I guess the bottom line is, we need to have Ken make a call on whether or not it's a bootleg. Then again, if this one is removed on the merits of the evidence in this thread, almost all of the releases from China and/or New Zealand will have to be removed because even the "legitimate" releases from China have a large percentage of errors on the covers.

As long as it stays in the DB your concerns are answered regardless of your belief of which version it is. It is clearly marked as the 1926 re-edit and I have had one person tell me that it is the re-edit. This, along with the extreme commonality of the re-edited version (as opposed to the very rare complete) I definitely lean to it being the re-edit.

All prints of the complete version had been believed to have been lost and after the restoration process had already begun on the 1925 film, a full print was located. There is the possibility that more than one complete print exists but these are rare even today. Of course, a full 1925 version is what we see in the 4-Disc Collector's set.

For reference the biggest of the edits in the 1926 version involves  the sae battle sequence, which involved the use of full size ships filmed in Italy and was very very graphic fro the time.

Skip

Quoting Touti:

Quote:
I've been digging a little.  The MFG Number of this EAN belongs to

Name: BUDDHA VIDEO LTD.
Address: 4TH FL., NO. 72, SEC. 1, MIN SHAN EAST ROAD, TAIPEI, TAIWAN, R.O.C. TAIPEI CITY 104 TW
UPC/EAN Prefix:  4710667

I found only 1 other item with this EAN Prefix which is "Desk Set" and is not in the online DB either.  I couldn't find this version of Ben-Hur anywhere but I found many DVD's from this company sold on HKFLIX.

Look for "Laura" and "Sunset Boulevard". Both of these titles were also released by Buddha Video.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Talk to me, james.

I am listening.

Skip

I'm not James, but I'll through my opinion out on the table anyway.

I do not think the issue of whether or not there is another version on DVD, other than what we already have in the database, is even relevant to the discussion.  If it isn't IN the database, then it has no bearing on anything at this point.

As for tagging '1925 Version' on the end of the Edition field, that seems superfluous at best.  There is clearly a difference in the actual name; one being 'Ben Hur' and the other 'Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ.'  In addition, the production year is listed in a separate field. If that isn't sufficient to differentiate  between the two, something is seriously wrong with the way we're doing things.

There is no need for the year version in Edition, so one should vote for or against the contribution on that basis.

The thing is, there is at least one of the variant edits in the DB and so far, it looks legit. Although, there are errors in the profile.

Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Talk to me, james.

I am listening.

Skip

I'm not James, but I'll through my opinion out on the table anyway.

I do not think the issue of whether or not there is another version on DVD, other than what we already have in the database, is even relevant to the discussion.  If it isn't IN the database, then it has no bearing on anything at this point.

As for tagging '1925 Version' on the end of the Edition field, that seems superfluous at best.  There is clearly a difference in the actual name; one being 'Ben Hur' and the other 'Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ.'  In addition, the production year is listed in a separate field. If that isn't sufficient to differentiate  between the two, something is seriously wrong with the way we're doing things.

There is no need for the year version in Edition, so one should vote for or against the contribution on that basis.

The thing is, there is at least one of the variant edits in the DB and so far, it looks legit. Although, there are errors in the profile.

If there is a legit "other" version, then the UPC/Disc ID should be used just as we do with any other 'version'.  If it isn't legit, it should be removed post haste.  In fact, ANY profile that is from a bootleg, regardless of how accurate it might be, should be removed immediately.

Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Quoting Touti:

Quote:
I've been digging a little.  The MFG Number of this EAN belongs to

Name: BUDDHA VIDEO LTD.
Address: 4TH FL., NO. 72, SEC. 1, MIN SHAN EAST ROAD, TAIPEI, TAIWAN, R.O.C. TAIPEI CITY 104 TW
UPC/EAN Prefix:  4710667

I found only 1 other item with this EAN Prefix which is "Desk Set" and is not in the online DB either.  I couldn't find this version of Ben-Hur anywhere but I found many DVD's from this company sold on HKFLIX.

Look for "Laura" and "Sunset Boulevard". Both of these titles were also released by Buddha Video.

Well spotted. Two more bootlegs to get rid of out of the database:

Laura 4710667810862
Sunset Boulevard 4710667811333

Evidently, you know more about bootlegs than I do. How do you know that all releases from Buddha Video are bootlegs? Are you basing your opinion on geography or do you know that all they produce is bootleg? How do you know that anything they produce is a bootleg? Seems a bit out of character for a company which only produces stolen product to take the time, money, and effort to register their own EAN prefix. I just don't understand why they would bother since, according to you, everything else they do is illegal.

Perhaps I'm naive but I find it difficult to believe that all Chinese DVD companies are thieves.

Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Nobody is disputing that bootlegs should be removed. So far, we don't know these are bootlegs. Buddha Video has their own registered EAN prefix. Bootleg companies don't generally have this. Or do they?

As to the rest of your comment, just how does using the UPC/Disc ID allow us to note a difference between versions?

Because, generally speaking, reissues use the same UPC but with different cover art.  The recent reissue of all the John Wayne movies for his 100th anniversary is a good example.  If the UPC is different it is normally because there is some difference, however small, between versions.  'Die Hard' is a good example.  It has just been released in a Spotlight Edition with a different UPC.  The menus are different from the original release, but otherwise it is the same.

Quoting Dano:

Quote:
Maybe this is a dumb question, in part because on face it seems so obvious, but shouldn't the edition name for the 1925 verison be "Four-Disc Collector's Edition" same as the 1959 version in the set?  Once you have decided that the 1925 version in this collection release should have it's own child profile, shouldn't it have the same edition name as the other movie in the same set?  Especially since this edition name does not refer to a special cut of the movie.  After all, isn't that what the edition field is really for?  It also makes it distinct from any other DVD release of the same movie, regardless of how minor the changes in it (or even no changes at all).

(Edited for clarity)

No, the edition information refers to the main title of the DVD, which is 'Ben Hur', not the other one.  The child profile for the 1925 version is subordinate to the master/parent profile.