Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Theatrical Versions) - April 6, 2010 - Page 220 - Blu-ray Forum

dcowboy7 · 03-23-2010, 01:27 AM

I cant believe there arent any reviews out yet.

rileyparrish · 03-23-2010, 01:28 AM

Now THOSE are some half-decent screenshots...too bad it's in French.

http://www.filmsactu.com/dossier-hd-...u-ray-9458.htm

42041 · 03-23-2010, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rileyparrish

Now THOSE are some half-decent screenshots...too bad it's in French.

http://www.filmsactu.com/dossier-hd-...u-ray-9458.htm

uh, they look the same

Clark Kent · 03-23-2010, 01:47 AM

Everything I have seen indicates another botch job by Warner. I will wait on picking them up until they drop the pricing. If they can't be bothered to remaster the film, I can't be bothered to pay full price for poor quality. Someone should inform them that you can, in fact, place over 40 GBs on a BD-50.

Mike2060 · 03-23-2010, 01:51 AM

The screen caps are accurate, considering the people doing them have done them many times before. They are representative of what the Blu will look like even when in motion. Please, you can't try and make up excuses for why it looks terrible. A screen cap is a perfect representation of the movie. Sure, your computer monitor isn't accurate but we are looking at things like EE and DNR which aren't affected by our screens.

deado · 03-23-2010, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Someone should inform them that you can, in fact, place over 40 GBs on a BD-50.

Even higher bitrates probably wouldn't have helped much if the master they're using isn't top notch. FOTR has a higher bitrate than ROTK, yet looks much worse.

42041 · 03-23-2010, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Everything I have seen indicates another botch job by Warner. I will wait on picking them up until they drop the pricing. If they can't be bothered to remaster the film, I can't be bothered to pay full price for poor quality. Someone should inform them that you can, in fact, place over 40 GBs on a BD-50.

While I agree, the people who do WB's authoring and compression seem to (as a general but not universal rule) squeeze far less quality out of a given bitrate than other studios, so I'm not sure if that would help things much. What they should do is tell their compression people to screw off and find a more competent facility.

Hi-Def Steve · 03-23-2010, 02:02 AM

Oh god its Gladiator all over again!

ack_bak · 03-23-2010, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

LOL ouch, the point we should all remember is though, screenshots aren't evidence of how the movies will look in motion though. I will make sure the copy I get of these has a functioning case before I leave the store though, don't want a repeat of Blade Runner.

While it is true that you cannot use a few screenshots as the de-facto verdict as to how a movie will look in your environment, in motion, they are still often telling. No amount of motion made "Patton" or "Gladiator" look any better IMHO. And these are not some third rate movies. They are the LOTR movies which made billions for the studio, and have been nominated for countless awards and have a legion of fans. This is pathetic. Especially Fellowship of the Ring. These movies should be a noticeable upgrade vs the HDTV broadcast.

I was going to rent the theatricals anyway because I want the EE's, but this I don't see how anyone who is a fan of the movies can be happy with this. I was expecting the PQ to be reference quality considering it is the LOTR movies.

Very disappointed with what I am seeing so far. I truly hope it is not as bad as some of the screencaps make it out to be.

The studio is going to milk us. First these subpar theatricals, then the EE's, then all the movies remastered again....

MCT · 03-23-2010, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ack_bak

First these subpar theatricals, then the EE's, then all the movies remastered again....

please don't say that....please. I really want the EE's and I'm ready to pre-order the moment they become available, but you're right, they could very well remaster them a year or so later for some kind of "anniversary edition" or something.

ack_bak · 03-23-2010, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deado

Even higher bitrates probably wouldn't have helped much if the master they're using isn't top notch. FOTR has a higher bitrate than ROTK, yet looks much worse.

Exactly right. It is not the bitrate. VC-1 @ 20Mbps+ can and does look very good. Clearly it is the master that was used. How can Warner release this without putting the proper time and effort into it is beyond me.

And I say this because, aside from the first 2 Star Wars movies (Episodes IV and V) these are the most anticipated movies ever released on Blu-Ray for me.

Diesel · 03-23-2010, 02:22 AM

Anyone else think that "The Restoration" part on the site will never go live?

Grand Bob · 03-23-2010, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel

Anyone else think that "The Restoration" part on the site will never go live?

I, for one, am curious to see what they have to say.

DetroitSportsFan · 03-23-2010, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-Def Steve

Oh god its Gladiator all over again!

It's not that bad.

Hi-Def Steve · 03-23-2010, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

It's not that bad.

I was thinking about the mass hysteria that's going to happen on all the Blu forums.

DetroitSportsFan · 03-23-2010, 02:50 AM

All of the sudden this thread makes a little more sense.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mo...te-warner.html

Diesel · 03-23-2010, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

All of the sudden this thread makes a little more sense.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mo...te-warner.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-Def Steve

I was thinking about the mass hysteria that's going to happen on all the Blu forums.

In that case....it'll be worse

Batman1980 · 03-23-2010, 02:53 AM

Maybe instead of bashing Warner, you guys could think of ways to get your feedback heard if the transfers suck and affect positive change within NL/WB.

ack_bak · 03-23-2010, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Maybe instead of bashing Warner, you guys could think of ways to get your feedback heard if the transfers suck and affect positive change within NL/WB.

Agreed, and I give major kudos to Warner for many of their catalog efforts over the past year or so:
WoZ
North By Northwest
Gone With The Wind, etc.

But people should email or write them concerning the LOTR trilogy and let them know that this is unacceptable.

DetroitSportsFan · 03-23-2010, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Maybe instead of bashing Warner, you guys could think of ways to get your feedback heard if the transfers suck and affect positive change within NL/WB.

Not buying them should get Warner's attention. There's already a lot of people not buying them because they're not the extended versions. Now factor in those people who won't buy because of the quality. That's a considerable amount of lost sales.

Warner catches heat for a reason. LOTR is one of those titles they should have went the extra mile for.

View Poll Results: After Reading This Megathread, Will you still purchase LOTR?
Yes	386	59.75%
No	260	40.25%
Voters: 646. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Lord of the rings trilogy	Retail/Shopping	Smadawho	9	03-31-2010 04:17 PM
Lord of the rings (il signore degli anelli) - 6/04/2010	Italy	El_Burro	1	02-17-2010 09:33 AM

03-23-2010, 01:27 AM	#4381
dcowboy7 Blu-ray Knight Top contributor Member since:Feb 2009 Location:Pequannock, NJ 4K collection:7 Blu-ray collection:112 Trading Score:11	I cant believe there arent any reviews out yet.

03-23-2010, 01:28 AM	#4382
rileyparrish Member Member since:Apr 2009 Blu-ray collection:6	Now THOSE are some half-decent screenshots...too bad it's in French. http://www.filmsactu.com/dossier-hd-...u-ray-9458.htm

03-23-2010, 01:47 AM	#4384
Clark Kent Blu-ray Prince Top contributor Member since:Oct 2007 Location:Metropolis Blu-ray reviews:2 Trading Score:184	Everything I have seen indicates another botch job by Warner. I will wait on picking them up until they drop the pricing. If they can't be bothered to remaster the film, I can't be bothered to pay full price for poor quality. Someone should inform them that you can, in fact, place over 40 GBs on a BD-50.

03-23-2010, 01:51 AM	#4385
Mike2060 Banned Member since:Feb 2009 Blu-ray collection:19 Blu-ray reviews:1	The screen caps are accurate, considering the people doing them have done them many times before. They are representative of what the Blu will look like even when in motion. Please, you can't try and make up excuses for why it looks terrible. A screen cap is a perfect representation of the movie. Sure, your computer monitor isn't accurate but we are looking at things like EE and DNR which aren't affected by our screens.

03-23-2010, 02:02 AM	#4388
Hi-Def Steve Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Apr 2009 Location:Pasadena, CA 4K collection:272 Blu-ray collection:324 DVD collection:7 Blu-ray reviews:1 Trading Score:187	Oh god its Gladiator all over again!

03-23-2010, 02:22 AM	#4392
Diesel Blu-ray Archduke Top contributor Member since:Jan 2009 4K collection:- Blu-ray collection:- DVD collection:- Digital collection:- Blu-ray reviews: 31 Trading Score:10	Anyone else think that "The Restoration" part on the site will never go live?

03-23-2010, 02:50 AM	#4396
DetroitSportsFan Hot Deals Moderator Top contributor Member since:Aug 2007 Location:Michigan 4K collection:439 Blu-ray collection:2226 Trading Score:93	All of the sudden this thread makes a little more sense. https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mo...te-warner.html

03-23-2010, 02:53 AM	#4398
Batman1980 Blu-ray Jedi Member since:Feb 2009 Location:District 13 Home Theater Gallery:8 4K collection:146 Blu-ray collection:394 DVD collection:57 Blu-ray reviews:22 Trading Score:48	Maybe instead of bashing Warner, you guys could think of ways to get your feedback heard if the transfers suck and affect positive change within NL/WB.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals