I was watching some of the deleted scenes yesterday, and feel that for the most part it's good as it is. The best scene of that particular bunch is the one between Rodriguez and Wakefield, but it would have made no sense chronologically if it were put in.benm wrote:the deleted scenes amount to almost 30 minutes and hearing the director and writer discussing the importance of the scenes makes me wish (and they too) that the film had been even longer.
151 Traffic
- flyonthewall2983
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
-
- Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:07 pm
- Contact:
Yeah, I think Criterion made the correct decision to keep the deleted scenes as deleted scenes. A good director's cut is generally a movie which was cut by a studio after a director was done with it, or a movie which was cut in places to placate the censors. In Traffic's case, the cutting was done by Soderberg, and of course he bemoans the loss of certain scenes in the commentary, but I think it's more of a "I wish we could have found a way to incorporate that into the film in a way that would have enhanced the film" instead of a "damn the studio for cutting bits of my film out."
- Tom Hagen
- Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:35 pm
- Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
- aox
- Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
- Location: nYc
Re: 151 Traffic
Excellent news. I was wondering if they were ever going to upgrade this or if they sadly lost the rights. I don't think Soderbergh ever topped this film and it's one I can watch repeatedly.
- The Narrator Returns
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm
Re: 151 Traffic
Beaver Comparison with Universal Blu
Surprisingly, they seem pretty similar, though the Criterion looks to have a better handling of the film grain.
Surprisingly, they seem pretty similar, though the Criterion looks to have a better handling of the film grain.
-
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:24 pm
Re: 151 Traffic
If those Beaver caps are accurate, the Criterion Blu-Ray looks to have sharpened the edges - don't think their earlier DVD release did that.
- flyonthewall2983
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
- aox
- Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
- Location: nYc
Re: 151 Traffic
I decided to revisit this film and pulled the BD off the shelf and noticed something that I am sure you guys can clear up.
The CC BD lists a 5.1 and a 2.0 mix. Which is the original theatrical mix?
The reason I ask is, why would a modern Hollywood film be mixed originally in 2.0? Inversely, why would a modern Hollywood film with the original soundtrack in 5.1 need a 2.0 mix added later? Presumably one that no one would even ask for?
The CC BD lists a 5.1 and a 2.0 mix. Which is the original theatrical mix?
The reason I ask is, why would a modern Hollywood film be mixed originally in 2.0? Inversely, why would a modern Hollywood film with the original soundtrack in 5.1 need a 2.0 mix added later? Presumably one that no one would even ask for?
- djproject
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:41 pm
- Location: Framingham, MA
- Contact:
Re: 151 Traffic
It was mixed at 5.1 for theatrical presentation (since it was DTS/Dolby Digital) but it is the music that took the most advantage of the surround space whereas everything else went to the center speaker (probably with a little bit of a stereo spread). The 2.0 mix was done for home viewing.aox wrote:I decided to revisit this film and pulled the BD off the shelf and noticed something that I am sure you guys can clear up.
The CC BD lists a 5.1 and a 2.0 mix. Which is the original theatrical mix?
The reason I ask is, why would a modern Hollywood film be mixed originally in 2.0? Inversely, why would a modern Hollywood film with the original soundtrack in 5.1 need a 2.0 mix added later? Presumably one that no one would even ask for?
Funny enough, Soderbergh actually wanted it to be in mono or as close to mono as possible.
- aox
- Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
- Location: nYc
Re: 151 Traffic
OK, that helps. And, thanks for your response. Basically, the 2.0 mix was a way to service those without the means of having a surround sound setup so they can still hear everything? I always thought 5.1/7.1/7.2 etc... mixes were converted within the amp at home for your setup (a 7.1 will go down to a 5.1 or a 2.0) or even if you are just watching through the TV stock speakers? Is that not how it works? In other words, if I am watching a 5.1 mix on a stock TV, it isn't conflating the mix and delivering all of the channels to my TV's two stock speakers (L and R), but leaving out audio information altogether?djproject wrote:It was mixed at 5.1 for theatrical presentation (since it was DTS/Dolby Digital) but it is the music that took the most advantage of the surround space whereas everything else went to the center speaker (probably with a little bit of a stereo spread). The 2.0 mix was done for home viewing.aox wrote:I decided to revisit this film and pulled the BD off the shelf and noticed something that I am sure you guys can clear up.
The CC BD lists a 5.1 and a 2.0 mix. Which is the original theatrical mix?
The reason I ask is, why would a modern Hollywood film be mixed originally in 2.0? Inversely, why would a modern Hollywood film with the original soundtrack in 5.1 need a 2.0 mix added later? Presumably one that no one would even ask for?
Funny enough, Soderbergh actually wanted it to be in mono or as close to mono as possible.
But then this from bluray.com
I was confused with my initial question on Traffic because the BD going to 5.1 by default, but the bluray.com link said that this was shot in mono.Traffic is complimented by an outstanding minimalistic/ambient soundtrack courtesy of award winning composer Cliff Martinez, who has worked with director Steven Soderbergh on some of his very best films. The English DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 enhances the surrealistic overtones very well, but one must remember that the film is actually in mono, which is why the overall range of nuanced dynamics is rather limited. However, when the music enters the film the dramatic transition from loseless mono to loseless surround sound is very effective. The dialog is consistently crisp, clean, stable, and very easy to follow. Also, there are no sync issues or distortions to report in this review.
Sorry if I am being boneheaded here.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: 151 Traffic
I think so, but then the point of the 2.0 mix would be that the audio engineer could optimize the downmix instead of trusting the consumers' receivers to do it.aox wrote:I always thought 5.1/7.1/7.2 etc... mixes were converted within the amp at home for your setup (a 7.1 will go down to a 5.1 or a 2.0) or even if you are just watching through the TV stock speakers? Is that not how it works?
- aox
- Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
- Location: nYc
Re: 151 Traffic
There it is. As usual, thanks, SWOswo17 wrote:I think so, but then the point of the 2.0 mix would be that the audio engineer could optimize the downmix instead of trusting the consumers' receivers to do it.aox wrote:I always thought 5.1/7.1/7.2 etc... mixes were converted within the amp at home for your setup (a 7.1 will go down to a 5.1 or a 2.0) or even if you are just watching through the TV stock speakers? Is that not how it works?
BTW, even if no one likes this film, this release is stacked. It's basically a mini-film school for $20.
- djproject
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:41 pm
- Location: Framingham, MA
- Contact:
Re: 151 Traffic
Correction: it was actually downmixed in mono with the exception of the music. This was decided during the final mixing stages. It was probably thought in the beginning to use surround stereo.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: 151 Traffic
Rewatching this film after a very long hiatus was one of the more intense therapeutic film experiences I've had. This was the film that launched my obsession with Soderbergh, after seeing it in theatres with my dad at age 11 and immediately going back and watching everything I could get my hands on from the 90s, and followed him eagerly ever since. My family bought the DVD and watched it compulsively for years, and for a film this heavy by around 13 or 14 I had to take a break. Well not soon after that my life took a turn and over half a lifetime later the power of this film has never been stronger. I used to identify with Del Toro's character the most and felt uncomfortable around the Douglas/Christensen content, but history has given fresh eyes and the last act, in particular Douglas' speech and their open presence at the final meeting, had me in tears. What struck me as so admirable about this film as a stiff critic of drug films is that Soderbergh retains his humility even in what might be his loudest and most ambitiously expansive film (yeah I'm including the Oceans). He doesn't attempt to understand but simply shows, and absorbs the humanity across systems into every character and frame. There is no didacticism, but instead a neutral presentation where we can identify good guys and bad guys but can also see the game as overwhelming and casualties as ambiguous in fitting binary definitions against the claims of this 'war' -the final lines telling it all that this is a film that simply asks that we listen. I generally prefer Soderbergh at his more playful and experimental with tone and genre blending, but considering the man doesn't like to repeat himself it makes sense that after this straight multifaceted structural drama he hit the money line with that exercise and moved on. There is so much more to say than this film actually says, and I'm grateful that Soderbergh took the high road and chose not to even try to say what cannot authentically be said, and by doing that said all that needs to be.
- flyonthewall2983
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Re: 151 Traffic
Topher Grace’s character and performance play awfully more interesting given recent news.