as in what theater, and I think you're missing the point. "Unfortunate" was only referring to the audio experience in theaters that were showing 35mm Dolby Stereo prints. If you saw it somewhere that was showing 70mm Dobly 6-track, then no wonder it looked and sounded great.

The following theaters in New York City had Superman in 70mm at the opening:

Murray Hill
Astor Plaza
Orpheum Twin

2 others had it later.

But how many of those had the hardware to decode split surround channels? Nearly 100% of Superman 70mm showings (with the exception of showings to beta test prototype hardware) were in 4.1, because the theatrical hardware to decode 5.1 wasn't commercially available until 1979 - if you really want the theatrical 70mm configuration that was mixed for the intention of cinematic audiences (rather than mixed to test a format & its beta hardware) you'd want a 4.1 track.

[KC-Technerd]

Originally Posted by Ruined

But how many of those had the hardware to decode split surround channels? Nearly 100% of Superman 70mm showings (with the exception of showings to beta test prototype hardware) were in 4.1, because the theatrical hardware to decode 5.1 wasn't commercially available until 1979 - if you really want the theatrical 70mm configuration that was mixed for the intention of cinematic audiences (rather than mixed to test a format & its beta hardware) you'd want a 4.1 track.

Probably none. The only theater known to have the hardware (which was a prototype adapter) was the Northpoint in San Francisco. However the 4.1 should still have sounded quite good, rather than the flat experience that we're getting from the 2.0 on the DVDs and Blu-rays.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Ruined

But how many of those had the hardware to decode split surround channels? Nearly 100% of Superman 70mm showings (with the exception of showings to beta test prototype hardware) were in 4.1, because the theatrical hardware to decode 5.1 wasn't commercially available until 1979 - if you really want the theatrical 70mm configuration that was mixed for the intention of cinematic audiences (rather than mixed to test a format & its beta hardware) you'd want a 4.1 track.

You know the answer to that. There was one KNOWN, and several others not known.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by starmike

Maybe it's the time I grew up, but I really think that a lot of people here don't understand what it was like to figure out where you were going to see the next big movie based on which theater was playing it in 70mm.

I still have three years' worth of NY Times full-page ads of movie ads.

It's not quite the same thing, but I think there are some similarities today, with IMAX and other "premium large format" theaters. Also, there are some standard theaters in my area that I know are pretty reliable in terms of presentation, so I usually seek them out first.

But also, I grew up in a town with only three local theaters, all with hit or miss presentation standards, so I feel privileged now just living in a place in which I have multiple options.

And I think it's worth remembering that the quality of 35mm Dolby Stereo in the wild could vary greatly from print to print, theater to theater, and even week to week. Analog film and sound could wear out quickly, so even if you did have a solid master mix, by the time it reached your local theater, it might not have looked or sounded "right." Then add 30-40 years to that memory, and the fact that everyone perceives things a little differently, and things get a little conflated sometimes.

So it's difficult to point to one theatrical screening from 40 years ago and say with authority that THAT's the way it's supposed to be.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by KC-Technerd

Edit: I found Michael Thau's comments
<..snip..>

Regarding directional dialog: "It doesn't work that well and sounds strange. Stereo was kind of a new gadget and I think they were just playing with the new toy. Dialog is best kept in the center channel for clarity."

(Use of directional dialog in multi-channel movies went back to the beginning in the 1950s, although WB typically didn't use it.)

Originally Posted by captainsolo

I HATE it when people insist directional dialogue doesn't work or is bad and especially when they take it upon themselves to remove it from catalog titles. This happens frequently unfortunately. It was a common practice in roadshow films and when done right can be really immersive. It can also be gimmicky when done badly. Another reason for doing it was to spread the sound in the large theaters while using all five of the screen channels. Dolby was the big reason why directional dialogue was dropped as they didn't like it plus it interfered with their matrixed audio decoding. This is when the center channel took dominance over everything else.

I spoke to the audio engineer/producer who mixed video releases 2 decades ago, bringing up this point of why make the directional into mono center and was told the reason was most people had Stereos with speakers not far apart and small TVs (27" was big back then! ) with speakers on them or at their sides so there wouldn't be much separation anyway. (So it'd be moot).

I countered "Then more reason to! Even if the speakers are so close at least you'd get every little bit of stereo separation with that. And people that have their front stereo speakers set wider would get the full original effect."

Was told people might not like that because the TVs would have all the action in the center (the screen) with the sounds coming far left and right.

I said HT/video/cinema enthusiasts would want the original sound


and...

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Ruined

But how many of those had the hardware to decode split surround channels? Nearly 100% of Superman 70mm showings (with the exception of showings to beta test prototype hardware) were in 4.1, because the theatrical hardware to decode 5.1 wasn't commercially available until 1979 - if you really want the theatrical 70mm configuration that was mixed for the intention of cinematic audiences (rather than mixed to test a format & its beta hardware) you'd want a 4.1 track.

Or.. wouldn't you get it by specifying on your receiver you only have a mono surround speaker/disconecting the stereo surrounds into 1/using your 2 surrounds but with a switch/(etc., you get my drift)
when listening to the 2018UHD5.1™ ?

[Ben_UK]

Are we absolutely certain that the upcoming 4K release is simply just a repackage but minus the 70mm audio option?