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

[kurtlingle]

Actually,

LOTR's is a great example (the TE and EE) of messing with colors.
As posted earlier, PJ "tweaked" (if that's the right way to put it) the colors in a number of scenes. That is detailed in the Special features on either the TE dvd's or the EE dvd's.

Lothlorien (sorry if that's misspelled), Moria, etc. I would say LOTR's never fully looked "real" to earth colors (at least certain parts).

I am looking forward to PJ clearing this up (if the blu-ray indeed is exactly as he meant it to be).

Originally Posted by merrick97

...
Movies do not and HAVE not always had a color scheme that matches what we see in the real world.

Plenty of films do this and yet I dont see you screaming in those cases.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by kurtlingle

Actually,

LOTR's is a great example (the TE and EE) of messing with colors.
As posted earlier, PJ "tweaked" (if that's the right way to put it) the colors in a number of scenes. That is detailed in the Special features on either the TE dvd's or the EE dvd's.

Lothlorien (sorry if that's misspelled), Moria, etc. I would say LOTR's never fully looked "real" to earth colors (at least certain parts).

I am looking forward to PJ clearing this up (if the blu-ray indeed is exactly as he meant it to be).

Even if he does clear it up, people will still not be satisfied. You will see comments like "he sold out to Warner" "He is an incompetent director" and such.

[PGW]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

Really, so your trying to tell me that the vision of the director is wrong and that your vision is correct?

Please show me where Peter Jackson says the sky and snow should be green and that all of the previous theatrical, DVD and blu-ray issues of "Fellowship" were wrong. I'm waiting.

Originally Posted by Velmeran

Also, Snow isn't actually always white...

What a lame argument.

So... explain this... if the green is an "artistic" statement on the part of the director, why are the colors correct on the other two films? Did the sky color in Middle Earth suddenly change?

[Velmeran]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

The complaint isn't that the snow doesn't look like it would look like in your back yard, it's that it doesn't look like it originally looked. In the original it did have a crisp white appearance, that's no longer true. The new green tint is overbearing in these scenes and changes it drastically compared to how it was originally presented.

The color timing has been changed, and changed very drastically, from the original theatrical presentation. If this is how the color timing always was there wouldn't be any complaints about it.

The original had very carefully planned color biases depending on the specific scene, mood, and location. Watch the entire color featurette linked earlier in this thread that explains it perfectly. This color timing has been greatly altered.

Here it is, linked in this post:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mo...ml#post4848629

Oh, I'm not arguing about the colors being changed (and changed drastically -- for better or for worse depending on how an individuals view them).

I'm trying to figure out why individuals continue to say the current color regrade which was approved by Peter Jackson (assumption here is that what he approved, ended up on the discs. If that proves to be incorrect the argument goes out the window) is incorrect; but in the very next sentence, present their own regraded color timings as being how the film should look.

[42041]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Even if he does clear it up, people will still not be satisfied. You will see comments like "he sold out to Warner" "He is an incompetent director" and such.

Merrick, it's not that "it's director approved" is suddenly going to make me love the green tint, it's that I want to get a confirmation that no technical glitch has occurred at some stage of the process.

If PJ did approve the green tint, then the problem is an aesthetic one, not a technical one, and the complainers have no legitimate case.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

Oh, I'm not arguing about the colors being changed (and changed drastically -- for better or for worse depending on how an individuals view them).

I'm trying to figure out why individuals continue to say the current color regrade which was approved by Peter Jackson (assumption here is that what he approved, ended up on the discs. If that proves to be incorrect the argument goes out the window) is incorrect; but in the very next sentence, present their own regraded color timings as being how the film should look.

It's not that it's "incorrect," it's that it is not the original presentation.

People fell in love with these films as they saw them theatrically and they want THAT version preserved. It's that version they want to see.

In the original several scenes had heavy color biases. Some blue, some red, some green. The film never had "true to life" color, no one is claiming it did.

They're not commenting on how they think it "should" look, they're commenting on how it DID look. How it originally looked - this is the timing they (I'm in this camp too) want restored. This new timing is drastically different than how the film was originally presented. It changes the feel and mood completely in many instances. Watch the featurette, the original color timing was very carefully done and imparted a specific "feel" to certain scenes.

[Velmeran]

Originally Posted by 42041

Merrick, it's not that "it's director approved" is suddenly going to make me love the green tint, it's that I want to get a confirmation that no technical glitch has occurred at some stage of the process.

If PJ did approve the green tint, then the problem is an aesthetic one, not a technical one, and the complainers have no legitimate case.

Those who disagree can still complain about the choice -- but not about the accuracy of the image.

Fairly big distinction in my book. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion so as Ken mentioned earlier.

[KubrickFan]

I haven't visited this board for six freaking days, and this debate is still going on? Seriously?

Peter Jackson and Andrew Lesnie confirmed that they did some additional tweaking.
Yes, it's more green than it was previously, but nothing dramatically so.
And no, realism was never what Peter Jackson was going for. So whatever you might see out of your window doesn't apply to movies. Unless you're seeing cave trolls and orcs roaming around. Then you'd have a point.

So what else is there to discuss?

[CGHULK]

http://postimage.org/image/2zaubxdpg/ (Wake up scene of Frodo)

[Illy Scorsese]

Well well well...

What is there to say other than that I was truly sorry to see(and now feel fully vindicated in my concern) the report Mr. Brown has given in his excellent and thorough Review?

I will simply restate(to make it perfectly clear to WB) that I will not be purchasing this set.

So unfortunate that they(all concerned really including Jackson) have now botched both Blu-Ray releases of these films to the expense of the loyal and devoted fans of these films that buy every release they put out.

Again, I praise Mr. Brown on his excellent Review. Bravo!!!!!

This is the last thing I will say on this release until a replacement program begins... And if that doesn't happen then all the better anyway... I will just wait to see if they can get it right on the next blood sucking release... Which I can assure you is already in the works... smh

[Velmeran]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

It's not that it's "incorrect," it's that it is not the original presentation.

People fell in love with these films as they saw them theatrically and they want THAT version preserved. It's that version they want to see.

In the original several scenes had heavy color biases. Some blue, some red, some green. The film never had "true to life" color.

They're not commenting on how they think it "should" look, they're commenting on how it DID look. How it originally looked - this is the timing they (I'm in this camp too) want restored. This new timing is drastically different than how the film was originally presented. It chages the feel completely in many instances.

Stinky, you missed when I started asking this question. It was directly targeted at one and then two individuals. One of which made their own re-grade of the color timings and was saying it was the correct timings.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

Stinky, you missed when I started asking this question. It was directly targeted at one and then two individuals. One of which made their own re-grade of the color timings and was saying it was the correct timings.

Yes, because it brought it closer to how the original appeared (unless I completely missed something.)

"Correct" doesn't mean true to life, it means true to the original presentation.

[Mr3dfx]

So...after briefly skimming this thread...am I the only one who is actually excited about this release? I don't care what it looked like "here" or "there". This was their decision and I am willing to live with "Peter Jackson presents: Lord of the Rings", and not "my" version or what it "should" look like. This is his baby and enjoy it for what it is. It's his interpertation and he is able and generous enough to share his ideas with us, my opinion gets second seat when listining to someone eleses ideas. After they are done and I dissagree with their opinion/choice/view...or whatever... I move on...it's that easy people.

If all you are going to do is gripe...then move on you are not helping anyone.

However...with that said if there is an actual technical issue then yes it needs to be fixed..ie: Pirates of the Carribian (framing issue) & Matrix: coding issue...yes those need to be fixed. But otherwise can we just move on and enjoy the films for what and how they are presented?

[Velmeran]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Yes, because it brought it closer to how the original appeared (unless I completely missed something.)

"Correct" doesn't mean true to life, it means true to the original presentation.

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree over semantics.

You've explained your definition and I can live with that, whereas I view "correct" (wrong or right), in this instance, as being what the director approved.

Wasn't talking about how the film originally looked, or how I would prefer it to look. Was merely talking about it being correct as far as the Directors choice.

Originally Posted by Mr3dfx

So...after briefly skimming this thread...am I the only one who is actually excited about this release? I don't care what it looked like "here" or "there". This was their decision and I am willing to live with "Peter Jackson presents: Lord of the Rings", and not "my" version or what it "should" look like. This is his baby and enjoy it for what it is. It's his interpertation and he is able and generous enough to share his ideas with us, my opinion gets second seat when listining to someone eleses ideas. After they are done and I dissagree with their opinion/choice/view...or whatever... I move on...it's that easy people.

If all you are going to do is gripe...then move on you are not helping anyone.

However...with that said if there is an actual technical issue then yes it needs to be fixed..ie: Pirates of the Carribian (framing issue) & Matrix: coding issue...yes those need to be fixed. But otherwise can we just move on and enjoy the films for what and how they are presented?

That's the stance I'm taking (it's also an easier stance for me personally because I snagged a good price on my pre-order and don't have to face a 60-100 price tag)

[Robert Harris]

Just chiming in to congratulate Ken on a superbly written and structured review. He really should be reviewing for a national publication in addition to his work here.

Truly the Gone with the Wind of Blu-ray reviews. His time and effort should be brought to the fore.

RAH

[Matt_Stevens]

Since I have been mentioned here, I want to make some things very clear.

Many AVSforum know me. I post over there and not over here (though I used to) because things here can get very nasty at times. thanks to Ken for cleaning this thread up though.

I watched the actual new Blu-Rays for the extended editions this week at my friend's place. He has a screening room with a 120 inch screen. He can play Blu-Rays, HD-DVD, D-VHS, 16mm and 35mm.

We compared the FOTR Extended BD to the theatrical BD, the Theatrical HD broadcast from DISH Network HD-PPV via D-VHS and a 35mm trailer for the film.

All but the extended Blu-Ray have similar, if not exactly the same color timing. It was hard to see much difference between them.

The extended, very much so. It was clearly turned towards green throughout. Sometimes not so much, but more often than not. It looked off. It looked wrong. It's not how the film looked in theaters. And according to my host, who is a cinematographer, it is not how it looked at the Digital screening last Tuesday at the AMC Theater where he viewed it. So perhaps something happened in the mastering stage that was in error. ??? Maybe we will never know.

No doubt there is less DNR in this version, so all the blurriness and mushiness of the Theatrical Blu-Ray is gone. But with more green colors and a pushed contrast. It's a trade-off.

TWO TOWERS and KING have what appear to be new color timing, but it's not all that far off from what came before. They are, in fact, outstanding. Bye bye blurry DNR'd image and hello detail.

These were our observations. Take them as you want to. But for the love of God, be respectful and act like adults. There is no reason to do otherwise.

[Sweetmeats]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

People fell in love with these films as they saw them theatrically and they want THAT version preserved. It's that version they want to see.

Then you have the Blu-rays that have already been released...correct?

[The Duke]

Originally Posted by PGW

Please show me where Peter Jackson says the sky and snow should be green and that all of the previous theatrical, DVD and blu-ray issues of "Fellowship" were wrong. I'm waiting.



What a lame argument.

So... explain this... if the green is an "artistic" statement on the part of the director, why are the colors correct on the other two films? Did the sky color in Middle Earth suddenly change?

That^^^^. If Peter Jackson intended FOTR to look the way it does because he want's to tie it in with the color scheme he'll use with The Hobbit, as some of suggested, why did he leave the other two films look exactly the same as they always have?

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by PGW

Please show me where Peter Jackson says the sky and snow should be green and that all of the previous theatrical, DVD and blu-ray issues of "Fellowship" were wrong. I'm waiting.

Buddy YOU ARE THE ONE claiming that this stuff is WRONG when we have industry sources who are claiming that this is Jackson's intended look.


The burden of proof is ON YOU.

Originally Posted by merrick97

Watch the movie Minority Report. It has a very unique color palette, too.
In which those colors didn't match what was in the real world either.
Those colors by YOUR DEFINITION are wrong too.

Yet I don't seem to recall ANYONE making the argument you are making here.

Movies do not and HAVE not always had a color scheme that matches what we see in the real world.

Plenty of films do this and yet I dont see you screaming in those cases.

I am still waiting for your response to my above comment.

[steelers1]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

I have a pre-order with BN.com for $41.99 (and free expedited shipping). Just finished checking and it is still in place (hopefully that helps steelers1 out a bit).

it did.mine is still in place to. lets hope barnes and noble dont cancel these orders. keeping my fingers crossed. thanks velmeran.