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

[mikej327]

Personally for me, being forced to re-buy 9 DVDs I already own is a far bigger deal-breaker than some revisionist (and apparently intentional) color timing ever will be.

I don't get that - how is it a deal breaker? It's not like it takes up any more space because of the extra dvds. Each movie is in a regular sized blu-ray case and even if the extras were on 1 or 2 blus instead, it still would take up the same amount of space!

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by kurtlingle

Thanks Ken. So, I do wonder, do you think the Blu-ray is the same (exact) copy as what people saw in theaters.

I think it's most likely the same. In a dark viewing environment like a theater, it would be even more difficult to detect the tint. Not impossible, but far more difficult. The eye adjusts -- self-calibrates, if you will -- in an appropriately dark viewing environment, registering the whitest area of the screen as true white, even if it has a slight tint. (Pure white does not exist in any theatrical presentation, it is only perceived, as detailed in previous posts.) Considering how varied people's perceptions are when it comes to a verifiable tint on the Blu-ray disc, I would imagine the same conflicting reports would emerge after the same color grade was presented theatrically.

Originally Posted by kurtlingle

Also, do you believe WB that PJ approved this? Not trying to stir the pot, just would like to hear your thoughts.

Before I answer, a request to everyone reading this: please, please, please don't take a single sentence from the following reply and run wild. I have been so misquoted over the last few weeks, mainly because people don't read my entire message. Thanks!

Anyway, yes, I definitely believe WB's statement that PJ approved the transfer. Even so, I sympathize with the point made in a previous post in this thread: if so many people can't see the tint, as reports indicate, why is everyone sure the fine folks checking the discs can see it? It's a catch-22. Either the tint is there, intentionally added and verifiable by PJ or it isn't there, wasn't added and can't be seen to be verified by PJ.

That's why I'd love to hear Jackson speak to adding a slight green tint to the entire film. It's there, it's verifiable; so if it's intentional, its existence must have logic and reasoning behind it. He or Lesnie had to say, "increase the greens a bit through the whole film" to achieve the transfer as it exists in our hands. And if they said that, they must have had a reason to do so. Maybe they just don't notice it like many of you, and maybe it does look exactly as they like it to as a result. Perhaps they accidentally added a slight tint, didn't realize it was there, but liked the end result all the same. They would approve it, they would like it, they would be happy...

See how circular it all becomes? Ultimately -- if you decide to quote me, quote me on this -- I definitely believe PJ approved the transfer. WHV would be in very tricky waters issuing a statement like they did only to risk being contradicted by a filmmaker who wasn't satisfied with the transfer. Especially when it's PJ; he who is helming the sure-to-be multi-billion dollar Hobbit films. Personally, I just want to know why he added a slight green tint. Even if only for curiosity's sake. It's there, so it only stands that, if it's intentional, it exists for an artistic or thematic reason. A simple, "I slightly boosted greens throughout the film to tie into the Hobbit films" or "I added a slight green tint to give the film a more ominous fantasy tone" or "I wanted some more green in there to counter-balance..." You get the point.

To be clear: I don't want to beat a dead horse. I'm thrilled WHV finally verified it looks as it should. Whether I like the tint or not, a confirmation makes my job much, much easier. I just have two logical followup questions very few people, as far as has been publicized, are asking. And they aren't difficult or involved questions. "Mr. Jackson, whether it's easily perceived or not, did you add a slight green tint to the entire film? You did? Ah, thank you. Can you explain the artistic or thematic reason you did so? Ah, the Hobbit? Thanks so much for your time!" Three sentences on Facebook could clear everything right up and kill any lingering doubt purists have.

I don't want to hear from Jackson because I think WHV is doing anything shady. I want to hear from him because I love FOTR and would love to fully understand the changes that were made. I just want to know why the tint is there so I can view the new color changes in their proper context, which is truly the only way to view a film as its filmmaker intended

[Sean72]

Originally Posted by HeKS

I'm sorry to be a broken record here, but something about this whole controversy and "hoopla" keeps being overlooked. This issue needs to be broken down into 4 stages, starting with the EE DVD release.

Stage 1: The color timing as it exists on the DVD EE release of FOTR.

Stage 2: Color timing changes made to specific scenes (eg. Council of Elrond, Lothlorien) for the Blu EE release of FOTR.

Stage 3: The addition of a green tint applied over the entire Blu EE release of FOTR, including OVER the changes already made in Stage 2.

Stage 4: The addition of a massive contrast boost applied over the entire Blu EE release of FOTR, including OVER the changes already made in Stage 2.

Most of us think that the changes made at Stage 2 are actually improvements. I haven't actually noticed anyone saying otherwise.

Our complaints start at Stage 3 and what I'm personally noticing is that several people are under the impression that the green tint applied in Stage 3 is what is responsible for the improvements that should actually be attributed to Stage 2. The change at Stage 3 simply gives the changes at Stage 2, along with everything else, a heavy green push, lessening the net improvement that was achieved at Stage 2.

Take care,
HeKS

Good post.

[The Blufather]

Maybe there should be a separate thread for people who actually own and have actually viewed the movie. Those reviews would be much better that those having copies or watching YouTube videos or looking at screenshots. I'm sure you don't watch the movie on your computer monitor of top of that.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by mikej327

I don't get that - how is it a deal breaker? It's not like it takes up any more space because of the extra dvds. Each movie is in a regular sized blu-ray case and even if the extras were on 1 or 2 blus instead, it still would take up the same amount of space!

Its not a deal-breaker due to size or something - its strictly a money thing for me. I hate feeling like Im paying for extras that I dont want and these extra zillion discs are worthless to me and anyone thats watched them or owns the DVD EE set. Basically, at $75 bucks roughly, thats $25 a flick. Not too bad....but not catalog-title pricing either.

No biggy, some of us are just waiting for single releases or for the set to drop in price which it will. All good.

[Sean72]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

I think it's most likely the same. In a dark viewing environment like a theater, it would be even more difficult to detect the tint. Not impossible, but far more difficult. The eye adjusts -- self-calibrates, if you will -- in an appropriately dark viewing environment, registering the whitest area of the screen as true white, even if it has a slight tint. (Pure white does not exist in any theatrical presentation, it is only perceived, as detailed in previous posts.) Considering how varied people's perceptions are when it comes to a verifiable tint on the Blu-ray disc, I would imagine the same conflicting reports would emerge after the same color grade was presented theatrically.



Before I answer, a request to all. Please, please, please don't take a single sentence from the following reply and run wild. I have been so misquoted over the last few weeks, mainly because people don't read my entire message. Thanks!

Anyway, yes, I definitely believe WB's statement that PJ approved the transfer. Even so, I sympathize with the point made in a previous post in this thread: if so many people can't see the tint, as reports indicate, why is everyone sure the fine folks checking the discs can see it? It's a catch-22. Either the tint is there, intentionally added and verifiable by PJ or it isn't there, wasn't added and can't be seen to be verified by PJ.

That's why I'd love to hear Jackson speak to adding a slight green tint to the entire film. It's there, it's verifiable; so if it's intentional, its existence must have logic and reasoning behind it. He or Lesnie had to say, "increase the greens a bit through the whole film" to achieve the transfer as it exists in our hands. And if they said that, they must have had a reason to do so. Maybe they just don't notice it like many of you, and maybe it does look exactly as they like it to as a result. Perhaps they accidentally added a slight tint, didn't realize it was there, but liked the end result all the same. They would approve it, they would like it, they would be happy...

See how circular it all becomes? Ultimately -- if you decide to quote me, quote me on this -- I definitely believe PJ approved the transfer. WHV would be in very tricky waters issuing a statement like they did only to risk being contradicted by a filmmaker who wasn't satisfied with the transfer. Especially when it's PJ; he who is helming the sure-to-be multi-billion dollar Hobbit films. Personally, I just want to know why he added a slight green tint. Even if only for curiosity's sake. It's there, so it only stands that, if it's intentional, it exists for an artistic or thematic reason. A simple, "I slightly boosted greens throughout the film to tie into the Hobbit films" or "I added a slight green tint to give the film a more ominous fantasy tone" or "I wanted some more green in there to counter-balance..." You get the point.

To be clear: I don't want to beat a dead horse. I'm thrilled WHV finally verified it looks as it should. Whether I like the tint or not, a confirmation makes my job much, much easier. I just have two logical followup questions very few people, as far as has been publicized, are asking. And they aren't difficult or involved questions. "Mr. Jackson, whether it's easily perceived or not, did you add a slight green tint to the entire film? You did? Ah, thank you. Can you explain the artistic or thematic reason you did so? Ah, the Hobbit? Thanks so much for your time!" Three sentences on Facebook could clear everything right up and kill any lingering doubt purists have.

I don't want to hear from Jackson because I think WHV is doing anything shady. I want to hear from him because I love FOTR and would love to fully understand the changes that were made. I just want to know why the tint is there so I can view the new color changes in their proper context, which is truly the only way to view a film as its filmmaker intended

Also interested in learning PJ's artistic motivation to green wash 1 film of 3.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by mikej327

I don't get that - how is it a deal breaker? It's not like it takes up any more space because of the extra dvds. Each movie is in a regular sized blu-ray case and even if the extras were on 1 or 2 blus instead, it still would take up the same amount of space!

The deal-breaker is that I already paid for the damn discs once. Who gives a crap what space they take up?

[rltilley]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

SOLD! I did not even think about Costco for this......thanks for the info! The great thing about Costco is if I really hate it they have a great return policy. I doubt I will be that dissatisfied, but makes my purchase decision easier.

My Costco has it for sale at $82.99 here in San Diego.

[J3553]

forgive my laziness... could somebody point me to the statement from the studio regarding FOTR?

[HeKS]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

I just have two logical followup questions very few people, as far as has been publicized, are asking. And they aren't difficult or involved questions. "Mr. Jackson, whether it's easily perceived or not, did you add a slight green tint to the entire film? You did? Ah, thank you. Can you explain the artistic or thematic reason you did so? Ah, the Hobbit? Thanks so much for your time!" Three sentences on Facebook could clear everything right up and kill any lingering doubt purists have.

Hi Ken,

Personally, I would really like a 3rd question added to that: "Why did you decide not to make the same color changes to Two Towers and Return of the King and chose, instead, to leave them as they appeared on the Extended DVDs, resulting in them looking significantly different than Fellowship of the Ring?"

HeKS

[HeKS]

Originally Posted by Sean72

Good post.

Thanks.

[42041]

Originally Posted by J3553

forgive my laziness... could somebody point me to the statement from the studio regarding FOTR?

http://thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

[retablo]

Popped on FOTR and skies look blue to me. I do see the very slight green on the title, but only because I was looking for it. Otherwise, it's a non-issue, and as many suspected completely overblown by people who hadn't even seen the discs yet.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

Then you will love it. I had mine cranked and it just sounds great!

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by J3553

forgive my laziness... could somebody point me to the statement from the studio regarding FOTR?

I also incorporated it into my updated video review of FOTR

[Mr. Cinema]

I do love the packaging of this set. A very nice sturdy box. And the black cases look very slick.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

I do love the packaging of this set. A very nice sturdy box. And the black cases look very slick.

Agreed. And much less cumbersome than the fold out cases of the DVD set.

Those looked nice, but where a pain to unfold to get discs in and out. I'll take simple, functional cases over nice looking cumbersome ones any day.

[Blu-Runner]

I gotta give props to the team that designed the keepcase/inner packaging, because it just screams quality. Don't really see this type of care applied in this day and age. They knew it was Lord of the Rings and weren't f--king around.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by rltilley

My Costco has it for sale at $82.99 here in San Diego.

Thanks. I will give them a call here and see what the price is. $82.99 sounds more in line with what I would think Costco would sell this for going off other blu rays they sell, but curious to find out what they sell it here for. I would think it would be the same at all Costco locations though?

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Blu-Runner

I gotta give props to the team that designed the keepcase/inner packaging, because it just screams quality. Don't really see this type of care applied in this day and age. They knew it was Lord of the Rings and weren't f--king around.

Agreed. It's simple, classy and striking. It's a very impressive design IMO