House: Two Stories (1986-1987) (Limited Edition)

[TripleHBK]

Originally Posted by Salarian

They better have a DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio. I'll be pissed if this is in 2.0.

I feel like you should prepare to be pissed then. Arrow has made it a point to only include original theatrical audio on their releases and both House and House II originally had a mono mix (if IMDB is to be believed).

[Grifter02]

Originally Posted by Salarian

They better have a DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio. I'll be pissed if this is in 2.0.

Why? The original sounds mixes are mono. I'll be pissed if they don't have the original audio.

I never understand why people want the video to be restored to how it looked originally, but they complain if the audio is in it's original form.

Like if a movie gets a new teal colour palette it's an unforgivable sin, but if mono is spread out to fake surround you cheer about it. Why is one change acceptable and not the other?

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by TripleHBK

I feel like you should prepare to be pissed then. Arrow has made it a point to only include original theatrical audio on their releases and both House and House II originally had a mono mix (if IMDB is to be believed).

Not entirely true. Arrow was more than happy to give us 2.0 stereo and 5.1 mixes of Creepshow 2, which was originally in mono. Granted, Arrow did not create those tracks, but they had access to them and used them.

As for the House films, I don't think they've ever had anything but mono mixes on home video. So expect more of the same.

[ambient_indie]

One of the many reasons I love Arrow (and Criterion too for the most part)
Original audio!


It's an absolute rarity.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

Not entirely true. Arrow was more than happy to give us 2.0 stereo and 5.1 mixes of Creepshow 2, which was originally in mono. Granted, Arrow did not create those tracks, but they had access to them and used them.

Yes, they throw in the remixes when they have cheap and easy access to them, unlike Criterion. However they do focus on the original audio, as they should. As said above, it baffles me why people care about the video matching the original theatrical exhibition but then crave only revisionist remixed audio.

[diceman89]

I'm torn between getting the American release or the British release, which contains the 3rd and 4th films. I've only seen the first, which I liked, but can anyone tell me if the last two are worth it?

[ParkerAL]

Originally Posted by diceman89

I'm torn between getting the American release or the British release, which contains the 3rd and 4th films. I've only seen the first, which I liked, but can anyone tell me if the last two are worth it?

The third and fourth ones don't amount to much. You could probably get by watching the reviews I linked to and end up more entertained.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by diceman89

I'm torn between getting the American release or the British release, which contains the 3rd and 4th films. I've only seen the first, which I liked, but can anyone tell me if the last two are worth it?

The third is available here under it's real name from Shout, and the fourth looks like excrement. However the UK version of the third will likely be uncensored, which I believe cannot be said about the Shout.

[Zillamon51]

Preordered from Amazon @ $42.99. Though if it doesn't drop by about $10 by release, I may cancel. Too many of these weird old movies cost too much. I have to cut back, and make due with the DVDs.

[Mayormccheese85]

Originally Posted by Zillamon51

Preordered from Amazon @ $42.99. Though if it doesn't drop by about $10 by release, I may cancel. Too many of these weird old movies cost too much. I have to cut back, and make due with the DVDs.

Me too. Maybe Barnes and Noble will have a sale too.

[Cujo]

Originally Posted by diceman89

I'm torn between getting the American release or the British release, which contains the 3rd and 4th films. I've only seen the first, which I liked, but can anyone tell me if the last two are worth it?

IV is the best of the series for me and the only one I've been actively wanting. I do fear it'll likely be the same slightly trimmed version released on UK DVD, though, as the commentary is the same and Arrow didn't answer questions about it being uncut. If you like Wes Craven's Shocker, III has a similar premise and is more enjoyable. As always, there's no accounting for taste, so you may be better off checking them out before buying. There's always YouTube.

[Optimus-Prime-Rox]

Is it 3 or 4 that brings back William Katt in an alternate role to the one he played in the original House movie? Does House 4 also go by a different name which is The Horror Show?

[Mpmarks1975]

3 is the horror show, 4 William Katt plays Roger Cobb but no actual link to the 1st film.

[TripleHBK]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Yes, they throw in the remixes when they have cheap and easy access to them, unlike Criterion. However they do focus on the original audio, as they should. As said above, it baffles me why people care about the video matching the original theatrical exhibition but then crave only revisionist remixed audio.

I know I've had this conversation with folks before (possibly even you) but the best argument as to why I like to have remixed audio tracks included is because I feel like the video/image captured during filming was never really subject to the technology of the time. As we've found, film is a remarkable medium capable of detail and quality that we are only now starting to see rivaled by a digital alternative. Conversely, audio was no where near the technological level that it is today when many of these films were created. I feel like in many instances had film makers had the option to create surround sound mixes with their films they would have done so, however because of the limitations at the time of filming they made do with what they had. It's because of this that I feel like yes, original audio should always be included, but so should full fledged surround mixes as supervised by the director/audio engineers (if they feel it would be appropriate), as available to create an experience closer to what they would have envisioned originally but unable to create.

I don't consider audio remixes that simply create new channels to be revisionist. The world doesn't operate in mono or stereo nor should films be confined to such expectations because of technological limitations of the time if the original intent was for a film to be all encompassing. With that said, not all directors may want surround sound for their films, and that's perfectly fine. I respect artistic vision and integrity and wouldn't want to see things modernized "just because"... adding/replacing sound effects and/or altering existing effects is different than simply taking what was captured during filming and using modern technology to build a new sound field using the existing data.

I do want to be clear that original audio options should always be included, so I am not arguing that a mono/stereo track should be discarded to make room for a new 5.1/7.1 track. However I think there is a case that can be made for modern mixes on older films when created with respect and following original vision/intent.

[StingingVelvet]

I'm not sure any of those arguments really work for me, because I see it more as wanting to recreate that original theatrical exhibition in the home. I want the movie as it was the day it came out, no matter what technology standards were or what real life is like, ya know? I hate early CGI but still wouldn't want early CGI redone, because that's how the movie was made.

I don't look down on anything who thinks otherwise though, I'm just confused when they seem like purists in other areas but then want everything in Atmos.

[TripleHBK]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I'm not sure any of those arguments really work for me, because I see it more as wanting to recreate that original theatrical exhibition in the home. I want the movie as it was the day it came out, no matter what technology standards were or what real life is like, ya know? I hate early CGI but still wouldn't want early CGI redone, because that's how the movie was made.

I don't look down on anything who thinks otherwise though, I'm just confused when they seem like purists in other areas but then want everything in Atmos.

I completely respect your opinion on this and to be honest with each passing year I find myself more and more in the camp of "as long as it has the original sound mix, who cares?" Still, on rare occasions there are films that I feel benefit from well done remixed surround tracks. The CGI example is solid and one I hadn't thought a whole lot about in the context of this discussion. I'll admit, my first thought when you made that example was that you are 100% correct and immediately thought of "The Lawnmower Man" and what a different film that would be if they decided to re-do any of the CGI in that film.

[cakefactory]

I haven't seen that in many years, but jesus, is that second gif really in there?! I remember plenty like the first one and the bad flying scenes, but yikes, lawnmower mouth man is bad news!

[TripleHBK]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

I haven't seen that in many years, but jesus, is that second gif really in there?! I remember plenty like the first one and the bad flying scenes, but yikes, lawnmower mouth man is bad news!

Haha yeah it's in there... it's brief, but it's there.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by TripleHBK

I completely respect your opinion on this and to be honest with each passing year I find myself more and more in the camp of "as long as it has the original sound mix, who cares?" Still, on rare occasions there are films that I feel benefit from well done remixed surround tracks. The CGI example is solid and one I hadn't thought a whole lot about in the context of this discussion. I'll admit, my first thought when you made that example was that you are 100% correct and immediately thought of "The Lawnmower Man" and what a different film that would be if they decided to re-do any of the CGI in that film.

Word. I think we can all try to reach a happy medium. Keep purism in mind but bend and stretch where it's important to you. I just had that debate with Geoff elsewhere and pointed out how I use a higher backlight to make movies brighter than they are in the theater, and since I use headphones to not wake the wife I watch a lot of modern surround sound movies in stereo. So I am not super purist guy either.

All I ask is the original mono or stereo mixes be included really, and then people can make the best decision for them. So we agree really.

[Wildcat2000]

Ok I'm a new user. First post.

This is one of my favorite movies (the first) and I wanted ask how limited are limited edition BluRays/DVDs typically? Do I really need to pre-order?

I kinda wanted to wait and see what exactly the bonus book is. If I wait till March am I really risking not being able to get one?

I've never preordered anything. It usually seems there's enough of whatever it is. Is "limited" just another way of saying special edition?