Warner to release Ben-Hur on Blu-ray in 2009 (?), or..... (2 Viewers)

[Brandon Conway]

It's probably been delayed to 2010.

 

a) Nooooooo!!!

b) We've heard about the november releases; are the December releases already announced? There's still hope?

 

[oscar_merkx]

any news ?

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Originally Posted by Ben Cheshire

For an antidote to box-o-junk, get a region-free player and shop amazon.co.uk. Australia and UK already have single-disc Casablanca on Blu, and the Wizard of Oz and GWTW available as preorders are free-o-junk. Wizard is still 3-disc, far as I know, but compact, with no hidden broomsticks.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you don't need a region-free player for any Warner catalog titles (and possibly new releases), regardless of where it's released.

 

[oscar_merkx]

there are still 6 weeks left for Ben Hur to be released in 2009

 

[Brandon Conway]

It's not coming in 2009. It may not even make it for 2010. In a recent interview George Feltenstein of WHV stated that they were "trying to make it work" for a Blu-ray release, which I took as them having difficulty deciding upon a budget and a marketing window.

 

I read on dvdreview that the film is coming to Blu-ray in November, 2010.

 

[Jon Lidolt]

Originally Posted by oscar_merkx

there are still 6 weeks left for Ben Hur to be released in 2009

And wouldn't it be nice if WB transferred it in a 2.55:1 ratio the way that almost everyone saw it projected during its initial release? Even most of the theatres that showed the 70mm ultra-wide screen version had to crop the image because the picture was simply too wide for their screens to handle. And keep in mind that MGM even produced a shortened version of Ben-Hur for a 35mm reissue with a standard 2.35 ratio. I know, I ran a rep house that ran this print at my theatre for a student matinee many years ago. The teacher complained about the missing scenes but no one noticed that anything important was missing from the image - because nothing was! The only difference I noted with this print was that it was a slightly faded Eastman photographic print instead of an original Technicolor dye-transfer print which had a wider than standard frame line. This resulted in a slightly narrower image on the screen - but did protect the wider 2.55 aspect ratio. If WB must appease all of those who insist on the full 2.76 frame, they should include an alternate disc for the average viewer who finds an Ultra-Panavision, ultra-narrow image difficult to enjoy. And I'm one of those. Sorry to bring this aspect ratio controversy up again, but most of us simply can't afford a top notch front projection set up and don't have the space for a 120 inch screen just so that we can view those 7 or 8 features that were produced in MGM Camera 65 or Ultra-Panavision.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

I say bring on the OAR...2.76x1. The ultra-wide aspect ratio worked for How The West Was Won. It will work for Ben Hur, too. And no, I don't have a 120-inch screen.

- Steve

 

This has to be in the 2.76:1 ratio! I loved viewing it this way on dvd and I know that it would look spectacular in hi-definition. Also, I hope they include the original sound mix, because the stereo version they have been presenting is missing a cue.

 

[benbess]

From an interview with George Feltenstein from a way back in Feb. of 09 with High-Def Digest (apologies if this has been posted before):

"In addition to the Astaire-Rogers canon in 2010, Feltenstein said the 1954 'A Star Is Born' with Judy Garland, currently being remastered in 6K resolution, will also see a 2010 release, and 'Citizen Kane' will celebrate its 70th anniversary with a Blu-ray bow in 2011. Other titles in the pipeline include the 1959 'Ben-Hur,' which was already remastered in 1080p, but is being redone because, Feltenstein says, many viewers were displeased with the standard DVD transfer. 'Singin' in the Rain,' previously mastered in 1080i in 2001 is unsuitable for Blu-ray in its present form, so it's gone back to square one for a "profusely expensive" 1080p makeover. 'The Music Man,' 'Doctor Zhivago,' and 'Meet Me in St. Louis' also will see high-def releases in the next two to three years."

 

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by Jon Lidolt



And wouldn't it be nice if WB transferred it in a 2.55:1 ratio the way that almost everyone saw it projected during its initial release?

I agree with you Jon. For most homes 2.76:1 is simply too wide for comfortable viewing. Comparitively little is lost at the sides (and certainly nothing important) showing the film at 2.55:1.

 

[ahollis]

The rumor mill is abuzz in that Warners suggested that Ben-Hur is a November 2010 Blu-ray release without an official announcement.

Edit: Sorry I did not go far enough up the thread to see this is now second hand news. Please excuse my waste of your time.

 

[RolandL]

Sorry, I want to see the full 2.76:1. Besides it's only 5% less of the screen that is not filled when you compare 2.76 (about 65%) to 2.55 (about 70%).

 

[shazzerman]

My SD version - in a boxset with GWTW and Doctor Zhivago - is listed at 2.70:1. How does this transfer go down with fans of the film on such as august forum as this one?

 

[Paul Rossen]

I too want to see the full 2.76:1 original ratio.

The argument that Ben-Hur should be seen at 2.55 since that is how most people have seen it really doesn't hold. Most people have seen the Roadshow 70mm epics in 2.35 whether they be Ultra Panavision(Camera 65) Super Panavision, ToddAO et al. That includes Ben-Hur which was predominately shown in 2.35 as well as 2.55 after it's Roadshow runs. Should all of these epics including Lawrence of Arabia be seen at 2:35 vs its OAR of 2.20:1?

Blu Ray will most probably be the last hard copy home video format while 'TV' screens continue to increase in size. Thus, the argument concerning screen size doesn't hold up either.

Personally, I want to have the version the William Wyler and MGM filmed in 1959 in 2.76 OAR as well as having (if possible) the original sound mix. That said I do enjoy the 'new' sound mix as it plays up the Rozsa score very well.

 

[OliverK]

With Blu-Ray we have plenty of resolution to allow for a great picture with the biggest possible aspect ratio so I would prefer for the movie to be available that way. Warner also went that way with Mutiny on the Bounty and Battle of the Bulge and recently Khartoum has been brought to HD in the same ultrawide aspect ratio and I would like for this to continue.

 

[RobertR]

I agree with the last two posts. I don't think "most people saw it at 2.55" is an effective argument, nor is the "2.76 is too wide for home video" argument. Blu Ray is capable of giving us the closest look to film, and it should give us the ultimate presentation as closely as possible.

 

[JediFonger]

it should be OAR (original aspect ratio) =). whatever the director intended.

 

[Jon Lidolt]

Originally Posted by JediFonger

it should be OAR (original aspect ratio) =). whatever the director intended.

According to the section on Ultra-Panavision in Martin Hart’s excellent site: the Widescreen Museum “the exceptionally wide 2.76:1 aspect ratio was more a matter of insurance than a specification for projection.” As an example: 35mm feature films are routinely composed for 1.85 projection, but (unless it’s hard matted in the camera) there’s generally more picture on that frame of film for theatres that may project in 1.66 or some other ratio. Does that mean you want to see the full 1.66, or even 1.37 image on Blu-ray when the director and cinematographer actually composed for 1.85? The same thinking applies to Ultra-Panavision. The director and cinematographer were compelled to base their pictorial compositions on the requirements of the mass-release 35mm anamorphic prints. I’m old enough to have seen MGM Camera 65 and Ultra-Panavision projected onto a super wide 2.76 screen. I also saw these same films shown via 35mm prints in 2.55 and 2.35 versions - nothing important was missing. And keep in mind that the Ultra-Panavision spectacle Fall of the Roman Empire was cropped and printed as a non anamorphic 70mm release. No one objected at the time and it looked just fine. In fact I doubt that any of the film critics, or any moviegoer, even knew that they weren’t seeing the film as the director intended. Maybe it’s because carefully composing for that ultra wide frame wasn’t the director’s actual intent.