|
|
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals » |
Top deals |
New deals
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() $67.11 52 min ago
| ![]() $14.37 3 hrs ago
| ![]() $35.00 14 hrs ago
| ![]() $31.32 11 hrs ago
| ![]() $49.99 | ![]() $36.69 | ![]() $49.99 2 hrs ago
| ![]() $37.99 | ![]() $27.54 52 min ago
| ![]() $29.99 | ![]() $29.96 | ![]() $31.99 |
![]() |
#1 |
Contributor
|
![]()
I just saw our Gettysburg review and I'm shocked that WB tried to shove a 271-minute film on one BD-50. First we had Branagh's Hamlet (242 minutes) now Gettysburg, and my biggest fear is that the newly-restored Ben-Hur (212 minutes) will suffer a similar fate, with one disc for the film, and one solely for the extras. Honestly, with feature films, once we get past the 180-minute (three hour) mark, I start to get nervous regarding compression that could have been avoided by splicing the film over two discs, and I certainly think that any film over 200/210 minutes should be split in two. Especially one that has just had a 6K scan from the 65mm elements.
I really don't mind having to change discs, Warner. Seriously, I don't. Last edited by McCrutchy; 05-17-2011 at 01:53 AM. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
|
|