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

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Josh

Sorry, its not on there. Unless you can provide me with a catalog number.

I haven't been able to find anything there either; a Google search yielded similar results. Amazon's website still says sometime in 2011 or 2012. I'm not convinced there is a release date yet.

[detective392]

Haven't really followed the news but does anyone know if they are going to remaster the movies for the extended edition release? I know most people were disappointed at the PQ for these movies and that new line should know this so hopefully they fix it.

[Pouyan]

Originally Posted by detective392

Haven't really followed the news but does anyone know if they are going to remaster the movies for the extended edition release? I know most people were disappointed at the PQ for these movies and that new line should know this so hopefully they fix it.

I don't have that much trust in WB/NL for them to remaster the first movie or remove the DNR

[detective392]

Originally Posted by Pouyan

I don't have that much trust in WB/NL for them to remaster the first movie or remove the DNR

OK that sucks still can't figure out how they screwed up one of the most wanted movie series on Blu-ray.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by detective392

OK that sucks still can't figure out how they screwed up one of the most wanted movie series on Blu-ray.

You say screwed up, I say did a very good job. The first one had a lot of post-production issues but it's still miles ahead of the DVD, 2 and 3 are both excellent transfers.

[detective392]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

You say screwed up, I say did a very good job. The first one had a lot of post-production issues but it's still miles ahead of the DVD, 2 and 3 are both excellent transfers.

Yeah the PQ is better then the DVD but these Blu-ray's should have been 5/5's for PQ or close to it. I haven't viewed them yet my self but just here a lot of bad things about the PQ.

[Moderator]

For all the people who says the Extended Editions are the "real" versions of the movies, I have few things to say.

Directors Cut's/Extended Editions/etc are made for two reasons:

1. Director wants to show his work that would not be seen otherwise.

A lot of frames and scenes are cut out from the final movie and for a reason; Director wants people to see the movie at its best. What you see in the theaters are what the director wants people to see. No director wants to show 90% of the audience version he don't think is as perfect as it can be, and then show the "perfect" version (in his mind) to those 10% of the audience that are hardcore fans of the movie and will buy the extended version. And they surely don't want to show that "non perfect" version to film critics (and Oscar jury). Those scenes that are left out just don't work in the movie well enough that they would be included. It's that simple.

BUT, Directors are very proud of their work, (almost) every scene they have filmed and if there are some good scenes that didn't work that well with the movie, directors still want people to see those scenes. That's why they make Director Cut's. To show people work they are proud of, work that would not be seen otherwise. There's always option to add all the scenes to "deleted scenes" section in special features, but why that is not done every time is explainen in "part 2".

Same thing happens in music too. Artists and bands do usually left out many songs from the album and the reason is same; Those songs do not fit to the album with the rest of the songs and they "break" the "integrity/vision" (don't know the correct word in english). But bands will usually release another editions from the albums including those extra songs as "bonus tracks" OR they will move some songs to the next album, next single (as aditional songs) or they will release full "unreleased songs" album.

2. Money

Studios want every penny they can get from their movies. When they release another edition from the movie on DVD/Blu-ray, they will get a lot of additional $$$ out of the movie. Studios will say if the new extended version is made or if it's not, and only thing that matters when they make the desicion is that do they think the another version will make good profit or not. Depending on the case, Extended Edition sells way more than just adding those scenes as "deleted scenes" on the special features.

In short: 99% of the time version you see on the theater is the real version of the movie. If i'm correct, also Peter Jackson has said he prefers the Theatrical Editions.

Just 2 cents from a guy who works on the "business".

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by detective392

Yeah the PQ is better then the DVD but these Blu-ray's should have been 5/5's for PQ or close to it. I haven't viewed them yet my self but just here a lot of bad things about the PQ.

Some people will never realize that some movies will never be a 5/5 in PQ. I'm not saying these couldn't have been even better (can't say since I'm no expert), but they could only be so good (especially Fellowship). That's all I'll say about this though as we don't need this brought up again. Might as well just close the thread if we go there again.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Moderator

For all the people who says the Extended Editions are the "real" versions of the movies, I have few things to say.

Directors Cut's/Extended Editions/etc are made for two reasons:

1. Director wants to show his work that would not be seen otherwise.

A lot of frames and scenes are cut out from the final movie and for a reason; Director wants people to see the movie at its best. What you see in the theaters are what the director wants people to see. No director wants to show 90% of the audience version he don't think is as perfect as it can be, and then show the "perfect" version (in his mind) to those 10% of the audience that are hardcore fans of the movie and will buy the extended version. And they surely don't want to show that "non perfect" version to film critics (and Oscar jury). Those scenes that are left out just don't work in the movie well enough that they would be included. It's that simple.

BUT, Directors are very proud of their work, (almost) every scene they have filmed and if there are some good scenes that didn't work that well with the movie, directors still want people to see those scenes. That's why they make Director Cut's. To show people work they are proud of, work that would not be seen otherwise. There's always option to add all the scenes to "deleted scenes" section in special features, but why that is not done every time is explainen in "part 2".

Same thing happens in music too. Artists and bands do usually left out many songs from the album and the reason is same; Those songs do not fit to the album with the rest of the songs and they "break" the "integrity/vision" (don't know the correct word in english). But bands will usually release another editions from the albums including those extra songs as "bonus tracks" OR they will move some songs to the next album, next single (as aditional songs) or they will release full "unreleased songs" album.

2. Money

Studios want every penny they can get from their movies. When they release another edition from the movie on DVD/Blu-ray, they will get a lot of additional $$$ out of the movie. Studios will say if the new extended version is made or if it's not, and only thing that matters when they make the desicion is that do they think the another version will make good profit or not. Depending on the case, Extended Edition sells way more than just adding those scenes as "deleted scenes" on the special features.

In short: 99% of the time version you see on the theater is the real version of the movie. If i'm correct, also Peter Jackson has said he prefers the Theatrical Editions.

Just 2 cents from a guy who works on the "business".

You're forgetting option 3, where the director is screwed over by the producer or studio, who force him into cutting his movie due to time limits, or because they don't like the tone of the movie, or something.

[Batman1980]

Option 4, director has 1 view for the movie, writers, actors, producers, studio, advertisers all have a different view. Director is not always to blame for decisions made regarding the movies he makes.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

Option 4, director has 1 view for the movie, writers, actors, producers, studio, advertisers all have a different view. Director is not always to blame for decisions made regarding the movies he makes.

Writers, actors etc don't have anything to say when it comes to final cut (or editing in general). Director and producers are making the choises. Usually it's the directors choise alone and producer just gives the green light. That's why I said "99% of times" and LotR is among those 99%.

[Chiyo_chichi]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

You say screwed up, I say did a very good job. The first one had a lot of post-production issues but it's still miles ahead of the DVD, 2 and 3 are both excellent transfers.

I caved and bought the trilogy today. So far only checked out my favorite scenes in TT and Rotk but I am very pleased thus far. Yet to check out Fellowship so I may still get a nasty shock everyone keeps going on about.


I went in with my expectations below the floor, but come on, (again, from what I've seen) these are way superior than the dvds and worth it if you don't mind the missing EE stuff.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Moderator

For all the people who says the Extended Editions are the "real" versions of the movies, I have few things to say.

Directors Cut's/Extended Editions/etc are made for two reasons:

1. Director wants to show his work that would not be seen otherwise.

A lot of frames and scenes are cut out from the final movie and for a reason; Director wants people to see the movie at its best. What you see in the theaters are what the director wants people to see. No director wants to show 90% of the audience version he don't think is as perfect as it can be, and then show the "perfect" version (in his mind) to those 10% of the audience that are hardcore fans of the movie and will buy the extended version. And they surely don't want to show that "non perfect" version to film critics (and Oscar jury). Those scenes that are left out just don't work in the movie well enough that they would be included. It's that simple.

BUT, Directors are very proud of their work, (almost) every scene they have filmed and if there are some good scenes that didn't work that well with the movie, directors still want people to see those scenes. That's why they make Director Cut's. To show people work they are proud of, work that would not be seen otherwise. There's always option to add all the scenes to "deleted scenes" section in special features, but why that is not done every time is explainen in "part 2".

Same thing happens in music too. Artists and bands do usually left out many songs from the album and the reason is same; Those songs do not fit to the album with the rest of the songs and they "break" the "integrity/vision" (don't know the correct word in english). But bands will usually release another editions from the albums including those extra songs as "bonus tracks" OR they will move some songs to the next album, next single (as aditional songs) or they will release full "unreleased songs" album.

2. Money

Studios want every penny they can get from their movies. When they release another edition from the movie on DVD/Blu-ray, they will get a lot of additional $$$ out of the movie. Studios will say if the new extended version is made or if it's not, and only thing that matters when they make the desicion is that do they think the another version will make good profit or not. Depending on the case, Extended Edition sells way more than just adding those scenes as "deleted scenes" on the special features.

In short: 99% of the time version you see on the theater is the real version of the movie. If i'm correct, also Peter Jackson has said he prefers the Theatrical Editions.

Just 2 cents from a guy who works on the "business".

That's how I feel about Blade Runner.

[detective392]

Originally Posted by killowertz

Some people will never realize that some movies will never be a 5/5 in PQ. I'm not saying these couldn't have been even better (can't say since I'm no expert), but they could only be so good (especially Fellowship). That's all I'll say about this though as we don't need this brought up again. Might as well just close the thread if we go there again.

I meant to say they could have been better. Not exactly 5/5's but better then what we got based on reviews.

[NYorker]

As I recall, Peter Jackson said the versions that came out in the theater were the ones he wanted in the theater, while the extended versions were more geared for "fans," and meant to take advantage of home teather technology.
I think the only mistake he made with the TE is the omission of Saruman in the opening of part 3. I think that was a bad edit decision.

[AintNoSin]

PJ never said he "preferred" the theatrical versions, only that he felt they were the best they could be given the length constraints placed on him by the studio. He didn't call the EEs "director's cuts," because BOTH versions were director's cuts.

[Me Myself and I]

It doesn't matter that much to me which version PJ says is the true "director's cut" one way or the other. The longer editions are the only ones I'll get because they are truer to the original story writer's vision, not the theatrical cuts.

Tolkien>Jackson

[TheCropChick]

Originally Posted by NYorker

As I recall, Peter Jackson said the versions that came out in the theater were the ones he wanted in the theater, while the extended versions were more geared for "fans," and meant to take advantage of home teather technology.
I think the only mistake he made with the TE is the omission of Saruman in the opening of part 3. I think that was a bad edit decision.

Are the boxes marked as "extended" version?

[nametag]

Originally Posted by Me Myself and I

It doesn't matter that much to me which version PJ says is the true "director's cut" one way or the other. The longer editions are the only ones I'll get because they are truer to the original story writer's vision, not the theatrical cuts.

Tolkien>Jackson

The film is in a different medium. cramming as much as possible from a book into the film does not necessarily make the film better on its own terms. In particular it can ruin the narrative flow. But I can understand a fans curiosity at seeing particular scenes made real. I think it comes down to what an individual prefers. I think the TE of the first 2 at least are pretty much perfect. And I find Tolkien's narrative style quite long-winded and generally off in a lot of places (though that's not to say his genius doesn't show in others...)

Originally Posted by TheCropChick

Are the boxes marked as "extended" version?

As opposed to what? Yes they were always referred to as theatrical or extended, never 'director's cuts' or something like that...

[TheCropChick]

As opposed to what? Yes they were always referred to as theatrical or extended, never 'director's cuts' or something like that...[/QUOTE]

No need to be a SMART @SS