834 Blood Simple

Discuss DVDs and Blu-rays released by Criterion and the films on them. If it's got a spine number, it's in here. Threads may contain spoilers.
Message
Author
User avatar
marqueeposter
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 11:57 am
Location: South Carolina, USA marqueeposter.com

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#26 Post by marqueeposter » Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:46 pm

PfR73 wrote:Disappointed. I had emailed Mulvaney when they teased this to let him know I hoped they'd include the theatrical cut in addition to the director's cut.
I first saw this (awesome) movie on DVD... does that mean I've only ever seen the director's cut? I found some brief discussions of differences online but it looked mostly like certain shots that got held a bit longer/shorter. Are there any major changes to the theatrical cut?

User avatar
PfR73
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:07 pm

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#27 Post by PfR73 » Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:07 pm

Yes, the theatrical cut has never been released on DVD or Blu-Ray. Because of this, I also have never gotten to see the theatrical cut, so I do not know all the specific differences. Someone else here may be able to describe them.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#28 Post by domino harvey » Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:29 pm

In the theatrical cut, the blood is quite complex

User avatar
swo17
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#29 Post by swo17 » Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:32 pm

Will you be here all night?

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:26 am
Location: East of Shanghai

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#30 Post by Lemmy Caution » Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:35 am

Maybe someone has more details on this, but one change was in the original theatrical release, Maurice the bartender says he's from Detroit -- you might have heard of it - a big city up north. Then proceeds to step over the bar put money in the juke box and the tune he selects is The Same Old Song by the Four Tops. Later this got replaced by a Monkees song (I believe -- Steppin' Stone?). Rights issue I assume.
But the 4 Tops tune jives with being from Detroit, and at least has some connection with the film, it's the same old noir with a different twist. A minor loss, but the Monkees tune seems rather random.

User avatar
marqueeposter
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 11:57 am
Location: South Carolina, USA marqueeposter.com

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#31 Post by marqueeposter » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:35 am

Lemmy Caution wrote:Maybe someone has more details on this, but one change was in the original theatrical release, Maurice the bartender says he's from Detroit -- you might have heard of it - a big city up north. Then proceeds to step over the bar put money in the juke box and the tune he selects is The Same Old Song by the Four Tops. Later this got replaced by a Monkees song (I believe -- Steppin' Stone?). Rights issue I assume.
But the 4 Tops tune jives with being from Detroit, and at least has some connection with the film, it's the same old noir with a different twist. A minor loss, but the Monkees tune seems rather random.


That's strange because I definitely remember that (same old) song. Here is a clip that includes it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3dXA0Vnzmo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe this DVD from 2001 is the first time I saw the movie... presumably this is the director's cut even though it doesn't state it on the cover?

Image

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#32 Post by Drucker » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:15 pm

Saw directors cut in 35mm last February and it had the Four Tops song.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#33 Post by cdnchris » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:45 pm

The Same Old Song was always the intended song. On VHS they had to switch out the song because of rights issues and were able to clear it for the DVD featuring the director's cut.

The song they originally replaced it with was I'm a Believer.

User avatar
JamesF
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:36 pm

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#34 Post by JamesF » Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:13 pm

The uncut theatrical version was released on DVD in the UK by Universal in 2001, but it's a pretty knackered, 4:3 master. Better than nothing though, and you can usually get it cheap. No extras except for a late-90s re-release trailer. Here's the DVD in question.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#35 Post by cdnchris » Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:38 pm

This here does a comparison: http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=3339071" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (It of course has spoilers)

The Coens mentioned in the Llewyn Davis interview on the Blu-ray that they re-edited the film because they were horrified by the rough editing after seeing it at a screening. According to that link the Detroit bit and then a 51-second portion of the scene at Maurice's apartment are the biggest trims (that seems to total about 80-seconds for both sequences). The rest looks like they were trimming down shots that they felt lasted too long (2 seconds here, 5-seconds there) but then also extended some other shots, particularly at the end, or even replaced shots with others (like the field burying scene).

User avatar
The Narrator Returns
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#36 Post by The Narrator Returns » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:10 pm

The HighDefDigest review suggests that the 5.1 mix has a lot of obvious, phony-sounding new Foley effects. Chris, did you notice this?

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#37 Post by cdnchris » Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:32 pm

Sort of, I guess.

I don't like reading other reviews before I'm done going through everything so I'm replying without reading what they're saying, so hopefully you'll excuse me and forgive me if I'm not really answering the question. I don't have my notes but I remember some effects coming off flat and the opening being a bit weird, so I guess the term "phony-sounding" would apply. I was going to compare to the MGM Blu-ray tonight or tomorrow since I wasn't able to this past weekend, but I recall this being the case with that one as well (but again I have to double-check) and I guess I was just thinking a limitation of a indie production. But I can't say anything really stood out to me or bothered me more than I would have expected, but that reviewer could also be far more sensitive to audio.

When you say they say "new Foley" effects, is the review suggesting that new material was recorded for the track, or just that the existing material was remixed? I recall the notes in the insert only mentioning that Lievsay supervised the new 5.1 track, not that he did a complete overhaul of it or recorded new material for it (though, of course, that could be one of the things he did). Lievsay has an interview on here, though, that I still have to watch so maybe he mentions something in there.

It's actually not a very aggressive 5.1 track, in the end. Burwell's music is probably the only thing that makes real use of the surrounds and I thought it sounded rather good, mixed very well. I recall everything else sticking mostly to the front and surround activity was otherwise minimal, with only a few moments that spread out a bit more, and I found the bass to be mostly decent. Also, I don't recall dialogue being drowned out or anything of the sort. I'm usually not big on 5.1 remixes but this one didn't bug me all that much.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#38 Post by tenia » Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:37 pm

Quoting the review : "new sounds and recordings of Foley effects had to be made in order to make this new codec"

So to them, it's not only a new remix, but actually a full recreation. I would actually be quite surprised if this turns out to be true.

User avatar
Minkin
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#39 Post by Minkin » Tue Sep 13, 2016 5:58 am


User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#40 Post by cdnchris » Tue Sep 13, 2016 11:38 am

tenia wrote:Quoting the review : "new sounds and recordings of Foley effects had to be made in order to make this new codec"

So to them, it's not only a new remix, but actually a full recreation. I would actually be quite surprised if this turns out to be true.
I'm not sure where he's getting that idea in all honesty if that is the case. I compared some scenes to the MGM Blu-ray (couldn't find the Universal DVD so couldn't compare that) and the sound design doesn't sound any different, excluding the mix I should add. The quality of the effects are about the same as well (though I think the scene where the semi passes Getz on the road probably sounds louder on the MGM, but it's a mild difference). I'm pretty sure it's not a new one.

I think the Criterion track is sharper overall, though. And the mixing isn't bad. The opening narration, which has what I assume are the sounds of the oil pumps going in the background, stood out to me at first, but they're not so different on the MGM disc, the Criterion just seems to take more advantage of the discrete channels, including bass. During the opening credits, when the cars are driving by, on MGM's 2.0 track it sounds like the cars are passing by but the rears are working in unison, while on the Criterion the sound is directed more to the left front and rear channels. But the effects themselves sound the same, or close enough where I can't discern a difference.

I also looked at a couple of bar scenes, the bug zapper scene (where the bass is a little heavier for the dumpster fire on the Criterion but it's controlled and not overbearing), the newspaper hitting the door bit, and the film's climax and again, they sound close, again the mix is just a bit different. The quality of the effects sounds about the same, nothing stood out, but I still think the Criterion is sharper and clearer overall. The mix is also pretty good, but not showy (only when it needs to be), and it doesn't drown out dialogue.

So, in conclusion, I guess I'm not sure what they're referring to or how they got an idea an entirely new track was made. I actually like it, a lot.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#41 Post by tenia » Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:49 pm

I don't have the MGM BD (and am now pretty much sure I won't need to buy it) so this comparison is very appreciated !

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#42 Post by cdnchris » Tue Sep 13, 2016 1:10 pm

So now I've read that review and I'm still unsure of what he's pointing out. And I'm also a bit confused because he's saying the dialogue is muddled but I certainly didn't find that at all. He's also saying the soundfield is artificial, I'm assuming he means that the mix doesn't sound natural, but I honestly don't think it's all that different from the 2.0 surround track, again it's just making more use of having discrete channels to work with, has better direction, and I thought the mix was fine. I guess it is more front heavy as he says, but there is still subtle activity in the back speakers and I thought the bass was fine. Also, is he saying the original was a straight-up stereo (as in just made use of the front speakers) track?

I also see Svet doesn't mention anything.

If that reviewer is sensitive to audio then I guess maybe they just noticed something I don't: I've admitted many times that when it comes to audio I'm not the strongest, but I really don't hear anything wrong with it.

User avatar
Moshrom
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 2:53 am
Location: Canada

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#43 Post by Moshrom » Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:20 pm

I've compared the two mixes quite extensively, and there are definitely no new Foley effects.

Well, there's actually one. At 01:11:27 on the Criterion disc, there's now the sound of breaking glass which isn't present in the original mix. Here, the original mix has a small 'thump', which sounds like a bad edit. It's possible that the glass was added to conceal this, which would have been the easiest thing to do given the other sounds also occurring at the same time. Or perhaps it was a creative decision -- to use the glass to mark the introduction of the next scene, which it now does pretty effectively.

It's certainly a noticeable sound, but definitely not one anyone would ever notice unless switching back and forth between the two mixes repeatedly.

Other than that, the two mixes generally differ only in channel activity (of course) and fidelity. The new mix has a lot more low-end power, while the stereo mix is brighter, tinnier, and more '80s-sounding (but still an excellent mix itself). I imagine the main reason it was remixed at all was to allow for these improvements in fidelity.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#44 Post by cdnchris » Mon Sep 19, 2016 2:55 pm

Online feature about storyboarding the film.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#45 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Fri Dec 30, 2016 5:58 pm

I'd never seen this until watching this and the special features on FilmStruck. Like so many other first efforts from directors who went on to do greater things, you can see the germ or seed of things that would be employed later in their movies. So much of their interests and recurring themes laid bare for the viewer. I'm not the biggest Coen Bros. fan but I also haven't seen anything of theirs that I disliked either. This certainly ranks higher than I expected it to.

I've had the piano theme stuck in my head since watching it.

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#46 Post by FrauBlucher » Sun Jul 14, 2019 5:33 pm

I got a chance to watch the supplements. While I enjoyed the interviews with the actors and the sound and score guys, I didn’t care for the extra with Barry Sonnenfeld. I don’t find it interesting when all the little imperfections are discussed and what they would do differently. Sonnenfeld seemed to almost complain about everything. Would’ve, could’ve, should’ve is quite boring and lazy.

I find it interesting that directors still living prefer their disc supplements with more technical discussions, while the directors no longer with us get a more scholarly approach with analysis on their films which is what I enjoy more. Scorsese is one of the few who doesn’t mind talking in analytical terms

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: 834 Blood Simple

#47 Post by Ribs » Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:20 pm

The Coens generally don’t like to discuss in any detail anything but their most recent film at any given time. I don’t think they’re alone in this approach.

Post Reply