The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Extended Edition) (2001-2003)

[MiamiLoco]

Still no pics of the Best Buy exclusive version?

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

How much of a presence does she really have in the books? I've read them multiple times over the years, but I sometimes forget the finer points of Tolkien's minor characters

You're far more knowledgeable when it comes to the original text than I am, so I thought it was worth asking. If you're willing to dissect her presence in the books amidst all this tint chatter, of course

Yes, I wouldn't want to take away from the tint discussion, apparently the most important topic of this or any other generation. But, in the book version of the story, Arwen makes a few rare appearances, most notably briefly in "Many Meetings" at the feast held in honor of Frodo and later at the Hall of Fire. Towards the end of the story, the last two paragraphs of "The Steward and the King" mention the arrival of Arwen at Minas Tirith to be wedded with Aragorn. The greatest mention of Arwen follows in "Many Partings", where she gives Frodo her necklace to help him ward off his pain, and also when she surrenders her place to him on the ship that will eventually sail from the Grey Havens to Elvenhome. This passage occupies about a page. All told, there are only a few pages (out of over 1000) in the book that deal with Arwen. The main role of Arwen seems to be expanding the relationship of Lord of the Rings to Tolkien's Elder-day mythology of The Silmarillion; bringing full-circle the geneology that commenced with Beren and Luthien, the first union between Human and Elf.

[HeKS]

Originally Posted by Boone_Carlyle

Does that wide mountain shot look at turqouise as it did in the screencap?

There's no "right" answer to that question. Objectively, that wide mountain shot is exactly that turquoise. Whether you will perceive it to be that turquoise in motion and in your chosen viewing environment is an entirely different issue and one that has precipitated mountains of inaccurate information in this thread.

Take care,
HeKS

[KingOfNynex2003]

I saw a deal in the flyer of my local Blockbuster that says if you buy this version you get the One Ring on a necklace just like Frodo wore throughout the Trilogy and unfortunately I couldn't buy it there as one of the employees there had to buy the last one available and I bought it at Best Buy instead, so do you think that this is a Blockbuster Exclusive or what?

[42041]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

I know this is probably against the rules, but I basically feel like many of you are a bunch of worry-wort jerks that made a mountain out of a molehile, and that affects all of us. FOTR looks amazing, i noticed one shot maybe that a was a bit too green, but you're all jerks because if it wasn't for this site, I wouldn't have noticed it at all.

The "jerks" don't prevent anyone from drawing their own conclusions There were plenty of people warning the panicky folk that A/B color comparisons and silly youtube split screen videos have little relevance to what most people will actually see on a home theater screen, and that color perception is relative, etc; guess all those posts were just wasted keystrokes though...

The tint seems like a minor wart on an otherwise excellent transfer, like the subtle aliasing on the first reel of Braveheart, but it's still reasonable to question its presence, because discs have been replaced for less... and now the question of a replacement has been answered. Nowhere else to go with the subject except in circles.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Boone_Carlyle

Does that wide mountain shot look at turqouise as it did in the screencap?

Tricky question, tricky answer. From the official review:



Taken directly from the disc. 100% accurate. Captured in the same manner as every screenshot that appears on this site. Question its accuracy, and you need to question the accuracy of every screenshot that accompanies my TTT and ROTK reviews. (Even though no one will dispute the fact that they are 100% accurate ) And no, these shots don't rely on displays or calibrations; they only objectively exhibit what is encoded on the disc.

However, and this is a big however, the tint isn't as apparent when the film is in motion. The bright whites on your browser and computer screen make it much more noticeable than it is when watching the film.

I've noted this discrepancy, as have Bill Hunt, Robert Harris and others who verify the tint is more apparent in accurate screenshots than it is when the film is actually playing. Mr. Hunt and Harris have even mentioned how baffled they are by the discrepancy. Again, the tint is there, it's measurable and verifiable from all objective accounts. It just isn't as easily or readily perceived in motion in a proper viewing environment.

The reasons for this are numerous, and detailed in my previous posts. I'll spare you the cuts-n-pastes

Though I tire of saying it, let's stop debating whether the tint is there, gents. Please debate how noticeable it is, without attacking those who find it noticeable or unnoticable. I can't believe how much anger is consuming this thread. Warner's official statement should have quelled most of the hostility, but it's only made it more rampant

[Walter E Kurtz]

that screencap looks nothing like mine

that looks very dark

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Tricky question, tricky answer. From the official review:



Taken directly from the disc. 100% accurate. Captured in the same manner as every screenshot that appears on this site. Question its accuracy, and you need to question the accuracy of every screenshot that accompanies my TTT and ROTK reviews. (Even though no one will dispute the fact that they are 100% accurate ) And no, these shots don't rely on displays or calibrations; they only objectively exhibit what is encoded on the disc.

However, and this is a big however, the tint isn't as apparent when the film is in motion. The bright whites on your browser and computer screen make it much more noticeable than it is when watching the film.

I've noted this discrepancy, as have Bill Hunt, Robert Harris and others who verify the tint is more apparent in accurate screenshots than it is when the film is actually playing. Mr. Hunt and Harris have even mentioned how baffled they are by the discrepancy. Again, the tint is there, it's measurable and verifiable from all objective accounts. It just isn't as easily or readily perceived in motion in a proper viewing environment.

The reasons for this are numerous, and detailed in my previous posts. I'll spare you the cuts-n-pastes

Though I tire of saying it, let's stop debating whether the tint is there, gents. Please debate how noticeable it is, without attacking those who find it noticeable or unnoticable. I can't believe how much anger is consuming this thread. Warner's official statement should have quelled most of the hostility, but it's only made it more rampant

I'm not questioning the green tint at all: but that's not quite the shot I am referring to. I believe it and from what I've seen: I think it looks bad. I was actually talking about the wide shot with the fellowship traveling across the mountain in a straight line. It was extremely turquoise from what I saw. Like, it was unquestionably so. You couldn't not see it.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Walter E Kurtz

that screencap looks nothing like mine

that looks very dark

It's the small version, and surrounded by the blue/gray hue of the forum. The additional darkness is an optical illusion, which goes to show how much context changes perception. The light blue hue of the forum makes the eye think the sky is greener and the image is darker than it appears when the film is in motion. Your observation illustrates the phenomenon perfectly

Originally Posted by Boone_Carlyle

I'm not questioning the green tint at all: but that's not quite the shot I am referring to. I believe it and from what I've seen: I think it looks bad. I was actually talking about the wide shot with the fellowship traveling across the mountain in a straight line. It was extremely turquoise from what I saw. Like, it was unquestionably so. You couldn't not see it.

Oh yeah, I should have clarified that. First, I understood that you weren't questioning the tint. I was adding all of that info for others I knew would read the post. Sorry about that. Second, I knew it was a different shot, but it's from the same scene, and exhibits the same consistent palette as the opening mountain shot you were referring to. Again, sorry for any confusion. I wasn't trying to lecture you!

[42041]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

It's the small version, and surrounded by the blue/gray hue of the forum. The additional darkness is an optical illusion, which goes to show how much context changes perception. The light blue hue of the forum makes the eye think the sky is greener and the image is darker than it appears when the film is in motion. Your observation illustrates the phenomenon perfectly

And of course, unless both your monitor and TV are calibrated to deliver a reasonably accurate picture, there could be about 50 different reasons why it would look different.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by 42041

And of course, unless both your monitor and TV are calibrated to deliver a reasonably accurate picture, there could be about 50 different reasons why it would look different.

Yep. I'm looking at the actual scene on the FOTR disc on my calibrated display now, while simultaneously looking at the image as it appears on my computer monitor. It's amazing how different it looks in screenshots than it does in motion, even though both exhibit the same tonal colors and tint.

The only way I can see how different it is as the film plays is to switch between it and its theatrical edition Blu-ray counterpart. Flipping back and forth between the two makes the differences in the sky and snow colors more obvious, although it still isn't nearly as distracting as static shots suggest. And it still requires me to give it a point of reference before I can notice the tint more easily.

I'm also continuing to marvel at how different the shot looks posted on the blue-gray of the forum. I wasn't anticipating stumbling across that little practical demonstration

More optical illusion fun: form a tight circle with your hand, press it against one of your eyes, close the other eye, and look at the snow. See how it suddenly looks much brighter and whiter? That's because the darkness of your hand deprives you of any point of reference, allowing your eye to identify the snow as white and the skies as more blue. Your eye quickly and decisively self-calibrates the image. The same thing happens when watching the film, especially in a suitably dark environment. Strange as it may sound, it's an easy experiment you can use to verify the results for yourself

[aherron]

Not sure if this has been mentioned here, I was just watching a video of the unboxing of the US version and as the guy was explaining each one, his copy of The Fellowship Of The Ring came with two copies of Part Two no Part One. The moment I saw this I immediately checked my whole entire set making sure I had Part One and Part Two of each movie. Glad to see that they're all correct. Just a heads up. Here's the video of the gentleman with the two copies of Part Two of FOTR.

YouTube - ‪Lord Of The Rings Extended Edition blu ray Trilogy unboxing review‬‏

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Well, a molehill is still a molehill. It deserves civil discussion, even if FOTR looks amazing, which it does indeed.

Keep in mind that no one knew the tint was intentional until yesterday. The worry intensified as the silence persisted. Neither Warner or Jackson would comment on it. Had they issued the same official statement two weeks ago, when they first learned about the controversy, no mountain would have been assembled and no one would have been affected by so much speculation and misunderstanding

Hi Ken loves all your input here. You really are good to answer the forum members questions and that is beyond cool

So yes the PQ is fantastic on FOTR new transfer in fact the whole set is great

So my question to you. Have you seen the review over at highdefdigest. He has given FOTR 3.5 stars. With all the detail and a teriffic transfer IMO and now most. Isn't he looking to much into the tint even saying its like watching the movie with sunglasses. That is just complete nonsense. It looks like he only wrote that review like this just to keep the trouble alive wouldn't you agree?

We have now seen it is highly overblown also on the message boards he even attacks Bill Hunt and Harris. I find his attitude very offensive towards those people and quite childish for a reviewer.

[Inspector Toschi]

Originally Posted by mredman

Hi Ken loves all your input here. You really are good to answer the forum members questions and that is beyond cool

So yes the PQ is fantastic on FOTR new transfer in fact the whole set is great

So my question to you. Have you seen the review over at highdefdigest. He has given FOTR 3.5 stars. With all the detail and a teriffic transfer IMO and now most. Isn't he looking to much into the tint even saying its like watching the movie with sunglasses. That is just complete nonsense. It looks like he only wrote that review like this just to keep the trouble alive wouldn't you agree?

We have now seen it is highly overblown also on the message boards he even attacks Bill Hunt and Harris. I find his attitude very offensive towards those people and quite childish for a reviewer.

Welcome to highdefdigest... If there's one thing that will make me leave a forum (And in this case it did, about 2 years ago) it's lack of professionalism from the so-called professionals. I can understand it coming from forum members, but the reviewers set the standard. IMO those standards are too low.

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by mredman

Hi Ken loves all your input here. You really are good to answer the forum members questions and that is beyond cool

So yes the PQ is fantastic on FOTR new transfer in fact the whole set is great

So my question to you. Have you seen the review over at highdefdigest. He has given FOTR 3.5 stars. With all the detail and a teriffic transfer IMO and now most. Isn't he looking to much into the tint even saying its like watching the movie with sunglasses. That is just complete nonsense. It looks like he only wrote that review like this just to keep the trouble alive wouldn't you agree?

We have now seen it is highly overblown also on the message boards he even attacks Bill Hunt and Harris. I find his attitude very offensive towards those people and quite childish for a reviewer.

He's allowed to have an opinion.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by mredman

So my question to you. Have you seen the review over at highdefdigest. He has given FOTR 3.5 stars. With all the detail and a teriffic transfer IMO and now most. Isn't he looking to much into the tint even saying its like watching the movie with sunglasses. That is just complete nonsense. It looks like he only wrote that review like this just to keep the trouble alive wouldn't you agree?

I really try to avoid commenting on other reviews, as any man's opinion is just as valuable as mine. I will offer two thoughts, though. Maybe even three if I get on a roll. One, I believe his review posted before the WHV statement was issued. I haven't followed the thread over there enough to know if that would change his opinion, so I don't know if Monday's statement would have changed how he evaluated the transfer. Had the statement arrived a few weeks ago, it certainly would have saved me a lot of typing

Two, I believe HDD factors the aesthetic qualities of a transfer into their video reviews. (Please correct me if I'm wrong - that was the methodology that was in place when I wrote for them two or three years ago.) Blu-ray.com's methodology is more dependent on director's intention. If a transfer represents its directors intention well, we generally overlook aesthetic choices. For example, whether I like the green tint or not doesn't factor into my review. I may mention an opinion on the matter, but I try to avoid factoring subjective taste into my analyses. (I know I fail sometimes )

Three, there are scenes that are noticeably dimmer than their TE or EE DVD counterparts. Enough to make a "sunglasses" statement. However, if the transfer accurately represents Jackson's intention, then so must the increased darkness in these darker scenes. Thus, it could be mentioned as a negative in an HDD review, but considered a non-sequitur in my review. It doesn't make one review more correct than the other, it just showcases the differences in our sites' methodology and in two reviewers' opinions.

Sorry I don't have any more to offer. We reviewers understand how much our opinions are placed under the microscope, so most of us tend to really try to avoid criticizing or analyzing each other's opinions. We talk behind the scenes sometimes, but rarely debate anything or tussle with one another

That probably wasn't the kind of answer you were looking for, but that's my stab at pulling back the reviewers' curtain!

[bam777]

Just got back from seeing RETURN OF THE KING in theaters not that long ago. Amazing, amazing, amazing, amazing!!!!! One of the best movie experiences i've ever had. The PQ and AQ is some of the best i've ever seen and heard. 10 out of 10 all around the board!


It sucks that this event is over. I really hope they bring the movies back to theaters VERY SOON. **fingers crossed**
Big thanks and props to AMC Theaters for this amazing event.

[greg_achen]

While some of you might not understand what all the hoopla was regarding the green tint, I will never understand the need to dismiss and/or insult those whose opinions differ from your own. Labeling someone as "ridiculous" or their viewpoint as "nonsense" doesn't make your viewpoint any more valid. Some people prefer the original color timing, some people prefer the new. Both color timings technically have had Jackson's approval at one time or another making neither one "more right."

[Aidenag]

Don't see what all the fuss is about over the Extended EE of fellowship. I just finished watching it on a samsung UN55D8000 and it has NEVER looked better. The 5 LOTR junkie videophiles who watched it with me all agreed as well.

Is the tint a little greener? and overall a bit darker? yes. But not nearly as noticeable when actually watching the movie as the screen captures everyone is on here debating make it look to be.

My advice, just enjoy the EE's for what they are.. HD quality that makes the past EE's look like complete garbage in comparison. Is it perfect? no.. Is anything perfect? no.....

Anyway, im off to go start two towers now. When you all are done debating this and that, maybe you will join me in the pleasure that is LOTR EE's in HD!!!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

After watching the Fellowship Blu-ray, I'm happy to report it looks amazing. There's no green overlay on every shot. There's a cyan push at times, but only twice does it really stand out (the scene of Gandalf and Saruman at Isengard, and the brief long shot of the Fellowship climbing the mountain). The overall image quality is strong, a noticeable improvement over the theatrical cut Blu-ray. People who continue to complain about a green overlay that isn't there are just looking for something to complain about.