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

[aiman04]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

aiman,

That's what this interview and the other interview posted pages ago seems to be saying. This is new....

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Yes, but that information has been circulating for quite some time. The only new info in this particular interview is about the proposed special features (and most of that has been revealed elsewhere as well).

Is that right? Sorry, haven't been reading this thread for quite a while. Thanks for letting me know. Quite a task to dig through almost 500 pages, maybe somebody could help give me some quick answers. So in general what did everyone think about it? What was the conclusion on why even a new transfer of Fellowship, it still looks the way it is on this release? Do this mean this is the best it will ever look?

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with the Fellowship's PQ, just feel like it could've been better.

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Avatar? That's my picture. Ken Brown is just a pen name

...we need an Aldo Raine appreciation day. Everyone should change their av's to Aldo lol..just like we had with Clint.

[42041]

Originally Posted by aiman04

What was the conclusion on why even a new transfer of Fellowship, it still looks the way it is on this release? Do this mean this is the best it will ever look?

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with the Fellowship's PQ, just feel like it could've been better.

Personally I don't buy that it's a new transfer. Perhaps it's just nomenclature confusion, and he doesn't mean it's the "feed the conformed negative through a modern scanner" sort of new transfer (and if they went to such lengths as bringing the cinematographer on board, why not go all-out?) but a tweaking of existing materials. But if the goal was to improve upon what I've seen on HDTV over the years (well before 2008), then the question I have to ask is "where's the improvement?"

I think Michael Pellerin is being very vague in that article. I'd like to know exactly what the "improved technology" entails cause I'm just not seeing much improvement

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by aiman04

Is that right? Sorry, haven't been reading this thread for quite a while. Thanks for letting me know. Quite a task to dig through almost 500 pages, maybe somebody could help give me some quick answers. So in general what did everyone think about it? What was the conclusion on why even a new transfer of Fellowship, it still looks the way it is on this release? Do this mean this is the best it will ever look?

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with the Fellowship's PQ, just feel like it could've been better.

No problem at all. I didn't mean to suggest you should have been aware of all the info that's been posted, I just wanted to let you know more information could be found in previous posts. Sorry if I came across as condescending or anything, it wasn't my intention at all

Unfortunately, there haven't been many concrete details about the process. However, I can narrow those 500 pages down to 10! Peruse pages 465-475 and you'll find a lot of information on the subject, as well as the impressions I had after viewing an original theatrical print of 'Fellowship' a few weeks ago. Long story short, 'FotR' is a soft film and always has been, comparisons between the original print and the Blu-ray edition confirm there are some differences (that, while somewhat distracting, aren't as damning as I thought when I wrote my first video review of 'FotR'), it's unclear when and how the new approved masters were created, and bringing the 'FotR' video quality in line with 'TTT' and 'RotK' would involve a tremendous (and rather unfeasible) amount of time, money, and work (including redoing many of the special effects sequences).

Hope that helps (or at least points you in the right direction). Thanks as always for posting!

[Monolithium]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Might want to read...http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...dmp/index.html

After reading this I believe that the Extended Edition will get the same treatment as the theatricals. And we will have to wait a long time for that super awesome funtime mega HD boxset.

[aiman04]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

No problem at all. I didn't mean to suggest you should have been aware of all the info that's been posted, I just wanted to let you know more information could be found in previous posts. Sorry if I came across as condescending or anything, it wasn't my intention at all

Unfortunately, there haven't been many concrete details about the process. However, I can narrow those 500 pages down to 10! Peruse pages 465-475 and you'll find a lot of information on the subject, as well as the impressions I had after viewing an original theatrical print of 'Fellowship' a few weeks ago. Long story short, 'FotR' is a soft film and always has been, comparisons between the original print and the Blu-ray edition confirm there are some differences (that, while somewhat distracting, aren't as damning as I thought when I wrote my first video review of 'FotR'), it's unclear when and how the new approved masters were created, and bringing the 'FotR' video quality in line with 'TTT' and 'RotK' would involve a tremendous (and rather unfeasible) amount of time, money, and work (including redoing many of the special effects sequences).

Hope that helps (or at least points you in the right direction). Thanks as always for posting!

Not at all Ken, didn't see your post that way. I appreciate it in fact, as much as with all your other posts.

I took few hours to catch up the posts in the Avatar thread, so 10 pages is easy. Lol. Just like you and 42041 (thanks for your input, 42041), I'm not fully convinced that they did a new transfer either, more like a damage control exercise, a cover up to have those on the fence to just go buy it, making people think this is the best it will ever look anyway. It maybe soft since beginning, but that doesn't explain the DNR.

Interesting to see what other members think about this. I'll have some reading to do, thanks for the heads up, Ken.

[NYorker]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Might want to read...http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...dmp/index.html

Read that article as well, and I too am now pretty sure we will have to wait a loooong time for the extended box set.

On the plus side, long before that happens we'll already have Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Jaws, a Tombstone ultimate director's cut...(enter your most-wanted movie here) etc.,

So by the time they do release it, who will care, really...?

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by aiman04

Not at all Ken, didn't see your post that way. I appreciate it in fact, as much as with all your other posts.

I took few hours to catch up the posts in the Avatar thread, so 10 pages is easy. Lol. Just like you and 42041 (thanks for your input, 42041), I'm not fully convinced that they did a new transfer either, more like a damage control exercise, a cover up to have those on the fence to just go buy it, making people think this is the best it will ever look anyway. It maybe soft since beginning, but that doesn't explain the DNR.

Interesting to see what other members think about this. I'll have some reading to do, thanks for the heads up, Ken.

Just to clarify, I definitely take them on their word that they produced new masters, I just think at some point either they or the folks who primed the masters for the trilogy's Blu-ray debut did a bit more tweaking. Otherwise, I can't find a way to explain the differences in detail between the theatrical print and Blu-ray release (again, minor as those differences are). Still, despite the small differences between the two (in motion, not in screencap analyses ), I don't think anyone should avoid the release. It may be imperfect, but it's still a significant leap forward from the DVDs and offers solid value for your high-def buck.

But over the last three years, I've come dangerously close to tumbling into an inescapable pit. Simply put, evaluating video transfers so intently over a long period of time can begin to spoil the movie-viewing experience. I've had to learn to turn off that critical switch in my head after I've identified the pros and cons of a presentation's quality. Just like watching a flick in a dodgy theater, I have to let scratches and shortcomings fade away after fifteen minutes or so, until all that remains is the film. Otherwise, I'm watching a transfer of a film, not the film itself. I'm not saying no one should care or discuss the quality of these releases -- far from it. I'm not saying people shouldn't avoid a 'Gangs of New York' or 'Gladiator' when armed with appropriate information. But I am saying it's all too easy to miss the forest for the trees.

While I would love every transfer to be perfect, budgetary constraints, print condition issues, consumer interest (and eventual investment), profits, studio size, release schedules, consumer demand (DNR is most often employed because so many people like the look it lends a presentation), production limitations, etc means a lot of legitimate and pertinent factors are involved in a release. Well then they shouldn't release so many titles if they can't do it right! But then Blu-ray would have faded into the night. Well then they should invest more money into restorations! That will happen more and more as the BD consumer base expands and more funds are available to give films the treatment they so richly deserve. Well then they should care more about the movies than profit! Their ability to thrive as a business is the only thing that allows them to produce, distribute, and make more films. Sometimes the studios have to make tough decisions that contribute to the big home video picture. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying studios are saints, or that corners aren't sometimes cut. What I am saying is that it's easy for us to speak in absolutes without considering the many factors involved in producing a release.

Anyway, sorry if that turned into a sermon. It wasn't directed at anyone specifically, it was merely a general opinion I've been formulating over the last few weeks. I just believe we need to remind each other that film is and should always be our first passion. A film's presentation is very important, I can't say that enough, but we can't become so entitled to perfection that we miss out on some very good releases simply because they suffer from some issues. We should always push for perfection, but we should also give ourselves leave to enjoy what we have (in spite of any flaws, real or perceived) and get excited about how far Blu-ray releases have come (and will continue to come). Technology's fantastic, but it spoils us. Can you imagine having these conversations in the days of VHS? I'm glad we've reached this point, but I hope it doesn't turn the presentation junkies among us into cinematic cynics.

Climbing off my pulpit now. Thanks as always for posting!

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by aiman04

So, this is a new transfer after all? Approved by both Peter Jackson & Andrew Lesnie?

All I got out of that article was a more specific clarification of what WB meant by "approved by Jackson and Lesnie"... which is to say, 'we made a master, showed a small sample to Jackson to get him to "approve" it, he complained about the color and made a couple phone calls to old friends who worked on the DVD, but he otherwise had nothing to do with it'... which just confirms the complaints Jackson has aired about not being involved in the BD production.

The prospects don't look very good right now regarding future EE releases.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

All I got out of that article was a more specific clarification of what WB meant by "approved by Jackson and Lesnie"... which is to say, 'we made a master, showed a small sample to Jackson to get him to "approve" it, he complained about the color and made a couple phone calls to old friends who worked on the DVD, but he otherwise had nothing to do with it'... which just confirms the complaints Jackson has aired about not being involved in the BD production.

The prospects don't look very good right now regarding future EE releases.

I thought the EE would come out when the Hobbit comes out in theaters in 2011-2012. what happened since these news

[radagast]

Um... it appears I had a post deleted. I was asking about this DVD site. Is there something negative about it?

http://iwantdvd.com/dvd_detail.php?item_code=260

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by mredman

I thought the EE would come out when the Hobbit comes out in theaters in 2011-2012. what happened since these news

There was never any news about the EE release. Ever. Just rumors.

Based on the latest information, all bets are off as to PJ's "ultimate edition", as WB doesn't seem interested in involving him in home video production any further than asking him to put a "stamp of approval" onto it. Now, it looks like WB is just going to cheap out and re-package the same EE that was released on DVD (probably just the seamless-branching version, not the extras-loaded 2002-2004 version), and release it whenever they deem it to have the best benenfit of parallel marketing (i.e., when (or if) 'The Hobbit' is released).

[mredman]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

There was never any news about the EE release. Ever. Just rumors.

Based on the latest information, all bets are off as to PJ's "ultimate edition", as WB doesn't seem interested in involving him in home video production any further than asking him to put a "stamp of approval" onto it. Now, it looks like WB is just going to cheap out and re-package the same EE that was released on DVD (probably just the seamless-branching version, not the extras-loaded 2002-2004 version), and release it whenever they deem it to have the best benenfit of parallel marketing (i.e., when (or if) 'The Hobbit' is released).

I really don't think they will cheap out on the BD EE set. because they know how many already where in arms over that the version they have released was not the EE. So i think they will give us very good release with the EE. And they can still put new stuff on them. The things that was mentioned over at digitalbits. And it looks he was involved with the TE sets.

[Jeremiah]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Now, it looks like WB is just going to cheap out and re-package the same EE that was released on DVD (probably just the seamless-branching version, not the extras-loaded 2002-2004 version), and release it whenever they deem it to have the best benenfit of parallel marketing (i.e., when (or if) 'The Hobbit' is released).

I hope for all our sakes that this will not come to pass.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by mredman

I really don't think they will cheap out on the BD EE set. because they know how many already where in arms over that the version they have released was not the EE. So i think they will give us very good release with the EE. And they can still put new stuff on them. The things that was mentioned over at digitalbits. And it looks he was involved with the TE sets.

We can only hope WB doesn't screw up the EE's; they need to do this right.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

We can only hope WB doesn't screw up the EE's; they need to do this right.

hopefully they still have the original HD masters.

[NYorker]

If they would release the EE concurrently, or several months after, the TE, I could live with a little softness in the image (at least in the first film, anyway...).
However, the fact that they're delaying the EE release makes me want the best PQ possible.
It's a simple equation: the longer we wait = the higher standard PQ we expect it to be (your attention, Mr. Lucas...)

[radagast]

Originally Posted by NYorker

If they would release the EE concurrently, or several months after, the TE, I could live with a little softness in the image (at least in the first film, anyway...).
However, the fact that they're delaying the EE release makes me want the best PQ possible.
It's a simple equation: the longer we wait = the higher standard PQ we expect it to be (your attention, Mr. Lucas...)

I agree, but...Never underestimate Warner. They are likely to think that there are so many people out there who want the EEs that we will take what ever they give us.

I would like to know where the sales of the TEs are in relationship to what Warner's expectations were. Even if it were low, Warner may conclude that it's ONLY because they weren't the EEs, not because the PQ was less than it could have been.

[Cobra33]

yes im alspo curious how sales of the TE's are doing. i myself am not picking them up, i am waiting for the EE's to be released. till then im fine with my DVD sets, but why oh why did they only release the TE's????? still, it sounds like the BD release for the EE's is a long way off. really sad to hear this...

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Cobra33

yes im alspo curious how sales of the TE's are doing. i myself am not picking them up, i am waiting for the EE's to be released. till then im fine with my DVD sets, but why oh why did they only release the TE's????? still, it sounds like the BD release for the EE's is a long way off. really sad to hear this...

i am sure they will be released when the hobbit comes out
I have the TE set and it is a very good set. The transfer for TTT and ROTK is fantastic. While FOTR was a solid one but definitely not as bad as some people say. Keep in mind FOTR is the older movie and was finished in post production before the others with less money because they didn't know how popular these movies would become. Fantasy films rarely do great but LOTR surprised everybody. And is now hailed as the best movies of all time

The BD set of TE is very good. And the best they have ever looked. And its LOTR in HD how can anyone pass this up