Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Theatrical Versions) - April 6, 2010 - Page 467 - Blu-ray Forum

PeterTHX · 04-14-2010, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I've seen two page adds for Avatar.

Adding to what? Attention Deficit Disorder?

Saw another HD ad for the LOTR Blu-rays.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aggienader08

Not sure what part of the movie this comes from, maybe Two Towers when Gollum takes 'em to the Black Gate or maybe Minus Morgul in ROTK? Not sure what you're asking about Frodo's face, it just looks dirty is all.

You don't notice the skin on his right cheek abruptly ends like the bottom half of his face is skewed?

jebhdb · 04-14-2010, 11:59 PM

Ken, awesome job regarding all the time and effort you've put in reviewing these disc. Your dedication and hard work are appreciated.

BaronVH · 04-15-2010, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I'm a bit on the fence with this one -- Tolkien was making a thematic point (the Shire had to pay a price for the war) but while Tolkien could do that in his book, Jackson was making a movie.

Yes, they could have had what I would term a "Die Hard 1" moment in the narrative, where the Hobbits return to the Shire in victory, only to have evil baddies from film 1 and 2 pop up forcing a bit of last minute carnage, and that would accomplish Tolkien's point...but at the same time audiences seeing the mterial for the first time woud have already been through so much (and let's face it, the Hobbits would have already been through so much), I can easily see why they thought a thrilling final battle was gratuitous. It isn't as Jackson didn't like the chapter. He was making a movie. It would be like the shark in Jaws showing up at the Brody household at the end of Jaws. ROTK already saw complaints about too many endings, imagine the frustration with a Saruman/Wormtongue/Hobbit smackdown at the end of ROTK. I'm not saying that can't work (not the shark in Jaws example, but more plausible examples) -- but ultimately I think Jackson and Walsh made the right decision. Could they have made it work? Yeah. Did the film need the scene? Nope.

Thats why it's gone.

I certainly agree. If they did have it in, it would have had to be quick, but one complaint with the theatrical version is that you don't see what happened to Saruman. It would have been good to see that lowly hobbits are able to deal with him. Most definately many omissions were great such as Bombadil, but I imagine that Radagast could think of one character he wishes was included.

Fry1213 · 04-15-2010, 12:31 AM

no one should buy it until the make it the right way on Blu-ray and why don't the movies have updates on the disks it would make updating the player easy.it would be like the psp there updates are on the disk.

dcowboy7 · 04-15-2010, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aggienader08

It means that he was talking about HD broadcasting which actually is only in 1080i. NOT pay-per-view. Thus your comment about pay-per-view being broadcast in 1080p and the discussion of broadcasting and pay-per-view period is rather "irrelevant" to a TOLR discussion thread.

But sat does broadcast 1080p, its still a channel whats the diff if its ppv.

radagast · 04-15-2010, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cstep11189

Does anyone think amazon will lower the price anytime soon or do any of the codes still work for the warner brothers website?

I am watching Walmart's site as it's still $63.97. If it drops $4, I'll pull the trigger.

Lt. Aldo Raine · 04-15-2010, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radagast

I am watching Walmart's site as it's still $63.97. If it drops $4, I'll pull the trigger.

$4

Underworld54 · 04-15-2010, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fry1213

no one should buy it until the make it the right way on Blu-ray and why don't the movies have updates on the disks it would make updating the player easy.it would be like the psp there updates are on the disk.

Ummmm....what???

highdefw · 04-15-2010, 01:41 AM

I want to buy this really bad, but I won't buy a Blu movie unless it's in the best possibly quality. Slipping up on a major trilogy like this one is very disappointing.

dcowboy7 · 04-15-2010, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highdefw

I want to buy this really bad, but I won't buy a Blu movie unless it's in the best possibly quality. Slipping up on a major trilogy like this one is very disappointing.

But u have the terminator & the quality on that isnt great.

highdefw · 04-15-2010, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

But u have the terminator & the quality on that isnt great.

Some of my movies were gifts

Plus I expect highly anticipated films to take advantage of a new format. Take The pirates of the Caribbean trilogy for example. Disney did a fantastic job with the authoring.

lDlisturb3d · 04-15-2010, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I've seen two page adds for Avatar.

Bro you are comparing a movie that it hot and was in the theater, Lord of the rings is more than 7 years old. Every big movie is on some front page while its in the theater. This hit the front page after being rereleased on blu, BIG DIFFERENCE.

LetoAtreides82 · 04-15-2010, 02:55 AM

A few screencaps from the Fellowship:

Full size png: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=1zqro14&s=5

Full size png: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=28rnxxv&s=5

Full size png: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=10f8d3k&s=5

mredman · 04-15-2010, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highdefw

I want to buy this really bad, but I won't buy a Blu movie unless it's in the best possibly quality. Slipping up on a major trilogy like this one is very disappointing.

You haven't even seen it they look great

kayroll · 04-15-2010, 03:36 AM

Anyone can confirmed that LOTR released by EIV from Amazon UK are region free or region B locked?

LordoftheRings · 04-15-2010, 03:49 AM

Which will be the biggest seller between Avatar & LOTR?

Stinky-Dinkins · 04-15-2010, 03:52 AM

Ken, great update man. Seems like you busted your ass for this review, honestly I can't think of one other review source that has put even a fraction of the effort into reviewing this presentation on Blu-Ray as you have. Have no idea where you were able to see it presented theatrically but I only wish I was so lucky. It would be awesome for other local "niche" theaters around me to do the same; I would kill to see it again theatrically.

I'm hardly done all three (just finishing Fellowship) because of work and I won't get a chance to get back to them until this weekend and likely the weekend after that but from what I've seen from the Fellowship I do agree. Obvious flaws but hardly a "bad" presentation, the screens that were captured and obsessed over are bad, and are absolutely there in motion, but are hardly representative of the presentation as a whole, more like odd aberrations. Likely could be improved greatly given a new DI (please, please, please) but it's a lightyear away from a totally ****ed up transfer like, say, Patton (and I haven't even watched TT or RotK which from what I've read are great.)

Anyway, after reading reviews here from things like Patton (which was almost comical in motion) I kind of wrote reviews from this site off but ever since Gladiator you guys are right on completely and have seemed to improve immensely, and with this review (and your update and increase in score after seeing the theatrical run) it really does demonstrate an in depth understanding of image quality, so that was my error.

Either way, I'm happy to have a friggin’ reliable BD review source I can read, there are so few out there. A videophile's eye is always crucial when it comes to reviews.

Blu Titan · 04-15-2010, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Which will be the biggest seller between Avatar & LOTR?

There's no comparison. Avatar will be the biggest Blu-ray seller ever. Two million Blu-ray movies sold in the first week is very possible. New releases will outsell catalog titles.

42041 · 04-15-2010, 04:00 AM

Avatar was the bigger movie theatrically. It's not $60. People don't already have it on DVD. It's going to set blu-ray records without any doubt.

lDlisturb3d · 04-15-2010, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kayroll

Anyone can confirmed that LOTR released by EIV from Amazon UK are region free or region B locked?

Its region free i bet. Its from the same studio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

There's no comparison. Avatar will be the biggest Blu-ray seller ever. Two million Blu-ray movies sold in the first week is very possible. New releases will outsell catalog titles.

This is true, but i don't think avatar will pass up the Matrix in overall Revenue let alone LOTR's.

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

04-15-2010, 12:31 AM	#9324
Fry1213 New Member Member since:Apr 2010 Location:N.B Blu-ray collection:25 Blu-ray reviews:1	Lord of the rings no one should buy it until the make it the right way on Blu-ray and why don't the movies have updates on the disks it would make updating the player easy.it would be like the psp there updates are on the disk.

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

04-14-2010, 11:59 PM	#9322
jebhdb Blu-ray Guru Member since:Sep 2009 Location:Texas 4K collection:209 Blu-ray collection:3800	Ken, awesome job regarding all the time and effort you've put in reviewing these disc. Your dedication and hard work are appreciated.

04-15-2010, 01:41 AM	#9329
highdefw Active Member Member since:Aug 2007 4K collection:109 Blu-ray collection:366 DVD collection:1 Blu-ray reviews:6	I want to buy this really bad, but I won't buy a Blu movie unless it's in the best possibly quality. Slipping up on a major trilogy like this one is very disappointing.

04-15-2010, 02:55 AM	#9333
LetoAtreides82 Senior Member Member since:Oct 2009 Location:United States Blu-ray collection:223 Blu-ray reviews:23	A few screencaps from the Fellowship: Full size png: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=1zqro14&s=5 Full size png: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=28rnxxv&s=5 Full size png: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=10f8d3k&s=5

04-15-2010, 03:36 AM	#9335
kayroll Active Member Member since:Sep 2009 Location:Kuantan, Malaysia Blu-ray collection:315	Anyone can confirmed that LOTR released by EIV from Amazon UK are region free or region B locked?

04-15-2010, 03:49 AM	#9336
LordoftheRings Special Member Top contributor Member since:Mar 2010 Location:Portishead ♫	Which will be the biggest seller between Avatar & LOTR?

04-15-2010, 03:52 AM	#9337
Stinky-Dinkins Power Member Member since:Jun 2007 Location:USA Blu-ray collection:1	Ken, great update man. Seems like you busted your ass for this review, honestly I can't think of one other review source that has put even a fraction of the effort into reviewing this presentation on Blu-Ray as you have. Have no idea where you were able to see it presented theatrically but I only wish I was so lucky. It would be awesome for other local "niche" theaters around me to do the same; I would kill to see it again theatrically. I'm hardly done all three (just finishing Fellowship) because of work and I won't get a chance to get back to them until this weekend and likely the weekend after that but from what I've seen from the Fellowship I do agree. Obvious flaws but hardly a "bad" presentation, the screens that were captured and obsessed over are bad, and are absolutely there in motion, but are hardly representative of the presentation as a whole, more like odd aberrations. Likely could be improved greatly given a new DI (please, please, please) but it's a lightyear away from a totally ****ed up transfer like, say, Patton (and I haven't even watched TT or RotK which from what I've read are great.) Anyway, after reading reviews here from things like Patton (which was almost comical in motion) I kind of wrote reviews from this site off but ever since Gladiator you guys are right on completely and have seemed to improve immensely, and with this review (and your update and increase in score after seeing the theatrical run) it really does demonstrate an in depth understanding of image quality, so that was my error. Either way, I'm happy to have a friggin’ reliable BD review source I can read, there are so few out there. A videophile's eye is always crucial when it comes to reviews.

04-15-2010, 04:00 AM	#9339
42041 Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Oct 2008	Avatar was the bigger movie theatrically. It's not $60. People don't already have it on DVD. It's going to set blu-ray records without any doubt.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals