Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Theatrical Versions) - April 6, 2010

[aiman04]

In my opinion, I don't think it's wrong for people to have high expectations for these movies. Everyone wants the best quality, this is what blu-ray is all about. It's the reason why I adopt to HD, spending thousands of dollars to upgrade my equipment and replace my DVD collection with blu-ray.

But, if I understands this correctly from Jeff's and other insider's comments, this is the best FOTR will ever look because of the circumstances during production and post, so it has been and will always look soft. That the DNR, EE, flickering, compression artifacts, digitizing, has nothing to do with it. Simply say, nothing wrong with the transfer. That this blu-ray quality is an achievement, not a failure. Not saying I agree with them, but if that's true I have to admit that I feel sad. Sad that this is the best the format can offer of this trilogy. So be it then. Hopefully Avatar will bring the blu-ray format back to what it's known for and regain the momentum.

Just one question: Is it really not possible for a new DI?

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by QuasidodoJr

If Disney were in charge, you wouldn't even have the Lord of the Rings coming out, because they wouldn't bother with it. I love Disney movies as much as the next person, but you do realize they've only released 5 catalog titles in the past 6 months, right?

Snow White, Monsters Inc., 10 Things I Hate About You and Toy Story 1 and 2.

And Disney only have 2 catalog titles officially announced for release in the next 6 months: Armageddon and Tombstone.

Are you also aware how many theatrically released films Disney skips on giving the blu-ray treatment? They're by far the worst about doing so. Warner Bros. nearly puts everything they release on blu. Even unimportant direct-to-video releases.

So, yeah, Warner Bros. may make some mistakes here and there (tv seasons still without lossless audio and the occasional mediocre transfer), but at least they're supporting the format with a steady chain of content. All of the studios release the occasional mediocre or bad transfer, though. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Like I've said in this thread, repeatedly: If you want to gripe about this transfer - have at it. But the whole "Warner Bros. is the devil" stuff is getting old.

It doesn't matter if Warner has more titles in their back catalog, that only means the pressure is on them to get it right even more. That's their responsibility. Do you understand integrity and responsibility. Do you understand that if one pushes a product, let along one that is a human art form, and then frequently doesn't give each the required level of care, that's a lack of integrity and a lack of responsibility. They have a resposibility to do right by each and every title and certainly ones that make it to Blu-ray. Movies are part of the art of story-telling. And yes, from where I stand and from what others have said, Warner is the worst. You must work for them. You are also living in a DVD world. This is Blu-ray. You either transfer it right and proper EVERY TIME or don't bother.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

:d

Typo.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

He said that Disney only officially announced 2 catalog titles announced for the next six months. This was true.

Of course there will be more, but you're defending Disney so much you're not reading what people are writing.

I'm reading it, but it's a specious argument with no merit. It's so nonsensical, on its face, I shouldn't have bothered.

[jwoodwar]

Originally Posted by denger76

I cancelled my pre-order after reading the LOTR Trilogy review. I prefer the EE versions anyway but was looking forward to an amazing P/Q for the pictures. While the A/Q is just as important I can't base a purchase soley on that aspect of the BR. I will never understand why a studio would not provide the best product possible for timeless movies (17 Oscars in total). Shame on you WB!!! Do you really think that consumers are fooled into thinking this is the best you can produce? All I can say is WB needs to redeem themselves by releasing the LOTR Trilogy EE versions as quickly as possible in the best A/Q and P/Q available. For the love of money is the root of all evil!

Dont listen to there review. Do what you want fromw hat I saw Fellowship did have some problems but Two Towers and Return Looked great!!!! So if I were you just get it and be happy with it. And plus I dont Like Kenneths reviews anyway. so I wouldnt listen to him

[s_corroon]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

:d

IS there a problem???

[captveg]

Originally Posted by aiman04

In my opinion, I don't think it's wrong for people to have high expectations for these movies. Everyone wants the best quality, this is what blu-ray is all about. It's the reason why I adopt to HD, spending thousands of dollars to upgrade my equipment and replace my DVD collection with blu-ray.

But, if I understands this correctly from Jeff's and other insider's comments, this is the best FOTR will ever look because of the circumstances during production and post, so it has been and will always look soft. That the DNR, EE, flickering, compression artifacts, digitizing, has nothing to do with it. Simply say, nothing wrong with the transfer. That this blu-ray quality is an achievement, not a failure. Not saying I agree with them, but if that's true I have to admit that I feel sad. Sad that this is the best the format can offer of this trilogy. So be it then. Hopefully Avatar will bring the blu-ray format back to what it's known for and regain the momentum.

Just one question: Is it really not possible for a new DI?

It's possible, but it would be inordinately expensive. Besides, if I understand Jeff's latest post, there was notable (and less effective and fine tuned) DNR-type adjustments on these films back in the original post-production in 2001-2003, which means that such is "burned in", so to speak, in the films themselves, regardless of mastering. If this is true, it's the digital equivalent to Welles scrapping the film for Kane's Newsreel segment. Those artifacts are more-or-less permanent.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Jonno2009

All i wanna know is if the blu-ray PQ will look better than my upscaled DVDs? Sure it sucks it's not 5/5 but if its even just a little better than upscaled DVD then i'm buying for sure. (even though i just pre-ordered the futureshop steelbook 10 mins ago )

They look way better then an upscaled DVD. Even FOTR

[Todd Smith]

HDD review is up.........Another spectacular PQ rating of 3/5......

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2313...gstrilogy.html

[Andes]

I still plan to buy the blu-ray trilogy because it's the best version available until 2012. Any ideas how much the new EE blu set will cost? I'm assuming it will be in the $150+ range.

How much was the EE dvd box set on release date? I've never seen the EE so I'm hoping to find a cheap set on ebay.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

My heart is still broken over the decision to scale back the adventures of Sam and Frodo in Mordor in exchange for the focus on Gondor...my favorite chapter in the entire series centers on Sam and his temptation by the Ring, followed by his solo rescue mission in the tower of Cirith Ungol. Such powerful writing, and it's all gone in the theatrical contractually obligated version, the extended cut restores some of those scenes, but what a giant missed opportunity.

I think if Tolkien were alive, he would share some of your sentiment. His comment on the first attempt to film LoTR in 1958 by Morton Zimmerman:

"He has cut the parts of the story upon which it characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights; and he has made no serious attempt to represent the heart of the tale adequately: the journey of the Ringbearers."

As an example, in the book, the Battle of Helm's Deep is described in 17 pages, which is about 5% of the Two Towers; in the movie, the battle occupies far more time. Other liberties that Jackson took would simply have unacceptable to Tolkien, for example his portrayal of Faramir. But all of that notwithstanding, I still believe Jackson did an excellent job of trying to find that "gray area" where purists and typical movie fans could both enjoy the films.

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by Andes

I still plan to buy the blu-ray trilogy because it's the best version available until 2012. Any ideas how much the new EE blu set will cost? I'm assuming it will be in the $150+ range.

How much was the EE dvd box set on release date? I've never seen the EE so I'm hoping to find a cheap set on ebay.

The EE's are pretty cheap now. You can find the boxset trilogy for $50-60. I can't imagine watching the theatrical editions of LOTR now that I've seen the whole thing as it was meant to be seen. imo, the EE boxset on DVD is superior to this new BD set because of the supplemental features and the EE editions themselves. I mean, how many times are you really going to watch this series in the next couple years? I'm a hardcore fan and I usually only watch 1-2 times a year. I wouldn't let the hype of LOTR on BD throw money away.

[n8boss87]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

HDD review is up.........Another spectacular PQ rating of 3/5......

Yep, that is what I gave it.

Originally Posted by Celerony

But inconsequently dictating to remove screenshots is just dumb, it makes no sense, makes thousands of people spit on you.

Couldn't you play it a bit harder, Blu-ray.com?
Just say: First tell us a reason, because telling no reason has no reason!

Celerony, from your post one can easily conclude that you've never dealt with studio reps or rep firms.

As I said in private, hat's off to Ken for a great, informative review. His hard work (and trust me, this one was/is a LOT of hard work) is getting forgotten due to the uproar over the video.

[Jumpman]

Grand Bob,

To me, The Two Towers is where the Trilogy got lazy and unfocused. Had the Two Towers been adapted properly, Return of the King, no matter which version wouldn't feel bloated.

Cut out Arwen in the Two Towers completely, cut down (significantly) Merry and Pippin, get rid of the Wag Riders attack and have it as it was in the book (chase sequence basically), don't change Faramir, have Saurman's demise happen at the end of the film, and don't have freakin' Frodo reveal the Ring at Osgilith, then you have a much better version of the Two Towers...that doesn't bloat Return of the King.

And I'm no purist...

[dcowboy7]

Shockingly TBS showed Terminator 2 in OAR yesterday.

Wonder if they will do the same for their LOTR trilogy this fri/sat/sun as well.

[Celerony]

Originally Posted by n8boss87

Celerony, from your post one can easily conclude that you've never dealt with studio reps or rep firms.

So what?
The studio has the full right do this, of course, but it makes no sense, it's forcing somebody to hide things as they are.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

That's not really fair though to be honest - Disney/Pixar movies are more expensive than the rest because they include all of that other superfluous nonsense along with it so they can charge more. Not that I'm complaining, it's worth it given what they look like.

Would you rather pay 60 bucks for a fantastic Wizard of Oz or 20 bucks for an "ugh" one?

If you choose the latter you probably don't care enough about that movie to buy it either way. There are so friggin' few absolutely classic movies out there that when they go all out remastering it and giving us the best it can possibly be, yeah, I don't mind at all paying a premium for it. It costs them money, a lot of it, to make these things.

I love the LotR movies. Would I rather pay around 20 bucks for each for what it is now or more a premium for a completely reminted version? There is not doubt in my mind what I would choose.

You can get a fabulous WoOz at Costco for $12.99.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Sith

It's far from irrelevant if your not looking to pay $60 for one movie. When
you were saying would you pay $60 for a great Wizard or $20 for an ugh one, I paid less than $20.00 and it's the same disc everyone that spent $60 got.

As to your other point, yeah I'd be more than willing to pay a premium for a better transfer. I just wish we were getting that option now.

As far as the Disney movies, they're consistently reasonably priced no matter where you get them when they come out, and always great quality, Warner could learn a thing or two from that.

Gangs of New York?

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by Andes

I still plan to buy the blu-ray trilogy because it's the best version available until 2012. Any ideas how much the new EE blu set will cost? I'm assuming it will be in the $150+ range.

How much was the EE dvd box set on release date? I've never seen the EE so I'm hoping to find a cheap set on ebay.

$150? No way..I'd say maybe around $80. It depends how it will look and how many disks will be included.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Grand Bob,

To me, The Two Towers is where the Trilogy got lazy and unfocused. Had the Two Towers been adapted properly, Return of the King, no matter which version wouldn't feel bloated.

Cut out Arwen in the Two Towers completely, cut down (significantly) Merry and Pippin, get rid of the Wag Riders attack and have it as it was in the book (chase sequence basically), don't change Faramir, have Saurman's demise happen at the end of the film, and don't have freakin' Frodo reveal the Ring at Osgilith, then you have a much better version of the Two Towers...that doesn't bloat Return of the King.

I also felt that there was lack of focus in some areas. I didn't see the necessity of the warg battle, and especially Aragorn falling off of the cliff, being revived by Arwen and his horse, the despair of Legolas at Helm's Deep (simply would not have happened), etc. Unlike many "purists", I didn't mind the Elven army at Helm's Deep, because it was representative of similar alliances in the First and Second Ages, and was an additional element of interest. I think Jackson was desperately trying to put Arwen in wherever he could to give the films broader appeal. Overall, I feel the strengths outweigh the weaknesses in Jackson's adaption, and can appreciate the tight rope he was walking in an attempt to please most people.