Much like with Aladdin, until I see a film cell/strip with a DD track, I say there was no theatrical Dolby Digital mix.

This is the logo from the credits:


It's the same one from Shawshank Redemption that people have debated on weather it means there was a 5.1 mix or just Dolby Stereo (and I don't believe we ever got a definitive answer on that one either).

Pulp Fiction had a "triple inventory"

From what I know, the SRD prints were very very limited. A lot of films during those days had dual/triple inventories. Wasn't until much later in the 90s that you started seeing single inventory prints. Even as late as 1995, Batman Forever had a dual inventory of SDDS/A and SRD/SR.

Why would they need to create a new 5.1 mix from the stems if a theatrical 5.1 mix already existed? Isn't it widely accepted that most DD-era LD 5.1 tracks were just straight ports from the original SRD mixes?

That's a really good question. I'm wondering if that element was damaged, misplaced, or something. I'm also wondering if, given that it was a small time Mirimax film and not a huge studio picture, that the SRD track was merely an up mix of the SR master just to get the thing out the door, with a true 5.1 mix coming out years later on the LDs.

(2024-01-30, 03:52 PM)stwd4nder2 Wrote: This is the logo from the credits:

It's the same one from Shawshank Redemption that people have debated on weather it means there was a 5.1 mix or just Dolby Stereo (and I don't believe we ever got a definitive answer on that one either).

As far as I was aware, they are the same thing with different names/logos. Dolby Stereo Digital was just what they called 5.1 until they changed the name to Dolby Digital in 1995. Are there examples of movies that had the Dolby Stereo Digital logo but no 5.1 mixes ever existed? What's up for debate?

(2024-01-31, 01:51 AM)Yarp Wrote:

(2024-01-30, 03:52 PM)stwd4nder2 Wrote: This is the logo from the credits:

It's the same one from Shawshank Redemption that people have debated on weather it means there was a 5.1 mix or just Dolby Stereo (and I don't believe we ever got a definitive answer on that one either).

As far as I was aware, they are the same thing with different names/logos. Dolby Stereo Digital was just what they called 5.1 until they changed the name to Dolby Digital in 1995.

I believe this is correct.

And the early DD 5.1 films (e.g. Batman Returns, Under Siege) weren't labelled as such at all. 

Just Dolby Stereo, even on the posters.

DTS 5.1 films were always properly credited.

(2024-01-30, 09:23 PM)Turisu Wrote: Why would they need to create a new 5.1 mix from the stems if a theatrical 5.1 mix already existed?

(2024-01-30, 09:52 PM)borisanddoris Wrote: That's a really good question. I'm wondering if that element was damaged, misplaced, or something. I'm also wondering if, given that it was a small time Mirimax film and not a huge studio picture, that the SRD track was merely an up mix of the SR master just to get the thing out the door, with a true 5.1 mix coming out years later on the LDs.

If we assume the DTS 5.1 is theatrical, which is of course only a guess, I would assume it's because it's basically a 4.0 mix with a tiny bit of tinkering. If Criterion did the remix in house, it's not a sure fire thing that they would've sent it off to Miramax for later distribution, to end up on the DTS LD. (Though again, I do wonder if they did eventually do so, and that's what we got on the BD)

I read the blurb from the Criterion LD as meaning the digital PCM track was based off the SR master but the 5.1 AC-3 was from the original mixing stems (and is a home near-field mix).
It's easy to say the theatrical 5.1 might 'only' be 4.0 but having discrete channels can make all the difference vs matrixed, you get extra spread and phantom channels and can really open up the soundstage

(2024-01-31, 09:24 AM)zoidberg Wrote: It's easy to say the theatrical 5.1 might 'only' be 4.0 but having discrete channels can make all the difference vs matrixed, you get extra spread and phantom channels and can really open up the soundstage

I was merely stating a fact. I didn't mean it as a knock against the mix.