New Warner multi-disc sets coming! (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

That depends on how many copies you want to sell. I suspect that Warner is hoping that Jackson's participation in this dvd release will entice more of the younger generation to take an interest in buying this dvd.






Crawdaddy

 

[ScottR]

I would like to finally see Ben-Hur in an uncropped 2.76:1 aspect ratio.....if it could be done for The Greatest Story Ever Told, then why not this superior film?

 

[Robert Crawford]

I wouldn't think Warner would be going to the trouble of releasing a four-disc dvd release without addressing certain issues with the prior release.

 

[ScottR]

Robert,
Let's hope you are right! Each time this film is re-released in any format my hopes are dashed by the cropping.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, I hope one of you directly ask Warner about that issue during our next chat so that hopes are not dashed.






Crawdaddy

 

[Jeff_HR]

ScottR, that's assuming you're able to get to ask a question on the chat at all. Every person who is lucky enough to be picked has their own question agenda & it may not cover your concern about the cropping issue. :frowning:

 

[Patrick McCart]

Well, Greatest Story is owned by another company (MGM), the film wasn't as popular, and it wasn't filmed with the faulty "fast-fade" Eastmancolor stock. So, the negative would generally be in great condition. This is why Fox's DVD of Hello Dolly looks so good. 70mm film, but thanks to the poor reception, the negative wasn't worn as much.

Apparently, one of the problems a few years ago was that some higher-ups at Warners didn't regard Ben-Hur as much of an important film to go the full way on. Hopefully, 4 years later, those people are wiser or gone.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

You said: "As for the 1925 BEN HUR, I'm sure many buying this release won't even know the Heston film was a remake".

I took this to mean that you were saying that most ordinary people buying Warner's new SE don't even know anything about film history. I'm just saying, "so what if they don't?"
It's not important to most regular folks to know there was previously a silent version. It's only important to film historians.

 

[Paul_Scott]

reading over those specs again, i can't say i'm too thrilled with what they have lined up for Wizard Of Oz either.
i thought the current disc already has a trivia/game and sing-a-long nonsense.
to me, that kind of family-orientated junk should be kept relegated to the inexpensive, omnipresent single disc version.
and since the film is already widely available to the family market to pick up whenever they want, i would hope putting out a 2 disc UR remaster, that the studio would aim it towards an older demo who want it because film = art, not dvd = babysitter.

 

[Graham Greenlee]

Shane M brought up a good point on page 2 of the thread... With Warner being the biggest supporters of HD-DVD, will these SEs be released in some form this fall (or early 2006) since I'd assume that the transfers on these could easily be unconverted (or not as down-converted) for a High-Def format?

If that's the case, I'd hold off on the standard DVD versions of at least Wizard of Oz and King Kong.

 

[Dane Marvin]

I'm with Paul_Scott all the way on the Oz release. C'mon, Warner, the saying may not always be true but it is when we're talking about you: "Bigger is better!" And the kiddies already have the only version of the film they'll likely ever care about (that single-disc version).

I wonder if everything is set in stone for this release already...

 

[Roger Rollins]

I've tried to hold my tounge here...but I gotta say this


CALM DOWN! THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL INFORMATION!

A member here attends a market research event and comes back with information that even at the studio has to be tentative this far in advance....

..and many people seem to be jumping to conclusions that have NO BASIS IN FACT.

WARNER HAS NOT ANNOUNCED ANYTHING YET.....

They may have indicated some things they are considering in this test, and so many people here have their knives out ready to slit throats....

It is very gratifying to hear Mr. Epstein's words that a Warner chat may be upcoming. With no offense intended to anyone, I would suggest it might be in everyone's best interest to take a deep breath, relax, and wait until the WB chat to ask their questions, and vent their frustrations....

The quality (not to mention) quantity of WB's releases speak for themselves. Unlike most other DVD labels, WB has executives on the case who actually KNOW film, and UNDERSTAND what the DVD consumer wants....

The proof is in the pudding. Just look at the magnificent releases of the last 9 months...The Marx Bros. box, the Tarzan collection, the Noir box, the Hitchcock collection, the Warner Gangsters Box, THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT collection, GONE WITH THE WIND 4 disc, The Buster Keaton set, etc....These are superb releases prepared with intelligence and great care.

As I stated earlier, I'd respectfully suggest people may want to look at the big picture and not get themselves into a frenzy over nothing. I'm certain that when WB releases KONG and revisits OZ, the results will be nothing short of pefection. They've earned the trust, at least in my eyes...

Peace

 

[John Kilduff]

I'm trusting my gut on this one as well. Warner is so far ahead that it's on its' 50th lap while the other companies (with the exceptions of Fox, Anchor Bay and occasionally Buena Vista) are still wheezing to get around the curve.

To me, the Shield is a sign of quality. When I watch a Warner DVD, I know I'll get great picture, good sound and extras for everything from classic 40s dramas to cheesy 80s comedies.

Whatever they have in store, I eagerly await the news.

Sincerely,

John Kilduff...

Oh, and put me down for "The Wizard Of Oz" and "New Jack City" as well (That's an unusual pair)!

 

[Derek Estes]

Correct me if I'm wrong, But would you have actually seen that much more of the film in the original theatrical release (were you ment to?), or would some of that frame been masked during projection? I'm really not trying to correct you, I'm only curious.

 

[Mark Anthony]

Cinema's often have film's projected with incorrect masking, even out of focus or occasionally reels in the wrong order, but it doesn't mean that was what was intended! Thus the cinema presentation, except perhaps the premiere engagement isn't really of much help, unfortunately.

The wider 35mm release was matted down to 2.55:1, presumably with Mr Wyler's approval, but it still obviously crops side information as originally composed.

Ben Hur is a cinematic rarity, one of the few MGM Camera 65 / Ultra Panavision 70 films (basically same process) shot ultra-wide for a reason, and thus should be seen as such.

The film was shot in 65mm at a camera negative ratio of 2.76:1 or thereabouts, that's what the cinematographer composed for and that's what should be visible to us - especially for advocates of OAR.

The current dvd looks to have been taken from a 35mm reduction print (which has been cropped from 2.76:1 to 2.55:1 (which would have been understandable given the difficulty and expense of 65mm transfers) but then it has been matted further to make it look 2.70:1, which has just removed more picture as the screen comparisons show.

This is just artistic and unecessary butchery and not representative of how the film was intended to be viewed by Mr Wyler and his cinematographer - at 35mm or 65mm.

M

 

[Paul_Scott]

i'm not ready to slit any throats, but i think its foolish to sit by while the studio 'floats' these specs and not voice an opinion, if i feel that they may be going in a bad direction.

whats the alternative? wait until the specs are finalized and then impotently complain?

if now isn't the best time to put forth your feelings about what you would like to see (and what you would rather they not waste precious resources and bit space on), i don't know when would be.

its not about slitting thorats, its about waiting for and then getting the kinds of sets we all want to see and celebrate. not what some dispassionate exec thinks we want to see.

(and no, i wasn't talking about Mr F.)

 

[John Hodson]

I'm not being combative here, I'm genuinely puzzled by the resistance to Peter Jackson's involvement. If he is an expert on the movie, what's the problem? Is it a LOTR thing; is the remake the reason for the vitreol?

I can't recall anyone sounding off about Martin Scorsese's involvement in the Gangsters set, yet it would appear his reasons for contributing to that set were that he was just as much a fan of those movies as PJ is of 'Kong'...

 

[Jim_K]

You're not alone John. I'm a bit puzzled also.

I understand & fully agree with the concern that the extra's should focus on the original only, but what is so wrong with Jackson's possible narrating/hosting of the extra features? Especially since he appears to be an expert on the film.

 

[Paul_Scott]

look, i happen to like Jackson.
i wouldn't mind seeing one featur(ette) from his pov.
thats fine.

what i would be disappointed with, would be having the release be skewed mostly in the direction of his input when there are still people with us (but may not be for long) who have a closer generational and a more profound cultural tie to the material.

long before the idea of 'home video', Forry was there.
as a 7 year Kong-fanatic, the only place i could really scratch the itch, and get a sense of the value of the film as a living, breathing piece of art and not a cold dead technological relic, was Famous Monsters.
and i know i wasn't alone.
this release is the (last) best chance to pay homage to the fellow and i would hate to see the opp pass by.
and Harryhausen and Bradbury are titans.
hell, i would be up for a commentary that just got them all in the same room and let them ramble about whatever subjects they wanted- scene specificity be damned.
a disc with that would be worth its weight in gold as far as i was concerned.

on the other hand, there would probably be countless opportunities in the next 30 years to corral Pete Jackson and and have him talk about the movie.

 

[Martin Hart]

Actually the 1907 version of "Ben-Hur" wasn't a legit filming of the Wallace novel. The owners of the book by that time was Klaw and Erlinger, who had staged the story countless times. They took legal action against the makers of the movie and won.

Having read the book I find it hard to believe that anyone could make a film from it. The 1925 version cut a lot of the story line and, mercifully, the 1959 version cut a whole lot more. It's one of the most boring books I've ever read. I'm thankful that I "read" it in a 13 cassette version back when I did extensive driving.

Marty