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

[Illy Scorsese]

Originally Posted by Boone_Carlyle

I hope you all are proud. I requested a cancel for my pre-order at the WBstore and told them why in the email: so they get the message.

*Is Pleased*

[nametag]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Because of the vociferous complaints about the Blu-Ray of the TE of Fellowship, Jackson decided to give Fellowship a new transfer. That's why the NEW master for Fellowship doesn't look like the OLD masters created for Two Towers and Return of the King.

Look, I don't ever tell an artist what he can and cannot do - what fool would - but I am particularly vocal when they change something for the worse (walkie talkies in E.T.). Are the new discs worse off? They're different, certainly, I think that's inarguable. If Jackson defends them (and boy is he silent right now) then this whole debate is over for me. I can gripe all I want about not liking the changes, but never in a million years would I tell Jackson what he should be doing with his own movies. Just as he can't stop me for not liking lines about Dwarf Tossing, I can't stop him for dropping the contrast and removing red from the film. If that is indeed what he wanted.

The man needs to speak up and end this.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous: 'oh, so it's fine as long as Peter Jackson says so'? - judge the art, not the artist.

Fine, don't 'tell an artist what to do' when they're creating art (though, bear in mind, film is a collaborative medium) - but once it's released to the public they aren't the sole 'owners' of the art any more, in a cultural sense. This isn't even a case of a studio butchering up an original which is being restored to its so-called 'original intention', it's active revisionism for no discernible reason (other than, it would seem, an artist's whim). Artists aren't gods, we shouldn't just let them do whatever they want once they've released something that millions of people have experienced (and paid for) just because they're artists. All revisions should be supplemented by the original releases - that's my view any way.

As for these releases, I'm not sure how much the colour thing is going to bother me personally (ie, my idealistic objections are probably not going to stop me buying it eventually) - but I wasn't going to buy it straight away anyway so i'll just keep track of whether they decide to do a disc replacement thing, or not. In general I don't think the green tint looks that bad when taken in isolation, I think it's the fact that FOTR now seems to have a notably different visual style to the rest of the trilogy - I'm not saying PJ should have altered every film, but the inconsistency is annoying and makes the whole thing seem a bit whimsical. If the BD looks as PJ definitely intended, of course.

[steelers1]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

Very nice post in general Matt, provided a lot of additional details what those of us who don't post at AVS wouldn't have known about your setup (as we only got 'quote' (not even sure if it was a partial or not) and with no additional context to go on.


Also wanted to say I agree 100%.

I think it's pretty clear that these films are really important to a lot of people. Think we all want the best product we can get and while we're not all going to agree with each other we can be respectful.

There are a ton of ways to view this release, and it can be hard to see the other viewpoints but there isn't 1 right answer here, it's all opinions.



Welcome --- I assume you got yours with the 50% coupon, in store with "ship-to-home" and a 100% paid in advance? I'm thinking they'll be fairly hard to cancel, since they took the full amount when I ordered.

to velmeran: yes i did order it in the store with the 50% coupon and " ship-to-home" and a 100% paid in advance. thanks for your help and have a nice day.

[CGHULK]

What I think looks odd is when Frodo wakes up in Rivendell, the screen isn't white it's green, so it looks like the green tint was added after the fact, after the restoration. This new restoration is a no brainer that this was restored by Jackson and Lesnie, but what a lot of people are wondering if the green tint was added on after the fact by Warners, right over the image.

[bkbluray]

Looks like I'm keeping the theatrical BD's as planned.

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by PrivatePixel

If there's room for improvement with the transfer of The Fellowship of the Ring in the extended edition, then I'm sold.

Its what PJ wants..and it has been approved.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by 42041

What screen cap are you referring to? The white of snow reflecting light into the camera and the white of an eyeball are pretty different, photographically, and the degree to which the green cast looks "wrong" seems to greatly depend on the brightness and color balance of what it's laid over...

By the way, it should be reiterated that I've checked these comparisons on several displays, and some do not render the green cast as dramatically as others. My laptop's LCD screen renders the green as a faint blue to the point where it really doesn't look "wrong". If anyone's struggling to understand what the hubbub is about, you might try some other monitors.

Any of them. I'm a professional photographer, I know what it's like to just "lay over" a green tint. Whether or not they are different whites, they would be affected. The tint would be the pretty much the SAME over every shot, unless you manually adjust it in every shot (which, in that case, it would be intentional for sure)... thats like saying you make a film black and white but certain scenes are more black and white than others.

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by nametag

Sorry, but that's ridiculous: 'oh, so it's fine as long as Peter Jackson says so'? - judge the art, not the artist.

Fine, don't 'tell an artist what to do' when they're creating art (though, bear in mind, film is a collaborative medium) - but once it's released to the public they aren't the sole 'owners' of the art any more, in a cultural sense. This isn't even a case of a studio butchering up an original which is being restored to its so-called 'original intention', it's active revisionism for no discernible reason (other than, it would seem, an artist's whim). Artists aren't gods, we shouldn't just let them do whatever they want once they've released something that millions of people have experienced (and paid for) just because they're artists. All revisions should be supplemented by the original releases - that's my view any way.

As for these releases, I'm not sure how much the colour thing is going to bother me personally (ie, my idealistic objections are probably not going to stop me buying it eventually) - but I wasn't going to buy it straight away anyway so i'll just keep track of whether they decide to do a disc replacement thing, or not. In general I don't think the green tint looks that bad when taken in isolation, I think it's the fact that FOTR now seems to have a notably different visual style to the rest of the trilogy - I'm not saying PJ should have altered every film, but the inconsistency is annoying and makes the whole thing seem a bit whimsical. If the BD looks as PJ definitely intended, of course.

Just as Lucas wants to stuff his CURRENT versions of his films down our throat these are Jackson approved color changes. Like it or don't buy it.....just as in the case of Lucas right?

[Illy Scorsese]

I really do have to say again how excellent Ken Brown's Review was...

Fantastic job sir!

[CGHULK]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

Its what PJ wants..and it has been approved.

I don't dispute that this is what Jackson wanted, but did Warners add on the green tint after Peter was done with his new print.

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by CGHULK

I don't dispute that this is what Jackson wanted, but did Warners add on the green tint after Peter was done with his new print.

yes they did! It was a plot against us all!!

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by nametag

Sorry, but that's ridiculous: 'oh, so it's fine as long as Peter Jackson says so'? - judge the art, not the artist.

Fine, don't 'tell an artist what to do' when they're creating art (though, bear in mind, film is a collaborative medium) - but once it's released to the public they aren't the sole 'owners' of the art any more, in a cultural sense. This isn't even a case of a studio butchering up an original which is being restored to its so-called 'original intention', it's active revisionism for no discernible reason (other than, it would seem, an artist's whim). Artists aren't gods, we shouldn't just let them do whatever they want once they've released something that millions of people have experienced (and paid for) just because they're artists. All revisions should be supplemented by the original releases - that's my view any way.

As for these releases, I'm not sure how much the colour thing is going to bother me personally (ie, my idealistic objections are probably not going to stop me buying it eventually) - but I wasn't going to buy it straight away anyway so i'll just keep track of whether they decide to do a disc replacement thing, or not. In general I don't think the green tint looks that bad when taken in isolation, I think it's the fact that FOTR now seems to have a notably different visual style to the rest of the trilogy - I'm not saying PJ should have altered every film, but the inconsistency is annoying and makes the whole thing seem a bit whimsical. If the BD looks as PJ definitely intended, of course.

I agree. The art is out there and it belongs to us now. You wouldn't let zombie Van Gogh out of his grave and suddenly change his mind that he wants the sky in Starry Night painted green.

[vivancoman]

Originally Posted by CGHULK

I don't dispute that this is what Jackson wanted, but did Warners add on the green tint after Peter was done with his new print.

why would they. There has been confimation that some people who saw it at the cinema noticed this new tint collering

[Karl Murks]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

Its what PJ wants..and it has been approved.

That's the third time you say that and also the third time you fail to link to a trustworthy source.

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by Boone_Carlyle

I agree. The art is out there and it belongs to us now. You wouldn't let zombie Van Gogh out of his grave and suddenly change his mind that he wants the sky in Starry Night painted green.

So does the same thing go for Lucas or is this a double standard?

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

So does the same thing go for Lucas or is this a double standard?

How often do you hear people say star wars should be altered?

[Jay444]

As long as Frodo's sword doesn't glow hot pink like Vader's did in The Empire Strikes Back (2004 DVD versions) I will not be cancelling my preorder. Looking forward to this release for too long.

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by Boone_Carlyle

How often do you hear people say star wars should be altered?

And actually I've heard that the original master of star wars is ruined: so the art no longer even exists.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by Boone_Carlyle

And actually I've heard that the original master of star wars is ruined: so the art no longer even exists.

That's baloney.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Goldengirl

The same is true of Hobbiton.

Exactly. Any scenes with light and color are now drab. When I saw the first Hobbiton comparison shots, a quote from the book came to mind. When Frodo is in Lothlorien and looks from atop the hill of Cerin Amroth where he is standing:

'He [Frodo] lifted his eyes across the water [the River Anduin] and all the light went out, and he was back in the world he knew. Beyond the river the land appeared flat and empty, formless and vague... The sun that lay on Lothlorien had no power to enlighten the shadow of the distant height.'

This new color scheme seems to be the equivalent of this. "New and improved" is not always better.