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

[mat562]

I'm trying to decide whether I genuinely need these films on Blu-ray. Being in the position of already owning the trio of extended editions on DVD, and looking at the it's-only-just-been-released full whack price tag for the box set of fifty-odd quid, for a trio of films I've already got, it's no easy decision to make.

My gut is telling me that these masterpieces need to be seen in the highest quality available, and that any film fan's collection is always going to be incomplete without them on Blu-ray.

Then again, the more pragmatic devil on the other shoulder is brandishing a bunch of bank statements with notes on my ever-dwindling overtime quota. And he's pointing out that I've got an upscaling player and a 1080p TV, as well as a decent 5.1 system, and reminding me that I'm already getting a pretty good run at all things LOTR when I slot my existing disks in, put up the 'Do Not Disturb' sign on my Fortress of Solitude (aka the front spare bedroom) and mark off ten hours on the calendar in the kitchen. And the extras package of the Blu-ray set is all in SD and on DVDs, too, he's also saying. Then there are rumblings about the picture quality being less than perfect.

Hmm. Decisions, decisions...

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by WhoIsTylerDurden

The commentaries are the same ones from the original EE DVDs.

Rats! No help there, then.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

You are decoding in your player rather than your AVR. That's why you see the multi channel qualifier. If you decode in your AVR it will display DTS HD MA 6.1. It is Discrete. 3/3.1 is 6.1. Thats how Sony displays it on their AVR's.
I prefer to decode in my AVR, but thats just me.

Hey, has anyone listened to PJ's audio commentary? I'm betting there may be some insight into his reason for the color changes in there. I'm just going to enjoy the movie (FOTR) first. I just started watching it. First time for me watching the Extended Edition. I never owned or rented the DVDs.

I am actually bitstreaming to my receiver, but if I go to 'sountrack select' on my BD player, it does show just 'multi'.

The commentary is the same old commentary from the EE DVDs.

If you're familiar with the TE only, I think you will be in for a treat with the EE!

[DCunited]

I'm sorry but two bluray discs, no need for that. Hd is hd. Vc1 video codec is better than the avc mg4. TE edition is just fine. I think the video is the same except part 1. I guess. I'm going to wait until price drop

[Cook]

Originally Posted by WorkShed

I'm sorry, but that is not the answer. I really suggest watching a half hour of Fellowship and then switching immediately to the opening of Two Towers. There is a clear difference between the two. I don't have any other problems with clarity in exposure except for AVP:R, The Last of the Mohicans, and the EE of Fellowship. It is definitely the presentation of the film. Now, my TV is a few years old but we shouldn't have to go through all this effort and back and forth with changing all the settings (and in my case creating a new user setting only for Fellowship).

In other words, if it was a problem with my television, then shouldn't Two Towers look duller and green, as well?

It's not a gigantic difference, but certainly one that you can see when you pop in Two Towers.

I watched a bluray before fellowship and i checked out TTT after. Still doesnt look dull to me. Like i said if it looks dull its something on your end. And why should TTT look like FOTR? They are 2 seperate films. Do all the Harry Potter films look alike? No they do not.That wholr idea makes no sense especially in light of the fact that TTT never looked like FOTR. Its far less colorful and far more dreary. So why all a sudden some think it always looked like FOTR is beyond me. The original color grade of FOTR was just as different to TTT as the new one is. All three films have slightlty different color grade so i dont see what good it does comparing the color grades. Peter wanted a new color grade for FOTR. He didnt want one for TTT and ROTK. Why? Because he wasnt happy with FOTRs current one. That is far easier to believe than half the crack pot conspiracies this thread has produced. Where does it say that peter is obligated to change all three films? FOTR was always the odd duck out in terms of Color grading and had pinks in whites overloaded blues blownout oranges and hot reds. Peter went back and changed it. It doesnt really matter that that was intentional. After ten years im sure he saw areas that could be changed and improved. I know your going to say well why not improve TTT ROTK and it should be obvious those films didnt need improvong in his opinnion. I wish he would have taken some of the blue out of Helms Deep though. That scene has alway been way too blue. The new color grade is phenominal IMO. Now the green tint in some scenes is a bit much but in other scenes its fine. But that is my only complaint is that in a couple scenes there is a little to much green tint. The new color grade though is fantastic. The film doesnt look dull and it isnt green in every single scene. Ive got three HDTVs in my house, all calibrated, and of varying sizes. It looks great on them all.

On a slightly different note i have a question about the new transfer of FOTR. Was it transferred from the original 35 mm film source or the 2k digital source? All the original color grading was done after it was transferred from film to the AVID at 2k resolution. If they did the new transfer from the 35 mm film source they would have lost the original color grading requiring them to grade the film over again. Wouldnt this explain why FOTR was the only one that recieved a new color grade. TTT and ROTK are the same transfers from the 2k source so they would have kept their original color grade.

[gstriftos]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

Maybe the tint will go away if we coat the disc with orange magic marker.

By the way I stumbled across this awesome screen-shot:

[Show spoiler]

Seriously now,as much as subjective opinions are what most of us eager to read for(since the reviewers have spoken),they are not of any value.
Apart from the facts that we don't know if their projecting devise is calibrated,of adequate quality for critical viewing or they are colour blind there is also one other big issue.The insensitivity of human perception about colour green.Ask on ophthalmologist.Human sight is far less sensitive to green(and changes made to it's value) than red or blue and that also differs from person to person.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Cook

On a slightly different note i have a question about the new transfer of FOTR. Was it transferred from the original 35 mm film source or the 2k digital source? All the original color grading was done after it was transferred from film to the AVID at 2k resolution. If they did the new transfer from the 35 mm film source they would have lost the original color grading requiring them to grade the film over again. Wouldnt this explain why FOTR was the only one that recieved a new color grade. TTT and ROTK are the same transfers from the 2k source so they would have kept their original color grade.

The new version of FOTR and its new color grade were created using the 2K digital source, not the original film source. TTT and ROTK were remastered as well, as Jackson indicated in his introductions before the EE trilogy's recent three-night theatrical run, but they weren't subjected to any new color grading. (At least none that has been reported.)

[frogmort]

I think it's kind of funny that different peoples calibration settings are called in to question, when discussing FOTR specifically. Hmmm, interesting.

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

I don't think Warner, Jackson or really any studio would create an exchange program to offer people a different version of a release unless there was an error. So, based on the official statement that was issued Monday, I doubt an exchange program is forthcoming. But I've also been wrong at least 187 times in the last three weeks, so I would quote someone other than me

The only thing I'm holding out hope for is a statement from Jackson (one that comes on his timetable, of course) that briefly explains why he and Lesnie added a slight tint to the film. And, just to be clear, the only reason I'm curious about that is because I'd like to discuss the merit/function of the tint in context with the filmmakers' as-yet-to-be-detailed intentions. Even if he addresses the purpose of the tint a year from now, I'll be happy. I love these films so much I just want to understand all of the various production decisions made, including the reason behind the intentional, albeit slight tint added to the newly color-graded film. That's why I've plowed through the Appendices multiple times over the years - I love watching the films with an understanding as to why every color, detail, design and choice appears on screen. Luckily, Jackson has always been eager to reveal every last morsel of information on his methods and decisions



Yep, they're all the same. No new commentaries are included.

Yes, a personal statement directly from PJ's mouth would put my mind at ease greatly, my OCD-ness could reconcile itself with that and just accept that this is how it looks now. It's just that, while the tint works most of the time (and is often completely indiscernible), the few times it does stand out make me feel in my gut that something was accidentally screwed up between PJ seeing the master and it going to print. I'm assuming engineers that handle that do a rigorous A/Bing process, especially on a trilogy that is so heavily pushed as "one long movie". The lack of continuity just seems so contrary to everything they had done up to this point.

I don't care if it comes out that WB jumped the gun on the A-OK and there was a mistake, I don't even care if they knew there was a mistake and didn't want it to affect sales. I'm used to companies lying to my face to keep the flow of capitalism going. I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over that. I just want it verified that this was totally intentional, or it was a mistake and they are offering replacements, so set my mind at ease.

I am happy with the trilogy, no buyer's remorse, I'm even OK with knowing that there will almost definitely be a "10th Anniversary Remaster" to coincide with a Hobbit release in 2013, and I already plan to pay another $70+ to pick that up, when the time comes. I love these movies that much. I just want my mind eased, because knowing there is a flaw in something like that just drives me absolutely bat-**** crazy. I fully acknowledge it's my "OCD" as I call it, even though I don't exhibit any real OCD tendencies, but it doesn't make it any easier to swallow the pill.

When the Sapphire Series Gladiator fiasco happened, I didn't even pop the disc in my player before I was incensed. Just knowing that the DNR was so prevalent got my ire going, by the time I watched it I was furious. I don't have to have it ruin my actual viewing experience to ruin the experience as a whole, know what I mean?

Anyway, in the end if the alternate to Owning this set, (perceived) warts and all, is Not Owning it at all, and still watching my DVDs, then I am absolutely happy with what I got, and urge all other real fans of the movie to pick the set up too.

I just wish my niggling concerns could somehow be alleviated. I know, I know, wish in one hand...

[can man]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

Oh don't I know it.

The thing is, am I wasting my breath hoping that a disc exchange will happen, since even I am happy with how LOTR looks on it's own merit? If anything, I found that the beginning of The Two Towers seemed sort of washed out and drab after the color explosion of FOTR... whether that had anything to do with the green hue is way beyond my pay grade, but aside from a couple of scenes, I thought FOTR looked infinitely better than the other two. More detail, more vibrancy, more of a "fantasy world" sort of feel to it.

My OCD side would be satisfied with FOTR being similarly washed out and drab if it meant that all 3 films would look the same.

As I said, I am supremely conflicted. :P

You can put your mind at ease....... A disc exchange ain't gonna happen. No way. No how. No chance. Jackson signed off on this, it's done, over, finished. This EE of FOTR is the one to rule over all others........

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by gstriftos

There is also one other big issue.The insensitivity of human perception about colour green. Ask on ophthalmologist. Human sight is far less sensitive to green (and changes made to it's value) than red or blue and that also differs from person to person.

Correct, and this is one of many very important points that help explain why experiences vary so wildly from person to person. Individual displays, viewing environments, calibrations, etc also contribute to the subjective discrepancies, not to mention personal taste, sensitivity and more. That's why subjective opinions are extremely helpful when evaluating the effect the tint has on various viewers, and why objective analysis is extremely helpful when evaluating the effect the tint has on the image itself.

Effect? Affect? Did I get that one right?

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by mat562

I'm trying to decide whether I genuinely need these films on Blu-ray. Being in the position of already owning the trio of extended editions on DVD, and looking at the it's-only-just-been-released full whack price tag for the box set of fifty-odd quid, for a trio of films I've already got, it's no easy decision to make.

My gut is telling me that these masterpieces need to be seen in the highest quality available, and that any film fan's collection is always going to be incomplete without them on Blu-ray.

Then again, the more pragmatic devil on the other shoulder is brandishing a bunch of bank statements with notes on my ever-dwindling overtime quota. And he's pointing out that I've got an upscaling player and a 1080p TV, as well as a decent 5.1 system, and reminding me that I'm already getting a pretty good run at all things LOTR when I slot my existing disks in, put up the 'Do Not Disturb' sign on my Fortress of Solitude (aka the front spare bedroom) and mark off ten hours on the calendar in the kitchen. And the extras package of the Blu-ray set is all in SD and on DVDs, too, he's also saying. Then there are rumblings about the picture quality being less than perfect.

Hmm. Decisions, decisions...

You might also factor in how often you'll watch these, how important the extended/additional scenes are to you and to the movies overall, how much it bothers you to have three films split over two discs each and how much time you have in your life to dedicate 682 minutes to the trilogy vs 557 minutes (daunting enough). I've seen the extended editions and I'm glad I did. I liked seeing what was cut and I often agreed with the decision to leave it out. The ratio of extended scenes that improve the experience to those that bog it down or hurt it leads me to shun the new versions, regardless of any visible changes.

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Correct, and this is one of many very important points that help explain why experiences vary so wildly from person to person. Individual displays, viewing environments, calibrations, etc also contribute to the subjective discrepancies, not to mention personal taste, sensitivity and more. That's why subjective opinions are extremely helpful when evaluating the affect the tint has on various viewers, and why objective analysis is extremely helpful when evaluating the affect the tint has on the image itself.

Effect? Affect? Did I get that one right?

Effect. The effect affected you.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Effect? Affect? Did I get that one right?

Actually, no. Sorry.

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by Gremal

You might also factor in how often you'll watch these, how important the extended/additional scenes are to you and to the movies overall, how much it bothers you to have three films split over two discs each and how much time you have in your life to dedicate 682 minutes to the trilogy vs 557 minutes (daunting enough). I've seen the extended editions and I'm glad I did. I liked seeing what was cut and I often agreed with the decision to leave it out. The ratio of extended scenes that improve the experience to those that bog it down or hurt it leads me to shun the new versions, regardless of any visible changes.

I have the exact opposite experience. The movies are so long even in theatrical cuts that I treat it more like watching the whole miniseries of Band of Brothers, so traditional ideas about pacing go right out the window.

I find that I can't even watch the TEs anymore because I miss all the changes in the EEs. There is just so much more included that I miss when it's not there. A lot of humor, too, especially in The Two Towers.

Different strokes for different folks, though...

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

I have the exact opposite experience. The movies are so long even in theatrical cuts that I treat it more like watching the whole miniseries of Band of Brothers, so traditional ideas about pacing go right out the window.

I find that I can't even watch the TEs anymore because I miss all the changes in the EEs. There is just so much more included that I miss when it's not there. A lot of humor, too, especially in The Two Towers.

Different strokes for different folks, though...

Yeah, I like Tolkien's humor but not Jackson's. He tends to take the low road often using Gimli or Pippen/Merry for childish farce in a more pedestrian way than the original stories. I agree with you about pacing, though. The chances of sitting down to watch one of these movies in one sitting is slim to none, especially since LOTR isn't exactly my wife's cup o' tea.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by DCunited

I'm sorry but two bluray discs, no need for that. Hd is hd. Vc1 video codec is better than the avc mg4. TE edition is just fine. I think the video is the same except part 1. I guess. I'm going to wait until price drop

No, HD is not 'just HD no matter what'. Ever try burning a personal video file to a DVD? The more space that's dedicated to your video on the disc, the better your video quality is going to be. These movies are also pretty lengthy, especially Return of the King, which is over 4 hours long. Can it be done? Yeah. Is the quality that much better if you use more disc space overall? Of course. It's not being compressed as much.

This is pretty common of people to think in regards to Blu-ray though, I guess. "Hey, it's got 50 gb on the disc now... shouldn't movies be able to fit on a single disc?" Well, sure they CAN, and while the discs storage is significantly larger, so is the video file that's encoded ON to the disc.

[dcowboy7]

Some peeps are cutting & pasting their same posts from here over to the avs lotr forum as well.

Thats funny.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

Some peeps are cutting & pasting their same posts from here over to the avs lotr forum as well.

Thats funny.

That's probably me. I have a total of 14 posts over there. Something I read made me think of that, and I did come back here and repeat it.

[Grand Bob]

OK, I have just finished watching the first disc (I only watch one EE disc per day). I was initially thrilled to see the wonderful definition of this new edition, as well as hear the improvement in sound, as Ken noted in his review. For example, I had never previously noticed the perspiration on Bilbo's head during his farewell speech (disc time 25:18) or details such as the fiery inscription on the Ring (example disc times 34:10 and 37:36). Absolutely marvelous increase of detail.

Let me also say that those who have not repeatedly seen the movies will probably never notice the new tint and change in contrast. Those who have seen it often (I have seen Fellowship a minimum of 50 times) most certainly will.
It varied from a mild distraction to a persistent annoyance. There were times that I was so enamoured with the extra detail in the film that I did not notice it at all. A few notes based on the disc times:

08:15 Title frames; tint noticeable, but not bad.
10:00 Sam's first appearance - distracting green highlights in his hair.
12:09 "Flower field" shot of the Shire; noticeably darker than the original and tinted.
16:30 The paint on the walls at Bag End has a noticeable difference in tint; not annoying, but "odd" compared to the original.
19:50 The "life" has been drained out of the sky with Gandalf and Bilbo blowing smoke rings at sunset. This was true for many scenes, especially in the Shire and at Rivendell.
35:15 The "Gaffer sequence" at the Green Dragon; hair and facial details of the characters are noticeably teal tinted.
38:20 Conversation between Gandalf and Frodo oddly colored, not necessarily distracting, but different.

As the movie progressed to the darker locations, I thought the tint/contrast change would not be as prevalent. I was wrong.

48:50 Teal cast to the inside of Orthanc; odd, not bad.
49:25 Saruman's hair and robe noticeably teal; distracting.
55:38 Hobbits in woods hiding from Black Rider; teal cast.
57:50 Frodo's conversation with the Bree gatekeeper; noticeable teal shadow highlights to face.
1:07:36 Midgewater marsh haze is teal.
1:15:55 Moth shadow highlights at Isengard are teal.
1:24:15 Frodo awakens to teal highlights at Rivendell.
1:33:20 Boromir/Aragorn introduction sequence; heavily shaded teal.
1:36:10 Aragorn/Arwen on bridge at night; ditto
1:36:35 to 1:37:00 Notice the garish teal highlights in the shadow detail on Arwen's face. I found this particularly annoying.


I won't bother adding more, as I think you get the point. Much of the new coloration I will be able to get used to through repeated exposure. But some of it is just downright bad, not a "devil's mirk" as Elfhelm would describe in "The Ride of the Rohirrim". But Arwen's movie line that "the shadow does not hold sway" is not longer true. It does, and it is a teal shadow.