First Blood / Rambo: First Blood Part II / Rambo III 4K UHDs (1982-1988)

[indisposed]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

Only Part II is misframed.

The three of them were misframed, but First Blood Part II was the most obvious.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Eh, people aren't asking what's better, they're asking what's the original. As with Atmos, just because it got remixed into 6-track doesn't mean it's the be all and end all of how the movie should sound. A 35mm Lt/Rt mix is just as "original" as your 70mm mix. One or the other is fine by me but I can't stand the way that you sweep the 35mm mixes under the carpet - then again I should really be used to it by now.

If a film was shot in IMAX then you want to see it & framed in IMAX.

How is this different?

[x5gb]

Originally Posted by indisposed

The three of them were misframed, but First Blood Part II was the most obvious.

+1, all misframed to varying degrees.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

If a film was shot in IMAX then you want to see it & framed in IMAX.

How is this different?

Eh, I can go either way with IMAX: depends if it's being used as glorified open matte just to snag a few more $$$ or as a genuine means of artistic expression. The deck is overwhelmingly stacked to the former, especially now we've reached peak bullshit with the "first movie shot entirely in IMAX!".

What a handful of people saw in a 'premium' setting DOESN'T invalidate the other versions, and that's as true now as it was then. What you like is what you like, I'm not arguing that, it's your obsession with shitting all over 35mm mixes whenever anyone dares call them "originals" that I find bizarre. I wouldn't necessarily want a movie transferred to video from a 70mm print rather than the 35mm original either...

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I wouldn't necessarily want a movie transferred to video from a 70mm print rather than the 35mm original either...

I wouldn't want any movie transferred from a print.
In any case the 70MM mix was usually done first or simultaneously with the 35MM and meant to be the best version.
35MM versions always had compromises in dynamic range, imaging (to remain mono compatible), and frequency response in the surrounds - they were mastered with Dolby-A optical in mind.
70MM SR had more dynamic headroom than 16-bit digital - the folks at Skywalker talked about Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade 70MM master peaking past the digital mastering.
So yes, in a movie with a lot of gunfire and explosions its probably best to use the 70MM masters and I don't understand why people think the 2.0 version is best - it's a "pan & scan" of the audio and a compromised mix made for the limited playback of most theaters of the time.

[Geoff D]

So? It's not about some arbitrary notion of something being the best, that's not what people are asking for, it's about getting an original mix and any reasonable person would be over the ****ing moon with a 35mm original instead of having you crapping over them at every turn.

[Noremac Mij]

70mm mixes always sounded better. Aliens in 70mm is insane! That bass!But Geoff is right, 35mm mixes are just as original. I’d settle for either, but given the choice, 70mm would be glorious.

[Geoff D]

Absolutely, I'd never kick a 70mm mix out of bed. But if it was a choice between modern remixed audio and a 35mm original then I'd still gratefully accept the latter and say 'please sir may I have another' instead of dismissing it as some sort of bastardised offshoot just because my standards are way too ****ing high.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Absolutely, I'd never kick a 70mm mix out of bed. But if it was a choice between modern remixed audio and a 35mm original then I'd still gratefully accept the latter and say 'please sir may I have another' instead of dismissing it as some sort of bastardised offshoot just because my standards are way too ****ing high.

Well when it comes to audio you don't really care now, you're playing it on a basic stereo setup, no? So of course a discrete multichannel master as the source wouldn't benefit your setup.


And I don't "crap" on anyone, you're taking it that way. I'm just pointing out the 70MM *original* should be the go to and not 35MM.

[Geoff D]

I've still got 5.1 with a Denon AVR, it just don't get used much. Nice try at deflecting the issue but it's not about what "benefits" me either way, I'm making the point that I'd never cry about having a 35mm OG mix included on whatever disc, even if there was a 70 available and I had the best damned sound system in the world. Why? Because that's still better that having than some wholly bastardised remix and no OG at all...but then you don't care about that either, do you? Not if Terminator's remix is any indication.

[Noremac Mij]

The actual fidelity of The Terminator’s remix is fantastic. It’s significantly superior with much wider dynamic range than the original track. But I can understand hating the revisionism part.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Because that's still better that having than some wholly bastardised remix and no OG at all...but then you don't care about that either, do you? Not if Terminator's remix is any indication.

That's not true either.
I'm willing to bet the reason Rambo's mix sounds terrible is that they used the 2.0 version as the basis for the 5.1 remix! They've done that many, many times in the past because it would actually cost them some money to get the best possible elements. Even with the major studios who have recently started to go back and get 70MM mixes correctly like with Superman, West Side Story, 2001 and Grease.

[Geoff D]

Yes, but two of those were shot on 65mm anyway so 6-track IS their native mix. As for Grease I went to the trouble of ripping the Dolby Stereo audio from an old VHS and syncing it up to the previous Blu-ray so I'd have been happy as a clam with the 35mm mix on the new edition, that it's 70mm is even betterer.

As for Rambo, it's more that StudioCanal are just generally incompetent. Lt/Rt mixes don't collapse everything into the centre and you well know it, it's amazing to me how athletic they can actually be when decoded using a surround DCP. Bear in mind that SC also badly misframed the movies during the last bout of remastering so when it comes to how they handled the audio I wouldn't be so quick to point the blame at the source...

[DMRI2006]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I'm willing to bet the reason Rambo's mix sounds terrible is that they used the 2.0 version as the basis for the 5.1 remix!

Have you actually heard the 5.1 RAMBO II remix? That makes no sense whatsoever.

The 2.0 track employs the entire sound field as it should when played back in surround. There are all kinds of directional effects in the movie, in the front channels and the back, and they're gone from the 5.1 track.

The 5.1 track has almost no surround activity whatsoever. And many instances of l/r front stereo panning are mostly gone, also funneled into the center channel for no good reason.

It's a completely botched track -- if you bounce from one to the other, which you can on the Studio Canal Blu-Ray, it's striking. The 5.1 basically compresses the entire sound field into the center channel, as if its entire dynamic range was wiped out. Anyway I'd take up that bet with you! lol

They've done that many, many times in the past because it would actually cost them some money to get the best possible elements. Even with the major studios who have recently started to go back and get 70MM mixes correctly like with Superman, West Side Story, 2001 and Grease.

All they needed to do was put the 2.0 DTS tracks from the Studio Canal Blu-Rays on there. Wouldn't have cost them a dime to do it.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by DMRI2006

Have you actually heard the 5.1 RAMBO II remix? That makes no sense whatsoever.

It makes perfect sense because using the 2.0 and poorly spreading it to "5.1", rather than using a DISCRETE source would account for all the imaging problems you mention here.

[Geoff D]

But who says that the mixers are even using the matrixed source for the remix? The LCRS channels exist as separate stems or whatever prior to being run through a surround matrix which is why we've got discs with discrete 4.0 mixes on them like Predator. Those in themselves are rare to have on disc, sure, but when they put an original 35mm mix onto disc it's easier just to pull the 2.0 rather than rebuild the 4.0 using the stems.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But who says that the mixers are even using the matrixed source for the remix? The LCRS channels exist as separate stems or whatever prior to being run through a surround matrix which is why we've got discs with discrete 4.0 mixes on them like Predator. Those in themselves are rare to have on disc, sure, but when they put an original 35mm mix onto disc it's easier just to pull the 2.0 rather than rebuild the 4.0 using the stems.

If they had access to those stems. With Carolco going out of business who knows where some of those elements are. It took them 25 years to find the music recordings (the three channel music stems) for Rambo II. Fox takes care of their stuff at least and that's why they often have multiple audio options on their catalog material.

[Geoff D]

Carolco going out of business + StudioCanal's general incompetence = what we got

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Carolco going out of business + StudioCanal's general incompetence = what we got

Carolco: "Cutthroat Island" is gonna pay off.

[Darthbooth1978]

Originally Posted by foxborough

I went the WOWHD route at £14 each and cancelled my UK order in the end.

Have you ordered from WOWHD before? I’m looking to order these through them, but noticed they charge a sales tax to the UK? With this and import charges, it may end up being a false economy (even with free shipping).