DVD Review HTF Review: The Ten Commandments 50th Anniversary Edition (with the 1923 version) (1 Viewer)

[Jay Pennington]

I had the pleasure of seeing a silent accompanied by a live jazz quartet, and it was wonderful.

My grandmother used to play the piano to silents. I wish I had asked her more about the experience when she was alive.

 

[Keith Paynter]

Carter is legendary, and indeed some scores are markedly better than others - I especially like his work on old Blackhawk film prints of Keaton silents, although I prefer the late Lee Erwin's score to Chaney's "Phantom" than Carter's.

I'm still working off the original TC DVD, so I'll consider the new 3-disc set.

 

[RobertSiegel]

Thank you for the review Pat. I am upset that this is the same transfer again. This is the same transfer for the dolby digital gate-fold jacket laserdisc and that was a long time ago. There have been 3 different dvd releases, and all were the same transfer. Looks like the next improvement will be the hd version.

I don't think the transfer is bad, but going from the early 1990s when the laserdisc came out, to what they can do now with transfers of classic movies, it's really a shame that Paramount did not do a complete restoration.

 

[Joe Caps]

Robert Siegal- this IS fvrom a restoration. The color is beautiful and there is a wide range of colors. The only problem is that this does not look like any print of Ten Commandments I have ever seen.

 

[PeterTHX]

Wow. I had that LD and didn't realize it was 16:9 anamorphic!

 

[RobertSiegel]

I did not disagree with anyone that the transfer used for the last 9 years (begining with the laserdisc and up to this new edition) was bad, I just felt that it could still be improved, when compared to other restorations recently done in the last few years. The colors are great and I am very happy much of the music was remixed to stereo (I think Jocaps said in another thread that the inserted music was from the re-recorded album tracks when they decided to do a stereo soundtrack album). But when I watch such beautiful NEW transfers such as Ben Hur and some of the Warner stuff that has been done in the last few years, I just personally feel Ten Commandments could still be improved to look as good as some of those. For me, on my 120" screen, one can see the problems with the transfer....perhaps the transfer is the best they could do with the surviving elements.

This transfer was done in 1997...here's the laserdisc history (see link below): The very first one (on bottom) was the pan and scan....the 2nd one (Jocaps transfer), and then the top one with AC3, is the same as on the dvd, yes Peter minus the 16:9 enhancement (hehe). I still have all 3 laserdisc versions. Jo, maybe you can explain why the stereo is so different from your version to the transfer used for all the later editions? Here's the laserdisc history link (there IS a mistake....the ac-3 laserdisc was a 2 disc gate-fold edition, not 5 sides as stated):

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049833/laserdisc

 

[Keith Paynter]

Robert;

I don't have the deluxe 35th anniversary box set anymore, but weren't the 4th and 5th sides CAV, and the remaining side filled with 3 DeMille trailers including the bloated TC one? I don't recall it being AC-3, but it was the first letterboxed version.

Laserdisc Database lddb.com

 

[ScottR]

The 35th Anniversary print looks nothing like the dvd. The contrast was brighter, the colors a bit washed out (although still attractive), and the AR 1.66:1. It also contained reel change marks. The depth of the image was very flat compared to the dvd. However, I liked the look of the 35th Anniversary version.

 

[RobertSiegel]

Keith, I am talking about the edition that came out on laserdisc after the red box set, it was a 2-disc with gatefold jacket, and had ac-3... 5.1 sound.

To see the cover of this laserdisc....Go to widescreen review, click nonsubscriber site, then type in TEN COMMANDMENTS on the title search and enter. Now, go to the left and click "find it laserdisc/" Now again, type in Ten Commandments, it will come up and click on "Detailed review."

 

[Mark Zimmer]

While Carter's recorded scores are good, they can't compare to seeing the man in action himself. A terrific entertainer all the way around. I saw him play Wings live, and don't have a bad thing to say about the experience.

 

[PatWahlquist]

Robert Harris emailed me this morning with the follwoing messages:
"The Ten Commandments was Not a Technicolor production. While original 35mm prints were struck in dye transfer, the film was shot entirely on Eastman Color 5248 negative."

And...
"...original prints were in dye transfer Technicolor,
but the term has no meaning for video, as all elements are derived from Eastman elements, most likely b/w separation masters at this point."


Thanks, Robert. Paramount had listed Technicolor on the back of the package, that's where I got the info. Good that Paramount keeps its facts straight! The review will be updated.

 

[Robert Harris]

While the release of the 1923 version of the film is a delightful addition to the 50th Anniversary set, I seem to recall portions in Technicolor.

That aside, a wonderful addtion to the disc would have been the superb documentary regarding the production of the film at the Guadalupe Dunes, the destruction of the original sets, and the current attempts to create a cinematic archaeological site.

More information here:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...99/ai_20567173

here:

http://www.santamaria.com/visit/sect...ases/dunes.pdf

here:

http://virtualguidebooks.com/Central...eMovieSet.html

and here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4494713

RAH

 

[Robert Harris]

What Paramount lists on their packaging is the correct original credit block, which is contractual. Technicolor has nothing to do with any video version.

 

[Keith Paynter]

Is TTC really presented at 1.85:1? Amazon (incorrectly) states 2.20:1 and the original w/s LD's were 1.66:1.

What is the proper aspect ratio based on original elements?

 

[Robert Harris]

Mr. Paynter raises an interesting question.

The aspect ratio is not necessarily constant.

The Amazon numbers, oddly, seem to refer to the abortive 1990 prints which were blown up to 70mm from a scope 4 perf negative. In the "raising of the obelisk" sequence, the obelisk is out of frame. Not precisely what the filmmaker must have had in mind.

I personally prefer to view the film around 1.66:1, when projected from an original 35mm dye transfer print, although anything up to 1.75 - 1.85 seems fine.

Had the film been projected as 35/8 VistaVision, it would have been correct anywhere from 1.85 to 1.96:1

RAH

 

[Terry Hickey]

I'm glad to have the silent version of the movie. But the only thing I'm not too crazy about on the 1956 version, since it is split over 2 discs, why don't they let the movie start right away on the 2nd disc? I can understand the logo, commentary statement, etc. on the first disc, but to go through it again on the 2nd, it's just frustrating that you can't skip through them.

 

[ScottR]

So, are the noise reduction artifacts still present on this new release of the 1956 version? That's the only thing that I didn't like about the original release- the constant pulsating of shiny objects and straight lines (check out the colored blocks in the opening credits in the first letter of each name. The vertical lines in the border keep disappearing.)

 

[ScottR]

Pat, did you notice DVNR artifacts in this pressing?

 

[PatWahlquist]

Scott, I'll check tomorrow and let you know.

 

[ScottR]

Thanks so much.