Does 'Remastering' irritate you?

[Hunter65416]

For me it really annoys me when they do it to music,I just bought 'The Beatles 1' and was completly pissed when i noticed all the songs had been altered, not lyrically but they just put they put in effects and echos and stuff like that and i liked the way they sounded before. In movies and games it only annoys me if they alter the plot or dialog, im completly ok with improved special effects and stuff like that.

 

[Kvaedi]

Greedo didn't shoot first. I don't care what you say, Lucas, as hard as you may try you cannot rip the memory out of my head, no matter how much you change 'your' movies.

Remastering music doesn't affect me that much, since I listen to mostly metal. It just doesn't happen, because there's no one interested in remastering a bunch of Deicide albums, and there's no desire for anyone to in the first place. Closest thing that affects me would be annoying voice overs in some songs I downloaded off of Amazon I think...every thirty seconds the music cuts out... "You are now listening to..." GAAAH. NEVER AGAIN.

 

[SckizoBoy]

No... not really... it's the price-tag they put on the re-release that irritates me...

Though replacing Sebastian Shaw with Hayden Christensen in the 2004 release of SW pissed me the hell off... I make that point irrespective of whether it was a 'remastered' version...

 

[Death_Korps_Kommissar]

In terms of music, I dont mind it (except the price tag) as some albums would deem classics of a bands back catalog, I cannot stand because the quality is awful.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

In movies and games it only annoys me if they alter the plot or dialog, im completly ok with improved special effects and stuff like that.

ya, that's not what remastering is.

remastering only affect the quality/fidelity of the content, it doesn't change the content itself. it's mostly used to correct defects that were added trough older processing methods, things like washed out colours in films or hiss on audio tapes.

what you're describing is a new edit.

 

[Valanthe]

In movies and games it only annoys me if they alter the plot or dialog, im completly ok with improved special effects and stuff like that.

ya, that's not what remastering is.

remastering only affect the quality/fidelity of the content, it doesn't change the content itself. it's mostly used to correct defects that were added trough older processing methods, things like washed out colours in films or hiss on audio tapes.

what you're describing is a new edit.

Tell that to Lucas, I can see my special "Remastered" edition of the Star Wars trilogy from here.

On topic, I don't mind proper remastering, to use Lucas, making the Rancor look a little smoother, or getting rid of the see through snow fighters, those are changes I can get behind, they improve the exerience. But making Greedo shoot first, or giving Boba Fett that awful voice, that's just pointless and while it doesn't 'ruin' the experience, it certainly degrades it.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

Tell that to Lucas, I can see my special "Remastered" edition of the Star Wars trilogy from here.

you mean the ones labeled "special edition"?

i think the problem here is that remastering is often combined with a re-edit or complete overhaul of post-production.

but again, the issues everyone here is mentioning have nothing to do with the remastering itself.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

It depends. I know that's not a good answer, but remastering can vary a ton. Megadeth's remastered version of Rust In Peace actually sounds really good to me, whereas things like altering the Beatles' classic sounds just come across as change for its own sake. Similarly with movies. I don't mind Lucas touching up some of the explosions and ships in Star Wars, but outright altering scenes or adding CGI wampas and stuff ruins the immersion for me.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Cleaning up the picture? Nope, doesn't bother me.

When the film is actually altered? I'm usually against that.

However, if there's going to be a new cut, such as a director's cut, and that involves adding scenes or clips that were recorded but unused, I'm generally okay with that.

Example from Star Wars: the scene added in the Special Addition of A New Hope when Han talks with Jabba. I think it adds a little something to the Han/Jabba dynamic when we see their discource here as opposed to not seeing Jabba until Return of the Jedi. And adding this scene doesn't really detract from the rest of the movie in a significant way.

On the other hand, if an original scene is strongly altered from the original, for no compelling reason other than "the producer wanted to," that's just silly.

Another example from Star Wars: There was no good reason to add Hayden Christensen's ghost to the end of Return of the Jedi, or add a Jar-Jar cheer of "Wee-sa free!" to the end of Return of the Jedi, or to give Sarlacc a beaked mouth, or to go out of the way to make it look like Han shot first.

Also, the "morning report" song added into The Lion King just sucks.

 

[Something Amyss]

For me it really annoys me when they do it to music,I just bought 'The Beatles 1' and was completly pissed when i noticed all the songs had been altered, not lyrically but they just put they put in effects and echos and stuff like that and i liked the way they sounded before. In movies and games it only annoys me if they alter the plot or dialog, im completly ok with improved special effects and stuff like that.

So you're asking about remastering, but describing something different.

i didn't know they had changed the songs for 1. This is the first I've heard of it, and my dad's a huge Beatles nerd. Not saying you're wrong, just saying that's how weird it is to be unaware. But that's not a process of remastering. at least, not inherently. There are exceptions. "The Who Sings My Generation" was remastered from stereo and some of the takes used on the original album couldn't be found, so they used other source material. But most of the Who remasters are quite excellent and the original content is faithful.

That being said, I like alternate versions of songs provided they don't try and replace the originals. I don't like it when they try and swap stuff in, but that again is not remastering.

So I have answered the question. Just wanted to make sure we were clear on what remastering is. Or more aptly, what it is not.

 

[ZeroMachine]

Sometimes it's awesome.

Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary's remastered graphics, music, and sound effects were, for the most part, awesome (the new Rock Anthem to Save the World sucks and the Flood look too plant like, though.)

Then you have Hayden Christensen being at the end of Return of the Jedi.

It all depends, really. Perspective is everything.

 

[Wintermoot]

if it,s done right
George Lucas does it bad a Storm Trooper shot on 70,s film riding a CGI monster looks bad
if you replace/splice in new footage next to old it can work (like the Zeta Gundam New Translation movies)

 

[Alluos]

In music I mostly don't mind, specifically when in the old versions the drums/bass will solely come out of the left head-phone and the guitar/vocals/whatever would be out the other, it's not a problem when listening to it out of a speaker but when wearing head-phones the most soothing music can give you head-aches.

 

[The White Hunter]

Good remaster or not?

A fine example is the 2010 remastered edition of NIN's Pretty Hate Machine, which is absolutely fantastic and instantly you can tell he improved the quality by a long long way.

A poor example would be the HD remake of Resi 4 on the PSN/XBLA

 

[deathninja]

Han shot first, Tatooine wasn't a bloody amimatronic theme park and Lord Vader used to know the meaning of dramatic tension.

So no, I'm not a fan of remastering.

(I got diarrhoea for my captcha, WTF?)

 

[Blow_Pop]

Greedo didn't shoot first. I don't care what you say, Lucas, as hard as you may try you cannot rip the memory out of my head, no matter how much you change 'your' movies.

No... not really... it's the price-tag they put on the re-release that irritates me...

Though replacing Sebastian Shaw with Hayden Christensen in the 2004 release of SW pissed me the hell off... I make that point irrespective of whether it was a 'remastered' version...

Also sometimes they add worthless crap, I remember when I got the Lion King on DVD, everything was fine, then this happened.


I mean, it's cool that Rowan Atkinson returned to do some more lines, but the song sucked so much. It also ruined a good scene, Mufasa teaching Simba how to pounce was actually funny in the original.


It's also worth noting that in the remastered version, Simba doesn't just pounce on Zazu, he fucking assaults him.

For these reasons and a few other personal ones remastering irritates the shit out of me. I own the original Star Wars trilogy both on VHS and DVD which one do you think I watch more? My VHS copies. Because I still have a working VCR hooked up to a working TV in my room. If I knew how to make the tapes into DVDs I would do that for myself.

I'd prefer the studios to just re-release the original items onto DVD or cd. Maybe clean up a little bit of it(like if its music and putting it from 8 track or tape makes some funny noise that shouldn't be there take it out or whatever....I have no clue how the recording industry makes cds any way nor do I have an interest in how they do but you get the picture)but don't change it..