The Ten Commandments (1 Viewer)

[Garysb]

To me changing (correcting?) a 50 plus year old film is like colorizing a Black and White film. The film and its special effects/ process shots are what they are and shouldn't be changed for modern tastes. Would you change every film from the 30's and 40's where the actors are standing in front a screen, pretending to be outside when it is obvious that it was shot on sound stage? For example would you change Hitchcock's 'Notorious?" Should these films be redone to look more realistic? Its great what can be done today. What is done today will probably look bad when compared to what can be done tomorrow. Leave films to look like they did at the time they were made.

 

[Greg_M]

Garybs, normally I would agree with you. I do believe films should not be changed - Unless - the reason was that the film wasn't finished and the intent was to make the changes when the film first came out. If the "Ten Commandments" editors ran out of time before the opening I can understand wanting to have the mat lines fixed.
The "Ten Commandments" was a Roadshow film which meant tickets were sold months in advance so there was no way the film company could move the opening (Same thing happened to "South Pacific" and the color filters - there wasn't time to fix them)

 

[Daniel Bakken]

We're not talking about destroying or making unavailable the original film here, that would be a crime. The visual detail and stunning epic nature of this film is marred by a few substandard effects shots that I would like to see subtly improved so that they do not detract from the movie's experience. The time and technological limitations are really unfortunate here. The improvements I would advocate would be invisible to a viewer that was not aware of the original limitations. It should be a labor of love and an homage to the films' creators.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Daniel Bakken

...this film is marred by a few substandard effects shots that I would like to see subtly improved so that they do not detract from the movie's experience. The time and technological limitations are really unfortunate here. The improvements I would advocate would be invisible to a viewer that was not aware of the original limitations.

That's exactly what George Lucas would say about the Star Wars special editions though. If, as people always say, they want the original version of a movie, they should want the original version warts and all. A change is a change whether it's removing a matte line or putting in some crazy CG.

 

[Rob_Ray]

After 54 years, the picture is what it is, cartoonish Pillar of Fire and all. If all the original elements exist so that they could be recombined using 100% 1956 source material, I wouldn't have much of a problem with that. But I mainly want just to have the VistaVision picture looking as clean and blemish-free as possible and make the sound as clean and impressive as it was on Joe Caps' laserdisc edition.

The colors on the DVD are way too garish. The lighter blue fabrics look like they would glow in the dark. And the entr'acte sounds like it's rechanneled from mono on the DVD.

Done properly, this could be a spectacular BluRay. It's one of Paramount's crown jewels. And unlike so many movies made today, its appeal spans all generations, "young and old" as DeMille says in his introduction.

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by TravisR



That's exactly what George Lucas would say about the Star Wars special editions though. If, as people always say, they want the original version of a movie, they should want the original version warts and all. A change is a change whether it's removing a matte line or putting in some crazy CG.

And as much as I dislike George Lucas's changes he was alive to make them, while DeMille has been dead for 51 years.

I agree with Rob_Ray that to clean up matte shots (didn't Warner try to do this with Ben-Hur?) or to recreate the 1956 effects without the loss of generations which was the only way to combine shots back then (that's a big IF, when one takes into account that even if they are there, they'd likely be pretty faded) would not be problematic. It is when they try to create something new out of whole cloth that bothers me.

 

[Nelson Au]

Wow, I stepped away from the thread for awhile and I didn't't expect this much discussion on some CGI tweaks I was mentioning off the cuff!

The beauty of the work on Star Trek was they made the original optical effects and audio track as an option. So as been discussed, CBS/Paramount did a great favor to the fans! A win-win!

One thing that I noticed was how great the opening titles looked during last weekends airing!

 

[RolandL]

Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard

The presentation was cropped more tightly on the left than the dvd. I hope when this gets to blu-ray that Paramount checks the framing carefully when preparing the blu-ray. Also, the voice of God sounded much more clear and out front in the soundstage during the burning bush scene, but still muffled during the writing of The Ten Commandments. I don't know if this was intentional or not.

Comparison of DVD to ABC broadcast - http://cineramahistory.com/10dvdabc.htm

 

I stand corrected on the cropping!

 

[Daniel Bakken]

Any info from Paramount on this as a Blu Ray? I'm waiting.

 

[marsnkc]

AMEN...!!!
The job of Blu-ray should be to present the movie (hopefully restored by someone of the caliber of Robert Harris) as close to what was seen when first exhibited with, to quote another here, 'warts and all'.
'Lawrence of Arabia' is my obsession and, as with that masterpiece, I've collected every iteration on every format of 'The Ten Commandments', 'Ben Hur', 'Spartacus' and others, none of which has done anything like the justice these monumental achievements deserve. However, the Blu-ray of the restored 'African Queen' makes me very optimistic.
(As regards 'Lawrence', I feel almost as sorry for Robert Harris as I do for myself when I see what's been done to this greatest of epic films that he worked so hard to save for us and generations to come. I thank him from the bottom of my heart.)

Originally Posted by Garysb

To me changing (correcting?) a 50 plus year old film is like colorizing a Black and White film. The film and its special effects/ process shots are what they are and shouldn't be changed for modern tastes. Would you change every film from the 30's and 40's where the actors are standing in front a screen, pretending to be outside when it is obvious that it was shot on sound stage? For example would you change Hitchcock's 'Notorious?" Should these films be redone to look more realistic? Its great what can be done today. What is done today will probably look bad when compared to what can be done tomorrow. Leave films to look like they did at the time they were made.