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

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I thought the worst one was Fellowship??

Anyone else think that's the best movie of the bunch?

[billzfan]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Anyone else think that's the best movie of the bunch?

I actually like Return of the King least and Two Towers the most.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Yes, WB is still releasing subpar titles.

I love how people completely disregard the facts of the films history, how it was processed and made. Projectionists in this very thread who ran prints of FOTR have said that it has always had a soft look to it, while the other two did not mostly because of the post production process, which was different between the first and the other two films. This is a part of the film. I myself, who saw the film upwards of 10 times in theaters, can attest to the fact that the film always looked soft and somewhat artificial in theaters. It was not shot or processed to look ultra sharp and grainy like something that Michael Bay or Tony Scott would make. The Blu-Ray, from everything I've seen and heard seems to replicate the original look of the theatrical experience and in many ways, outdoes the theatrical prints. And let's not forget that Jackson approved these transfers as well. Ultimately, I think people have just gotten their hopes up wanting this release to be something that it can't be and I think those of us who understand the history of the film and the way it was shot and processed, will love seeing these films in the best presentations yet made available to the public.

Thank you, that is all.

[Damage Inc.]

I agree that many people just think that the 'The Lord Of The Rings'-films
would just look like "magical" on Blu-Ray, like super-stellar-clear and amazingly clean and sharp,
because "that's what such a film would look like".
But probably forgetting the fact that it's still shot on film.

I'm not saying I know what it should look like, but many people think that way.
Similarly to how many of the more regular consumers think that for example... "older films weren't shot in HD."
Of course most people here don't, but it's a similar misconception.

[billzfan]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

I agree that many people just think that the 'The Lord Of The Rings'-films
would just look like "magical" on Blu-Ray, like super-stellar-clear and amazingly clean and sharp,
because "that's what such a film would look like".
But probably forgetting the fact that it's still shot on film.

I'm not saying I know what it should look like, but many people think that way.
Similarly to how many of the more regular consumers think that for example... "older films weren't shot in HD."
Of course most people here don't, but it's a similar misconception.

Film is a high def format. People forget that. 35MM films shot in 1935 are in HD. The actual resolution is higher than 1080p slightly.

I would say that too many people here don't necesarily understand that a soft picture doesn't always mean a bad transfer. Directors sometimes shoot their films that way as an artistic choice. Think about the first time Gandalf the White shows up in a glowy soft image. It was meant to look that way. It gives you that dream like state that makes a lot of sense for a fantasy film.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

I love how people completely disregard the facts of the films history, how it was processed and made. Projectionists in this very thread who ran prints of FOTR have said that it has always had a soft look to it, while the other two did not mostly because of the post production process, which was different between the first and the other two films. This is a part of the film. I myself, who saw the film upwards of 10 times in theaters, can attest to the fact that the film always looked soft and somewhat artificial in theaters. It was not shot or processed to look ultra sharp and grainy like something that Michael Bay or Tony Scott would make. The Blu-Ray, from everything I've seen and heard seems to replicate the original look of the theatrical experience and in many ways, outdoes the theatrical prints. And let's not forget that Jackson approved these transfers as well. Ultimately, I think people have just gotten their hopes up wanting this release to be something that it can't be and I think those of us who understand the history of the film and the way it was shot and processed, will love seeing these films in the best presentations yet made available to the public.

Thank you, that is all.

But it can...

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

FELLOWSHIP is the only one of the three films that didn't go through a complete DI process. In a DI stage, the entire film is scanned (in this case at 2K), all the post work is done, and the 2K file is then recorded back out to film and converted to anamorphic digitally. With FELLOWSHIP, only 70% of the film was scanned/manipulated, then it that footage was recorded back out as Super-35 negative and intercut with the 30% of footage that wasn't ever scanned, then the movie went through a traditional photochemical finish and optical Super-35 to anamorphic conversion. The BDs of the later two will always look better because they're starting from those 2K DI files and just doing a conversion- they don't go back to the film output- whereas FELLOWSHIP has to be rescanned from the film, so you're essentially rescanning an output of a scan for 70% of the film.

As to why the flashbacks in the later films look better, my guess is they kept those 2K files of the 70% of FELLOWSHIP that was scanned/manipulated on a hard-drive, then simply imported those original 2K files of the flashbacks into the DIs of the latter two films. If this is the case- and that 70% of FELLOWSHIP that was 2K scanned is still in a computer somewhere- then theoretically you COULD make FELLOWSHIP look better, if one where to scan just the 30% of footage that's original camera negative anew and recombine it with those 2K scans that were originally created for all the manipulated footage. This, of course, would be very costly and time-consuming, though. Maybe when they put together the "Extended Edition" Blu-rays they can do this, who knows, but it would take time and money putting the film back together in a 2K environment.

Vincent

[mredman]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

My UK copy arrived this morning, and I've had a quick scan through the discs to see how they stack up.

The first one really isn't that bad. Its not in the same league of bad as GoNY, or Gladiator, nor does it particularly distract while the film is in motion. The worst thing I could say about it is that its not especially spectacular. The Two Towers and Return of the King both look great. Compared to the DVD's all three films are streets ahead in terms of PQ, even the first film.

This entire situation is not the disaster that this thread seems to think it is. I don't think the average bear will even bat an eyelid at the quality of Fellowship. Its fine.

Good to hear that FOTR is way better then the DVD. TTT and ROTK is a 4 in PQ so i am not worried about these it is very weird that TTT and ROTK is leeps better then the transfer for FOTR. But it is still great to hear its better then DVD

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Anyone else think that's the best movie of the bunch?

Fellowship is my favorite of the 3 and the one I think has the most re-watch value. I'd rank Two Towers as #2 and King last for me.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Ouch! 5.5/10 PQ!

well it is definitely not as bad as he says. He is full of himself

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Anyone else think that's the best movie of the bunch?

Think it is the least bad of them

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

But it can...

...

then theoretically you COULD make FELLOWSHIP look better

The BD looks the way Jackson wants it to look, which is in turn how it looked in theaters on opening day. I'm happy with that.

[bearscubsfan87]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

I missed this the first time through. Anyway:



Christ, I second this. Not even for the HBO series, just read them because they're ****ing awesome.

I've been waiting forever for DwD. Love Martin - Song of Ice and Fire is fantastic. Winter is coming mother****er.

Robin Hobb is, in my opinion, the most underrated fantasy author of all time... and I've read them all and then some. She's just as good as Martin - a little better in my opinion. Her Elderlings saga has to be read if you're a fan of fantasy (Start with Farseer Trilogy, move onto Liveship trilogy, then move onto Tawny Man trilogy which continues the storyline of the original Farseer trilogy.) Skip the last two books, Dragon keeper and Dragon Haven, they're not very good.... but the first nine books in the Elderlings saga are must reads.


Read Name of the Wind by Rothfuss, the second installment should be coming soon, it's fantastic shit.

By the way, don't go to Amazon and sort by ratings to get recommendations if you’re looking for good fantasy suggestions - ask serious fantasy fans instead. Some of the of the stuff on Amazon is fraudulent, fake reviews posted by self published authors to trick you into buying their god awful books. Google Robert Stanek + fraud for more information on this type of shit.

I've been reading this sort of shit for more than 2 decades. I love Tolkein, and he may have been the real first in high fantasy, but in my opinion he's not the best. People like Martin and Hobb have surpassed him.

So, if you want great fantasy start with Martin's AsoIaF. Move onto Hobb's Elderlings saga. Then read Name of the Wind. If you still want more shit you can go onto Erikson's Malazan.... although that's been tapering off in quality.

Salvatore's early Drizz't Do'Urden books are excellent. The newer ones have declined significantly and I know a lot of people are turned off by the forgotten realms label. The Icewind Dale Trilogy and the Dark Elf trilogy, IMHO, are also must reads for any fantasy fan.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

I tested them on my 1080p Samsung 22" TV, and Sony BDPS360, which is the set up I have in my home office. I sit real close to that set up if I'm watching something for work, so did the same here, so I'd say I was sat maybe 3 feet away? We have a 48" LG and PS3 in the living room, but the missus doesn't really appreciate me fooling around with the TV on a saturday afternoon! I may give the first film a spin tonight (on the living room set up), but was planning on saving them for over the Easter break.

As you can tell by my set up I'm not much of an AV obsessive, and thats the sort of opinion I'm giving here. To an average guy, with a fairly inexpensive set up they looked fine. The TV is fully calibrated tho, so I have put a degree of effort into my setup!

A 22" TV does not tell crap. Take it a spin on the 48" TV then you can see more detail
Please tell us how it looks on that TV?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

...



The BD looks the way Jackson wants it to look, which is in turn how it looked in theaters on opening day. I'm happy with that.

So all those nasty digital anomolies were on the FILM? Er, no.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Andes

Just another opinion. It's fun reading the wide range of reviews.

http://www.dvdmg.com/lotrfellowshipbr.shtml

http://www.dvdmg.com/lotrtwotowersbr.shtml

http://www.dvdmg.com/lotrreturnofthekingbr.shtml


http://scifistorm.org/2010/03/24/lor...lu-ray-review/

Wow it seems here the reviewer is quite satisfied with all 3. Of course giving FOTR a B in PQ it is still good though. Really weird that there is so much devided opinions on these. I hope the positive reviews are the truth of course

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

So all those nasty digital anomolies were on the FILM? Er, no.

I haven't seen the Blu-Ray yet, so I can't comment yet, but in general the film has always been soft which could inadvertently be misconstrued as DNR. The film print itself did have an artificial look to it as well, I'd like to point out.

[Buddy Christ]

Everybody settle down, we ll know most of us will buy day one no mater what is said about them BECAUSE they are all better than the DVD.
Sheesh

[emgesp]

Sorry, but there is no excuse using 8 yr old masters for the Blu-ray. The trilogy made 3 billion dollars for christsake. I think they could find the money to invest in a totally new master for all three films.

[emgesp]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

I haven't seen the Blu-Ray yet, so I can't comment yet, but in general the film has always been soft which could inadvertently be misconstrued as DNR. The film print itself did have an artificial look to it as well, I'd like to point out.

Explain why the Blu-ray loses detail compared to the HDTV broadcast version?

I seriously doubt Peter Jackson asked for more DNR on the Blu-ray.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

...



The BD looks the way Jackson wants it to look, which is in turn how it looked in theaters on opening day. I'm happy with that.

I don't know about that, I think he would want all of the movies have the same look and quality, Fellowship has gotten much flak for its PQ and the later two much higher scores, it doesn't make sense if he wanted the jump in quality.