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

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

LOL. We covered this dude. I am not "threatened." The word honestly has no application here.

And if we're talking about me, I have an extremely high opinion of myself. LOL

Dude, threatened has more than one application and the way I perceive you is feeling threatened considering some of your very defensive responses. People get very defensive when they are threatened. We can just agree to disagree though.

Originally Posted by Q!

So this isn't threatning?

lol

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Do you feel the Tom Bombadil part from the book should have been included in the film? I dont know exactly how they would incorporate that into the film in a smooth way, but I miss that part from the book as far as the film goes. This was one of my favorite parts from the book.

I've only made it to the part where the hobbits are taken to their room in Bree, but I kind of felt that the Tom Bombadil part of the story was boring. I'm glad they kept it out of the movie.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Viewing angle is absolutely a ciritical bench-mark in interpreting any viewer's impressions. It's not "challenging", it's *clarifying*. Someone sitting 3 screen widths away from an HD image won't see DNR or EE or a host of other problems that someone watching from 1.5 screen widths will. Since the poster said he was watching on a 48" Plamsa, clarifying viewing distance is essential so folks will know how to interpret those impressions.

The comment asking about non-HT viewers should be obvious. Honestly, I wouldn't expect *any* non-HT viewer to find fault with these discs even at 1.5 screen widths. Only someone bothered by DNR would find fault, and most general viewers don't notice or care... just like they often don't notice or care about most of the things enthusiasts care about.

Even with transfers that are horrendous like Gladiator, the problems usually have to be pointed out to the average viewer before he/she realizes what they are. That's not a bad thing, it just means that the problems we're talking about on these discs, by their nature, won't bother the average viewer.

My friends are HT aware. They have a blu-ray player and 46 inch Plasma set
themselves. And we were sat less than 2 screen lengths from the screen. It looked great.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Do you feel the Tom Bombadil part from the book should have been included in the film? I dont know exactly how they would incorporate that into the film in a smooth way, but I miss that part from the book as far as the film goes. This was one of my favorite parts from the book.

I don't think it should be in the flim, even though I like that part of the book, too. Bombadil has no direct connection to the story of the ring, and with the length of the movies as they are, it just makes more sense to drop it. In addition, movie audiences unfamiliar with the book might have been confused by this singing dude with yellow boots, blue coat, and a feather in his hat. Critics would have complained about the distraction from the story. On the other hand, that also eliminates the incident at the Barrow-downs and how the hobbits got their weapons.

[jonmoz]

Todd i was not refering to you,your points have seemed rational to me.

It's just that even on my 32 inch t.v in my living room,i can still tell a good Blu-ray from a bad one.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

I've only made it to the part where the hobbits are taken to their room in Bree, but I kind of felt that the Tom Bombadil part of the story was boring. I'm glad they kept it out of the movie.

A few of my friends who I have discussed this with in the past feel the same way. Personally, I really enjoyed this part of the book for whatever reason.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Agreed.

My issue is trying to bring clarity so we can have a meaningful discussion. When 20 people all share their random "opinoin" of the picture quality, those opinions have no context on their own and cannot be related to each other. Only when the context of viewing angle (among other things) is factored into the discussion to the various "opinions" become meaningful and able to be interpreted and understood.

Food for thought.

I sit 3 screen widths from my display. (Screen surface to eyeballs). And I easily detect DNR, EE, shimmering, ringing, banding, aliasing, breathing, and color shifting. To a very strong degree actually. I have never seen 2 Blu-rays that are similar enough in PQ that I could call them equal.

Amadeus, Patton, Gladiator and a few more are unwatchable to me. The post production/authoring/compression shenanigans make them look like CGI video games to me. Bad ones at that. They look nothing like Film. I never set out to find these faults, sometimes they are just so glaring that they become jarring.

My point, is simply that I think too much is being made of seating distance when noticing these anaomolies. I wont argue seating distance when it comes to the level of immersion or replicating the theatrical experience, as I believe that is highly subjective. (How many seating rows are in a theater?)

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by radagast

I don't think it should be in the flim, even though I like that part of the book, too. Bombadil has no direct connection to the story of the ring, and with the length of the movies as they are, it just makes more sense to drop it. In addition, movie audiences unfamiliar with the book might have been confused by this singing dude with yellow boots, blue coat, and a feather in his hat. Critics would have complained about the distraction from the story. On the other hand, that also eliminates the incident at the Barrow-downs and how the hobbits got their weapons.

All good points and all reasons why including this in the film would have been a BIG challenge to get it to flow smoothly. Makes sense why they chose to leave it out.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Fors*

I have always had a hard time understanding Tom. His character confused me in many ways. A master of such a small domain, yet he had no desire to leave it. Obviously he was powerful in some acute way, but his purpose of the book was dificult for me to grasp. I think he provides some kind of alerternative approach to those always seeking and wanting of things. His "carefree" mentality was just odd to me.

Try reading "Bored of the Rings". You might enjoy Tom's counterpart in that book.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Food for thought.

I sit 3 screen widths from my display. (Screen surface to eyeballs). And I easily detect DNR, EE, shimmering, ringing, banding, aliasing, breathing, and color shifting. To a very strong degree actually. I have never seen 2 Blu-rays that are similar enough in PQ that I could call them equal.

Amadeus, Patton, Gladiator and a few more are unwatchable to me. The post production shenanigans make them look like CGI video games to me. Bad ones at that. They look nothing like Film. I never set out to find these faults, sometimes they are just so glaring that they become jarring.

My point, is simply that I think too much is being made of seating distance when noticing these anaomolies. I wont argue seating distance when it comes to the level of immersion or replicating the theatrical experience, as I believe that is highly subjective. (How many seating rows are in a theater?)

Then let's add another factor shall we?

People could unknowingly need to get glasses or contacts, for a few years I actually wasn't aware that I needed them.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

Todd i was not refering to you,your points have seemed rational to me.

It's just that even on my 32 inch t.v in my living room,i can still tell a good Blu-ray from a bad one.

Thanks, I appreciate you saying that

I can still tell a good blu ray from a bad on my 46" upstairs as well, but it is MUCH less dramatic compared to the bigger screen and closer seating distance downstairs where it really becomes obvious. Both flaws and details become MUCH easier to see for me in the "super duper tv room" Even upconverted DVD looks "good" on the 46"..........downstairs, I have a hard time watching all but the best quality DVDs upconverted.

[Fors*]

Originally Posted by radagast

I don't think it should be in the flim, even though I like that part of the book, too. Bombadil has no direct connection to the story of the ring, and with the length of the movies as they are, it just makes more sense to drop it. In addition, movie audiences unfamiliar with the book might have been confused by this singing dude with yellow boots, blue coat, and a feather in his hat. Critics would have complained about the distraction from the story. On the other hand, that also eliminates the incident at the Barrow-downs and how the hobbits got their weapons.

Even if Frodo could have learned something and demonstrated it from Tom's actions later within the movie, I would have been OK with his inclusion. However, once they get out of the Barrow-downs, this chapter leaves little relevancy to the remaining story and what impact it had on the hobbits.

[Monkey]

"(How many seating rows are in a theater?) "

but it is only "TV" for 99 out of 100 rows. I watched Avatar at the Imax tv a couple months ago , great experience!

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

It was correct to leave Bombadil out of the movies. In the book, however, his role was crucial, because he represented the only powerful being in the story that had no interest in using his power to control or dominate others (thus the Ring had no effect on him).

When Bombadil was brought up in the Council, didn't Gandalf say something along the lines of Bombadil is the master of himself and nothing has mastery over him?

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Monkey

"(How many seating rows are in a theater?) "

but it is only "TV" for 99 out of 100 rows. I watched Avatar at the Imax tv a couple months ago , great experience!

1.5 or closer is what he meant I would assume (right David?) so it would be a LOT more than 99 out of 100 rows.

[jonmoz]

Todd of course people will have the potential to see more flaws on a larger screen,but you still can spot them on a smaller one.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

No matter what your stance on this release, That was a very weak review from a technical perspective IMO.

Vague with a capitol V.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by radagast

When Bombadil was brought up in the Council, didn't Gandalf say something along the lines of Bombadil is the master of himself and nothing has mastery over him?

Something in that nature and also that as someone else suggested to give him the ring was not a good idea. He would probably get bored with it and lose it, he would have been a very bad guardian for it.

I kept wondering when I was younger if Tom was not Iluvatar but I think a lot of fans do not agree on that part.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

1.5 or closer is what he meant I would assume (right David?) so it would be a LOT more than 99 out of 100 rows.

So people actually choose to sit in the TV section before the Home Theater section fills up, interesting!

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Andes

Just another review to balance the good and bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Erickson

Review at DVDtalk: http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3173ring.html

A very short review on the technical site. From a very respected reviewer. Who knows very much about film and movies in general. So that has to be respected

"Color and contrast are in better control in these HD transfers, allowing deep dank dungeons to stay that way without going milky. Bright fairyland castles gleam in the sunlight without losing detail. On DVD, the trilogy's night scenes tended to lean toward a leeched silver/blue set of color tones. As many of these scenes were shot in fairly normal light and then beaten into conformity through digital color manipulation, it was to easy to suggest that it didn't matter how they were filmed. Here on Blu-ray, we realize that the night scenes are richer than we remember. The effects still hold up very well, even the scenes involving what look like millions of pixel warriors charging across vast plains. And the audio packs considerable punch in DTS and Dolby configurations."