Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What's up with these 2.0 channel trailers?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » What's up with these 2.0 channel trailers? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: What's up with these 2.0 channel trailers?

Terry Monohan
Master Film Handler

Posts: 379
From: San Francisco CA USA
Registered: May 2014

posted 10-05-2015 11:51 AM

I don't mind the trailers that are 2.O as long as they are in stereo. When the main film hits the screen with 5.1 or 7.1 or more stereo surround It makes a big difference in the cinema sound experience. People came to see the main feature not the trailers. So many people are so late in getting in the cinema before the main movie starts they are to busy waiting in long lines to buy a popcorn or drink items by understaffed concession help. The studios give so much away with the fast two second cut edited trailers at least they may hold back on the full stereo sound for the real movie when It comes out in the future. Many trailers are shown with rough cut footage as many times the film is still being shot. The stereo surround sound may not even be ready yet when they rush to tease the public with a sneak preview.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-05-2015 03:27 PM

quote: Terry Monohan
The studios give so much away with the fast two second cut edited trailers at least they may hold back on the full stereo sound for the real movie when It comes out in the future.

I am fine with playing the trailers at a somewhat softer volume than the main feature, since trailer sound is so ridiculously loud-mixed anyway, but I'm against playing them in mono. After all, people are constantly looking at trailers on their crappy phones or computers with cheap-ass speakers -- why should we give them a substandard soundtrack when they're exhibited where they should look and sound the best?

| IP: Logged

Jim Cassedy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Dec 2006

posted 10-05-2015 09:55 PM

Back in July or August, I did a screening of "The Wind Rises" (2013) and was
astounded that the sound was one single mono (center channel) track, with
NOTHING on any of the other channels. No stereo, no surrounds, no subwoofer.
Zip, zero, nein, nothing, nada. Total silence.

I was running this in a rather large auditorium and I thought the center
channel only audio sounded 'thin' in the big house and it was obvious,
even if you weren't sitting in the front of the house, that only one
back-of-screen speaker was active.

Lacking a patch panel or DMA-8 at this location, I re-jiggered the sound
system a bit to at least get the mono channel to all three screen speakers.

Still mono- - but sounded much better in the room.

Who makes a mono movie anyomore anyway these days?
(OK- - except maybe for Woody Allen)

| IP: Logged

Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 10-06-2015 02:39 AM

Woody Allen's past few movies have actually been in 5.1- I was genuinely surprised.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 10-06-2015 07:08 AM

Mono played out of LCR generally is horrible and ruins the dialog, depending on where you are sitting. I would NEVER have done that and have heard its effects from the theatre perspective.

Even Kintek knew to try and keep the dialog hard center and to duck L/R to keep it that way.

In this day and age, if the film-maker wanted it to be more than mono, they would have made it that way. Did you re-edit the movie too?

| IP: Logged

Jim Cassedy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Dec 2006

posted 10-06-2015 01:09 PM

Steve, I would normally agree with you.
But in this particular room, with this particular movie, and after spending
quite a bit of time 'listening', I decided to do the L-C-R.

And I stand by that decision in this particular situation.

| IP: Logged

Kenneth Wuepper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1026
From: Saginaw, MI, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 10-06-2015 02:26 PM

This idea of stereo and multiple speakers gets lots of people into trouble. The old 16mm projection systems were pretty good for dialog as there was only one speaker. Single source is best for understandable dialog.

When stereo came along the 2 channel concept is wonderful as long as the same sound does not emanate from both channels. This multi time displaced sound is ok for background music and effects but does absolutely nothing for the understanding of speech.

I am always disappointed at the sound from the pa system in our theatre. There are two line arrays, one on each side of the stage, that play all of the sound from the live shows. Because the articulation of speech and vocals are hard to understand, the operator turns up the level. The resulting multi sources and then sound from the room makes the dialog even less intelligible.

The only pa that really worked in our space was a cluster above the center of the stage and that system allowed you to understand the dialog and the vocals with great clarity.

Multi sourced dialog can work in a few seats (with equal distance from all the speakers) but it is bad in the rest of the house.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 10-06-2015 02:41 PM

Kenneth is describing the Precedence Effect -- also known as the Law of the First-Arriving Wavefront.

Steve -- I can't wait to get my hands on that DCP300 Pro-Logic update, so I can once again dedicate the U1 input for 16mm.

Also -- to be clear -- I don't so much care about the trailers, although I do usually decode them (unless my U1 input is configured for an upcoming 16mm show) -- the trouble is that there are FEATURES being released this way. Universal is notorious for this.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 10-06-2015 07:54 PM

I'm almost getting to the point of hating movie trailers.

There's lots of shit not to like in movie trailers these days, so I don't see it as any big loss for a new movie trailer to be played in mono or stereo as opposed to 5.1 or even freaking Dolby Atmos.

Movie trailers are as bad as ever at spoiling a show. Some practically show the entire movie condensed from 2 hours down to 2½ minutes. "Thanks, Marketing Guys! Now I don't have to bother seeing the damned movie!"

But here's the thing I've grown to hate: the current "style" of movie trailers.

The problem is the "style" isn't current at all. It's horribly stale with a number of movie trailer conventions going well past the point of cliché. The folks coming up with this shit, be they people in the movie studio, some marketing company or what not, just need to quit and start a career doing something else.

It's like these guys are going back and lifting style beats from the first teaser trailer for Twister or any trailer that actually wowed people 15 or 20 years ago. Look at that Twister teaser and then watch the first one for Star Wars: Episode VII. See any style similarities? Black screen, flash glimpses of something, etc. Just be sure to make the sound mix overbearing as hell and use an edit style that could give someone an epileptic seizure.

ABC just played a trailer for Pan as a TV commercial. With all the thundering whooshes, booms, drum slam things and what not the sound mix could have passed for a new Die Hard sequel trailer. The tone just didn't fit what I think is supposed to be a movie for kids.

I literally laughed at a TV commercial for The Walk. It had all sorts of dramatic drum bangs and some low bass "whooommmm" sounds. I imagined all the loud movie trailer racket shaking Philippe Pettit off his cable, especially that "whoooommmmm" part when he lays on the cable. I remember when that guy tightrope walked between the World Trade Center towers. That stunt was crazy scary regardless of any clip art boom-whoosh sound effects.

I used to get pretty annoyed if a movie on DVD didn't include its trailers. Not anymore. The trailers for new movies are so repetitively unoriginal they're a waste of disc real estate on Blu-ray or even at YouTube.

| IP: Logged

Terry Monohan
Master Film Handler

Posts: 379
From: San Francisco CA USA
Registered: May 2014

posted 10-07-2015 11:17 AM

Some smart director or studio needs to look at the old trailers from the 40's & 50's with all the wording flashing across the screen and do something like the glass lettering they used. Make It look more modern with all today's fonts available. This won't work on all films but I think the public talking and looking at their cell phones may take notice to something new on the screen. Can you imagine a creative sound mix guy using the right surround only and starts the trailer by saying 'Thanks for coming to our theatre today, now lets show you a special preview of our new action movie coming soon to this theatre' then hit the stage speakers in stereo with the preview trailer, but the end part of the action hit trailer have It mixed with all the surrounds on. The people who edit today's trailers need to change things around and just stay on a few choice important parts of a new movie to show and build It up with tease lettering and suspense. The crowd will want to see the film when It comes out. They start to do advertising so early now on TV and cinemas that the movie crowd is so bored seeing the same trailer for 5 months. At least they should make a few different type cut trailers so the public can be entertained and not a sleep. Very few studios do this today, like they spent all the money on the film shoot and they are not creative in doing multi advance advertising.

| IP: Logged

Marlon Martins
Film Handler

Posts: 78
From: Torres, RS, Brazil
Registered: Apr 2015

posted 10-07-2015 11:32 AM

There are a lot of videos on Youtube about the similarity of trailers. this one is a good one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc71YvWG0GQ

I'm also annoyed. My brother said "after inception, every movie has the "BWWWAAAASSSSS" [Big Grin]

I believe they use the same recipe "because it works". the same way movies use the same "workflow".

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-07-2015 01:29 PM

quote:
There's lots of shit not to like in movie trailers these days,

Agreed. At conventions, my favorite day used to be the day we had the trailers ("product reels," in convention talk). But all the trailers are so mind-numbingly similar, what's the point?

My biggest pet peeve is the super-fast cuts they use. There are almost no cuts longer than two seconds. Even if they use a line of dialogue that's longer than that, they'll cut to a different image while the dialogue continues. It's like trailers are made for people with ADD.

I also am annoyed by the constant bang, whoosh, boom drum sounds. And I don't even want to get started on the volume levels.

But, when you're competing for the attention of people who have five-second attention spans and are constantly being bombarded with other things clamoring for their eyeballs...what are you gonna do?

I blame the internet. Used to be, people had to come up with their own ideas. Now everybody can share everything. Fresh creative thought is much harder than just pasting somebody else's stuff in.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 10-08-2015 08:57 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
My biggest pet peeve is the super-fast cuts they use. There are almost no cuts longer than two seconds.

It's not only the editorial pace, but also the style used. The editing conventions are unlike what you would find in a normal movie, TV show or even in music videos for that matter. The only other place where I see the same kinds of edits (and dramatic boom-whoosh sounds) used is in promo commercials for TV shows. TV shows are trying to be more "cinematic" in their advertising (and production style). Meanwhile feature movies are feeling more like 2 hour TV shows.

I don't know the specific terms for these edits and transitions. I just know they look like visual clip art when I see them. There's the repeat fade to black, sometimes punctuated with a flash frame of white. The sound mix will usually have a big noise on each fade/cut. BOOM BOOM BOOM! Then there's the technique of showing only brief glimpses of action on an otherwise black screen, but with lots of racket. I don't know what you call that robo-jump cut thing where they throw in this rapid judder and partial fade thingie on a dramatic shot.

Just about anyone could bring up lots of other editing style examples that get repeated like crazy in movie trailers. You could watch just one action movie trailer and find an example of almost every movie trailer editing cliché in the tool kit. The rare thing is a movie trailer that has a normal looking editing style and doesn't pound you over the head with clip art boom noises.

quote: Mike Blakesley
But, when you're competing for the attention of people who have five-second attention spans and are constantly being bombarded with other things clamoring for their eyeballs...what are you gonna do?

My opinion: screw those ADHD viewers. They're not going to be reached by the movie trailers regardless of how loud they're mixed or spastic in editing style. They'll find out about the movie on Snapchat or something.

It's just like movies that are made assuming everyone in the audience is stupid. Or they do really stupid shit with the plot and characters, assuming everyone is so stupid they won't notice. Dramatic narrative on a grading curve. Movies are better when they're made in a manner that gives the audience credit for having at least some level of smarts.

Of course, making a movie geared for smart people and marketing it towards smart people isn't so easy.

quote: Mike Blakesley
I blame the internet. Used to be, people had to come up with their own ideas. Now everybody can share everything. Fresh creative thought is much harder than just pasting somebody else's stuff in.

I don't think that's the issue. I blame the giant global media parent companies of movie studios. They're the ones dictating the decisions to keep re-selling the same idea and dumbing the shit down so non-English speaking viewers in China or wherever will buy the product.

These trailers are so freaking derivative that I swear there has to be some kind of special software they have that just samples the movie's material and auto-generates 1,287,849 variations of the trailer for focus groups to digest.

Technology is not far off from being able to do this. It may be able to do so already. At Adobe's MAX keynote earlier this week they were showing off some new "remix" feature that would take some 3 minute long song and seamlessly edit together key beats from it that could fit down into something like a 30 second spot. One click and its done. Scary. Scary for how any creative soul could be further drained away from something. "Just let Audition generate 10 versions of the cut, screw all that time trying to mix together something manually!"

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 10-11-2015 11:27 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
It's not only the editorial pace, but also the style used. The editing conventions are unlike what you would find in a normal movie, TV show or even in music videos for that matter.

The modern trailer is where Soviet montage went to die. Furthermore, now that kids can make trailers on their Macs (not needing 35mm prints meaning that low-budget pics that previously wouldn't even have had trailers now have them with a vengeance - I've even seen trailers for five-minute shorts films!), they ape the style badly, sometimes with hilarious results, but most of the time just plain boring.

It's a long time ago now, but I loved the teasers for the late 1990s Godzilla, because they totally defied that convention, consisting of very long, static shots within which the action builds. If you're not paying attention throughout, you won't get the punchline (at least, not completely). They were probably completely ignored by people trying to find their seat, munching popcorn and that sort of stuff, though.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.