Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Ben-Hur Four-Disc

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
184 replies to this topic

#1 of 185 OFFLINE   ScottR



  • 2,650 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2000

Posted September 01 2005 - 08:14 AM

A review at dvdtown.com states that this new release of Ben-Hur is ten minutes longer. Huh? It also states the the first release had an AR of 2.44:1. Huh, again? And that this release is 2.50:1. Um, huh?

#2 of 185 OFFLINE   Joe Caps

Joe Caps


  • 1,950 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2000

Posted September 01 2005 - 08:34 AM

You certainly cannot rely on this review. The man says the dvd sound is in 5.1 of what was a two channel stereo mix in the theater - no - it was six channel and there was no two channel stereo in 1959 film.

#3 of 185 OFFLINE   Justin_P


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 79 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 16 2004

Posted September 01 2005 - 09:43 AM

I agree that the review might not be completely accurate, but IMDB does list a cut of the film that was released in 1993 in the UK with a runtime of 222 minutes. Of course I ditched my old copy of the DVD, so any comparisons I do will have to be from memory. I guess we'll all just have to see when we get a hold of the discs for ourselves! Justin EDIT: I just poked around at some of the reviews of the old DVD and they all seem to list 222 minutes.

#4 of 185 OFFLINE   Robert Harris

Robert Harris


  • 8,124 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted September 01 2005 - 09:52 AM

Ben-Hur is not a 222 minute film. Its running time was 212, possibly in addition to music for roadshow release. The two films at 222 were GWTW and LoA. RAH

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence

#5 of 185 OFFLINE   Justin_P


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 79 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 16 2004

Posted September 01 2005 - 10:11 AM

There we have it - a definitive answer from someone who knows. Thanks for the input Mr. Harris. By the way, did you mean GWTW? Random question: does Warner typically include the Entr'acte and Intermission on their listed DVD run times? I don't have any of my discs around right now to compare with the listed times at IMDB, and never thought to do it before. Justin

#6 of 185 OFFLINE   TonyDale


    Second Unit

  • 297 posts
  • Join Date: May 03 2003

Posted September 01 2005 - 10:51 AM

Having just revisited THE GREAT RACE earlier this week, I can say that Warner included the Overture, Entr'Acte etc to that film's running time. Posted Image
We are just surrealist pilgrims, melting clocks in marble halls. . .

#7 of 185 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,493 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted September 01 2005 - 12:49 PM

DVD Town is a horrible site to check for accurate specs. Aspect ratios are measured by what shows up on screen, rather than the original video source (as seen on a DVD-ROM computer). For example, they say Around the World in 80 Days (1956) is 2.10:1. When I measured in Photoshop, it was exactly 2.20:1. It seems like everything is viewed on a CRT and judged as such. There's even mention of moire effects (no doubt during the end credits), which do not appear on a non-CRT screen. It's a pity they don't realize how inaccurate this stuff is... stuff like bad measurements and misunderstandings on aspect ratio technicalities are polluting DVD review sites. We still get sighs of sorrow over a 1.85:1 film being presented full area 1.78:1!

#8 of 185 OFFLINE   Dannie


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 143 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 06 2003

Posted September 02 2005 - 08:47 AM

im surprised no one got this early yet

#9 of 185 OFFLINE   jim.vaccaro


    Second Unit

  • 425 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2005

Posted September 02 2005 - 07:03 PM

There's a review up at DVDMG.com. Colin's reviews are usually decent, but this one is lacking IMO. He doesn't mention that the new transfer isn't cropped on all four sides like the old one was. Also I was hoping to hear something about the Dolby 5.1 mix, if it is a new mix or the mix from the old DVD. I'd really love for someone to do a side-by-side comparison. Also, I'd like to see this released as a single disc edition. Alot of the supplements (like the silent movie) hold little interest for me.

#10 of 185 OFFLINE   RickardL


    Second Unit

  • 472 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 30 2000

Posted September 03 2005 - 01:16 AM

I did some digging about the film's length. According to the BBFC, it had a length of 19050 feet which they then calculated as 211 minutes and 40 seconds. Before it opened up in Sweden in 1962, the Swedish Board of Censorship notes 224 minutes and 2 seconds. Another source says 6090 meters (19979.7 feet) for the 35mm print which calculates as 222 minutes and 35 secs. In 1969, a 70mm print was measured at 7615 meters (24982.8 feet) which I calculate as 222 minutes and 40 secs. When it was submitted for a recertification in 1970, the length is 219 minutes and 17 secs. My (old) R1 DVD is 222 minutes and 33 seconds which include the overture (6:31), intermission (~18 secs) and entracte (3:51). Just the main feature then measures as 211 minutes and 53 secs, which is pretty close to 212 minutes.

#11 of 185 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,493 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted September 03 2005 - 02:25 AM

I'd give it a chance. The '25 version is worth seeing at least for the scenes on the galley ship and the chariot race.

#12 of 185 OFFLINE   Danny Burk

Danny Burk

    Second Unit

  • 274 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 10 2005
  • LocationSouth Bend, IN

Posted September 03 2005 - 03:22 AM

To each his own. I'm only buying the set to get the silent version; the '59 is a "bonus feature" for me Posted Image

#13 of 185 OFFLINE   Dane Marvin

Dane Marvin


  • 1,490 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 21 2003

Posted September 03 2005 - 07:17 AM

I'm all about the 4 discs and wasting an entire day watching everything!

#14 of 185 OFFLINE   Nils Luehrmann

Nils Luehrmann


  • 3,515 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 21 2001

Posted September 03 2005 - 09:28 AM

Like Danny, the primary reason I am interested in this set in because of the inclusion of Niblo's original 1925 Ben-Hur. It was and for some, continues to be considered one of the greatest films ever made - certainly of its generation. The original was a monumental effort with stunts and images that went well beyond anything ever filmed before. In many ways it was the Lord of the Rings of the silent era, and had a similar impact on the film industry. Until recently, Wyler's 1959 remake was not one of the +350 films selected and preserved by the NFPF (National Film Preservation Foundation), but Niblo's original Ben-Hur was selected about ten years ago.

#15 of 185 OFFLINE   Larry Sutliff

Larry Sutliff


  • 2,861 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 17 2000

Posted September 03 2005 - 11:04 AM

I'm also one of those who thinks that the silent version is better than the remake, and I love the 1959 film, too! I'm looking forward to getting this one.

#16 of 185 OFFLINE   Simon Howson

Simon Howson


  • 1,779 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 18 2004

Posted September 04 2005 - 12:37 AM

I have noticed that many e-tailers are advertising two versions of the 4 disc set. One includes a Bible study guide, where as the other does not. Due to discounting it seems that both versions are selling for about the same price. Does anyone know for sure if both of these versions have exactly the same video content, and that the only difference is the inclusion of the Bible study guide?

#17 of 185 OFFLINE   Joe Fisher

Joe Fisher


  • 1,379 posts
  • Join Date: May 11 2001
  • Real Name:Joseph E Fisher

Posted September 04 2005 - 03:59 AM

Video content is the same. The only difference is the inclusion of the Bible study guide.

#18 of 185 OFFLINE   John Stockton

John Stockton

    Second Unit

  • 367 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 09 2000

Posted September 06 2005 - 12:26 PM

For the first DVD, Warner used a 35 MM Cinemascope 2.55 source and they cropped the top and the bottom of the picture into tricking the consumers, that they are getting the original 70 MM anamorphic 2.76 ratio. Posted Image That is the the reason why the first DVD is cropped on all four sides.

I read some time ago that they are finally using 65 MM anamorphic elements for the transfer of the new DVD. I would appreciate if anyone here knows if this is really the case.

#19 of 185 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,493 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted September 06 2005 - 01:06 PM

Nobody tricked anyone. WB used a 35mm reduction print that originated from the negative (in one way or another) using SUPER Panavision specs instead of Ultra Panavision specs. Using the correct UP/MGM Camera 65 specifications, the full height would be captured, with a little bit of the sides (which were expendable) shaved off. However, since someone didn't know what they were doing... They used Super Panavision 70 specs, which caused the top and bottom to be cropped. Besides... how many people just insist that Ultra Panavision films be transferred at 2.76:1? A lot of people won't complain how lousy the framing is as long as it's the "correct" aspect ratio. Hardly anyone would show the films at any wider aspect ratio than 2.55:1. In fact, even the correctly made 35mm reductions from the early 1960's are 2.55:1 for Ben-Hur. At least anamorphic DVD's make 2.76:1 watchable, in comparison to non-anamorphic 4x3 transfers.

#20 of 185 OFFLINE   Roger Rollins

Roger Rollins

    Supporting Actor

  • 931 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 19 2001

Posted September 06 2005 - 02:09 PM

Although I would assume most HTF members know about this, there is detailed information on Martin Hart's excellent website widescreenmuseum.com about MGM CAMERA 65 and how it related to BEN-HUR's filming and projection.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users