If you want to show off your subwoofer(s) this is the movie to watch. I don’t think my floor ever stopped shaking A lot of nice special effects too. Let me know what the rest of you think.

Lasher

Once again, since this is an audio company chat room, I’ll keep my focus on the sound.
Bass heavy movie? Yes, but since my ears are spoiled from very nicely made gunshot sound in Open Range and Road to Perdition (machinegun sound), most of gunshots in this movie seemed a bit shabby in mid or layering of upper frequencies or whatever the term may be (I’m not an acoustic engineer). It felt a bit soft. I think the impact would’ve been more dynamic like the visual side was if they were a bit louder or punchier. However, I was impressed with the voice of Machine City. Menacing, powerful, and evil like force, the sound was quite affective in supporting the visual image.

Overall, I liked it better than Reloaded.

I agree about the gunfire. Sounded muted.
I realize from this topic though that I still need to tweak my sub. You guys seem to have had a better effect than I did.
Trace

my only qualm with matrix 2 and 3, too much bass all together. i am trying to watch a good movie late at night and its shaking the house. granted i have subwoofers that do that, but normally with movies i have a proper amount of bass, matrix 2 and 3 i had to cut the sub down because it was overpowering.

i dont see why they are only in dolby digital, dts is so much more enjoyable.

.

my equipment doesnt have a feature like that, and with dts i dont need it! :-) i will mention however say that i see WAY more movies in dts now-a-days...

Mixing audio for feature film is not my forte, and maybe SH can comment on this from an industry point of view:

First, the audio engineer-artists want us to hear many things in the dock scene all at once, even when the guns were blazing. Some of those audio items are meant to be heard along with and behind the sound of the gunfire. I just watched this scene again and I was hearing, among other things, the mechanical nature of the units, the ammunition being fed to the guns, squiddies flying and, of course, yelling by the fighter/operators. Perhaps if the level/timbre/content of the gun sounds had been more aggressive, the ability of the audience to hear these other important sounds would have been lessened. The sound the production team created was formed based on aesthetic choices regarding content.

Secondly, it’s all imagination, and other than a desire for the sound to help convince the audience of what’s happening, the sound could be “explained” several ways. Imagine that in using the earlier versions of these large units commanders found their troops to sustain hearing loss quickly. They couldn’t put too much hearing protection on the troops because they wanted to troops to hear other things and it wouldn’t be cool in a movie! So the imaginary engineers had to design imaginary noise reduction into the imaginary guns. That’s why the guns sound the way they do!

.

Right buck.
I won’t argue about whatever is shown and heard is the way the creator wanted it to be. I’m just tossing my 2 cents and seeing if I’m with the majority or minority.

While firing, there were some dialogues but not always. I think the machinegun volume could’ve been lowered and raised depending on timing. I’ve seen action movies that do something like it. I’m just talking about the dynamics of the battle scene. It could’ve been little more IMO.

Those machineguns may have a built-in silencer (or partial silencer) or the type of gunpowder may be different or whatever. May be those walkers should’ve had a Plexiglas covering the operator which can offer extra protection against the sentinels and block out the gun noise and help to communicate better with others. Or may be there should’ve been headphone and a microphone for hearing protection and communication (remember what the soldiers were wearing in the movie Aliens?). Or may be those guns should’ve been firing laser like the sentinels do. Thank God it didn’t, otherwise we may not have much to talk about.

I believe there is a difference between realistic work versus cinematic work. In latter, the creator has something called “artist’s license”. George Lucas uses his to make the spaceship’s propulsion engine to be heard in the space (vacuum) which made the movie very entertaining despite breaking the laws of physics in reality. I wrote a semi-lengthy post in L.O.T.R. The Two Towers thread on this…

In the end, the director of the film has final say as to the balances of the various sound effects elements, the music and the dialog. The mixing engineers establish a mix that is their intrepretation of how the film should sound based on their years of experience in doing it, but the director has the final say.

That being said, I have found directors surprisingly bad judges of what constitutes a good sound mix. Perhaps they are too close to the film, perhaps they are too visually orieted, or perhaps they are under other pressures. After all, aside from the ability to get someone to pay them to direct a film, directors don't automatically posess finely tuned skills in all areas any more than any other person would. They may be great storytellers and able to convey this in visual terms, but this does not mean they know good sound and can appreciate it when they hear it. Very, very few directors are audiophiles!

The smart ones are able to put aside their egos and rely on the judgement of the specialists (sound designers, mixers, editors) in their field. However, I have more than once seen an otherwise great sound job compromised by directorial decisions.

I was just tossing my two cents in with a smile!

Some of us know all too well exactly what SH said about the way some people in charge use or misuse their authority to benefit or detriment of the final product. This applies to many areas of a production. The best people-in-charge find people of excellence to be on the team, many with expertise in a certain field that exceeds the expertise of the person-in-charge, and then the person-in-charge trusts and values the contribution of each team member. If an individual team member’s creative decision would clash with something else in the project, then it certainly should be up to the person-in-charge to have a view to the overall project and make sure that, as a whole, the project is both excellent and seamless in the way it meets the project goals. Some people-in-charge feel that, in the end, their opinion of a certain item, based on less expertise, should rule the day.

I hear you, SH.

I get your point buck. It’s kinda hard to tell unless you put one of these
You’ve posted lots of helpful information in the saloon and I appreciate it, seriously. Please keep it coming.

I have worked for a company which can be a living proof of this, so I can say I understand what you and soundhound are saying. There is a factor that comes into play when dealing with teamwork and production. It’s human ego. More often than not, it compromises the quality potential of the product (I’m not referring to Matrix).

BTW, I quit that place.


[This message has been edited by Spiker (edited April 12, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Spiker (edited April 12, 2004).]