quote:
It's listed on the Dolby Web Site now as Surround EX.
The film lists that Dolby Labs have maintained over the years (both Web and the print versions they used to make available) have been and continue to be a huge headache, in my opinion. They simply are not maintained with an acceptable degree of accuracy, which reduces their usefulness (regardless of whether the use of the information is trivial, conversational, practical, or historical). The information included in these lists is discussed so often on forums such as this one that it is important that they be maintained better. It is frustrating to observe the frequency in which incorrect, incomplete, or conflicting information is discussed or used on the Internet and in print publications.
In Dolby's defense, however, communication between a film's post-production personnel, the distributor, and Dolby often isn't very good, and this contributes to how the data is compiled. In addition (which is possibly the case with something such as "Blade 2"), post-production schedules these days are often being crunched so much that the time between completing the film and getting prints into theaters has never been shorter. The decision to mix "Blade 2," or any movie, in EX is often made late in post-production and by then, advertising and other materials have already been prepared. This may explain why Dolby only recently added "Blade 2" onto their EX list.
As some of you on this forum may know, I've compiled a considerable amount of data on theatrical and consumer presentation formats for various publications and my own personal use. It can be very frustrating trying to obtain what you would think would be first-hand information directly from the source. Take "70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo" releases from the late-'70s and into the early-'90s, for instance. The Dolby list was marred with so much head-scratching info that at a certain point you just want to give up referencing info from it. Titles likely not mixed in six-track or not released with 70mm prints...titles mixed in six-track whose distributor cancelled plans to release 70mm prints...titles most definitely released with 70mm prints not identified as such on the list..."A" vs. "SR" discrepancies...single-surround vs. split surround confusion... It goes on and on. Same thing with Dolby Digital (aka: SR•D) titles, particularly in the first couple years of the format. (Dolby have partially solved the 70mm situation by no longer including such notations on their Web listings, creating the impression, to me anyway, that that portion of film exhibition history never happened.)
"The Mexican" and "Along Came A Spider" are two titles that may have been mixed in EX, though I've not been able to confirm (any projectionists recall handling prints of those?). Both titles have appeared and disappeared from some of the listings issued by either Dolby or DTS. There may be other "unofficial" EX mixes, as well. "Hollow Man" was an unofficial EX mix, at least initially. I learned from a colleague who spoke to the re-recording mixing team of that production that the film was mixed with extra back surround channel content. It was added to Dolby's EX list at some point after its release.
There is also the issue of films remixed in EX solely for a DVD release. Which applies to this thread since the current Dolby Web site list often referred to in these forum posts includes notations for both theatrical and DVD versions. Anchor Bay Entertainment, for instance, has remixed many films in Dolby Digital Surround EX (and in some cases DTS-ES Discrete 6.1), none of which appear on Dolby's list. A few reported DVD remixes from Fox, New Line, and Warner do appear on the current Dolby Web list, however.
To confuse matters further, both "The Tailor Of Panama" and "Beethoven's 4th" have a "Dolby Digital Surround EX" logo in their end credits. I've never seen either of them identified anywhere as being EX films, and I suppose the credit could have simply been an oversight during the preparation of the credits sequence at the facility that handled the titles. But then, maybe not. I guess soundtrack credits are used "incorrectly" or, I should say, misleadingly, about as often as photographic process credits are.
Home
Topic Closed
posted 03-08-2002 05:13 PM
Printer-friendly view of this topic