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

[NYorker]

I don't mind at all swapping discs. Gives you a chance to stretch ye legs...
But why just remaster FOTR? couldn't WB go that extra mile and remaster the other two...?

[radagast]

Originally Posted by NYorker

I don't mind at all swapping discs. Gives you a chance to stretch ye legs...
But why just remaster FOTR? couldn't WB go that extra mile and remaster the other two...?

This fat guy probably won't mind changing the discs:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,3121345.story

[Variable_Star]

Originally Posted by KulasDevorn

Ugh. ALL these DVD's instead of placing the same material on 3 Blu-Rays. It seems to me they did this on purpose in order to charge more for the set and get away with it.

It doesn't appear they did it for the reason you surmise. Amazon's pre-order price is $83.99, which seems about right. It may even lower a bit between now and the release date. Back in November of 2004, I happily paid $77.98 for the LoTR extended edition trilogy on DVD from Amazon.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

Is this why it's limited, you can't buy them after May 24th?

This is the cutoff date for dealers (stores) to place orders to get the number of copies they want.

[whasaaaab]

Look forward been waiting a long time for this

[Stinky-Dinkins]

So they're remastering Fellowship?

Friggin' awesome.

And those who are complaining about the films themselves being spread over 2 discs each are idiotic.

If they're spreading it over two BD50's and remastering Fellowship they're doing all they can to present the most pristine and impressive PQ and AQ possible, which is precisely what Blu Ray is supposed to be all about.

The first LotR's BD release was completely lackluster, and in places Fellowship's PQ was trumped by the old HDTV broadcast (which is ludicrous.)

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by ApolloOne

Doing a little math...

Return of the King EE is 266 minutes long. On one 50 GB BD, that works out to a total bitrate (including audio and subs) of 23.9 Mb/s. Let's say we knock off about 3 Mb/s for DTS-HD MA and other audio tracks and we're looking at just over 20 Mb/s average bitrate for video.

I don't know about you guys, but for something this epic and gorgeous, I'd like a LOT more bits thrown at the picture than that. Two discs is just fine by me.

Exactly! So happy they are splitting these over 2 discs! This is the biggest blu news yet!

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Gone with the Wind is black and white? WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Im the igrorant one.

People are acting like HD-DVD won the format war. I feel betrayed by this decision because one of the biggest reasons for supporting Blu-Ray during the format war for me was because Blu-Ray has the space to fit long movies like Lord of the Rings on a single disc while HD-DVD doesn't. Its a slap in the face.

Then dont buy it!

[sputter]

I can live with changing disks. It better be nothing short of amazing

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by nathan_393

6.1 DTS-HD-MA, same as the TE's. What you're referring to is a lossy codec, and these aren't going to be like that at all.

You are right, my bad. I assume 6.1 means discrete though, right?

[nathan_393]

I really don't know why so many people keep insisting you can throw long films on a single Blu-ray disc and maintain the highest possible level of quality. Just because WB did it with Gone with the Wind; that means nothing. We're looking at completely different film styles - digital vs reel, etc. It's a whole different scenario.

50 GB of space really isn't that much for HD video and audio. I can't imagine what it would be like if we were stuck at that bloody 35 GB, apart from hideous. Spreading LotR on two discs is more likely to improve the transfers than make them worse, so why won't everybody stop their b****ing and give WB a chance to do it right?

Oh right, I forgot. This is the Internet, where the irritating minority shouts really loudly all the time.

[nathan_393]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

You are right, my bad. I assume 6.1 means discrete though, right?

Hmm. I didn't think that the last releases were. Perhaps I'm wrong. Somebody more knowledgeable than me will hopefully be able to shed some light on that for you.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by nathan_393

I really don't know why so many people keep insisting you can throw long films on a single Blu-ray disc and maintain the highest possible level of quality. Just because WB did it with Gone with the Wind; that means nothing. We're looking at completely different film styles - digital vs reel, etc. It's a whole different scenario.

50 GB of space really isn't that much for HD video and audio. I can't imagine what it would be like if we were stuck at that bloody 35 GB, apart from hideous. Spreading LotR on two discs is more likely to improve the transfers than make them worse, so why won't everybody stop their b****ing and give WB a chance to do it right?

Oh right, I forgot. This is the Internet, where the irritating minority shouts really loudly all the time.

If anything Gone with the Wind should be more difficult to compress than Lord of the Rings. Gone with the Wind is an older movie with a more aggressive grain structure. Film grain is difficult to compress which is why all digital movies look better at lower bitrates then film shot grainy pictures do. If it could be done for Gone with the Wind it can be done just as easily for the Lord of the Rings movies. Especially since the first two movies are actually shorter than Gone with the Wind.

As for 50 gigs not being alot for HD video let me list some titles and the space they used

King Kong - 200 minutes - 36 gigabytes used
Watchmen - 185 minutes - 33 gigabyes used
I am Legend - 103 minutes - 18 gigabytes used

50 gigs is actually plenty of space for almost any movie. Spreading the movie over two discs is something we would expect had HD-DVD won the format war. Not for Blu-Ray

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by nathan_393

Hmm. I didn't think that the last releases were. Perhaps I'm wrong. Somebody more knowledgeable than me will hopefully be able to shed some light on that for you.

I am assuming discrete since the dvds were discrete.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

For the Theatricals, TTT & RotK could have been reference quality if WB had kept their hands off the DNR dial (and for my money, they still looked pretty damn good), so hopefully WB will be better behaved in that regard this time around. With that in mind, if they're also going back to the original 2K digital files for FotR, these could be some mighty fine discs.

I've previously said I wouldn't pay for these (due to all the dvd bonus material ports), but if the PQ does indeed take a step up and the price dips down to something more reasonable - I imagine I'll cave and gladly enjoy these BDs.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

I am assuming discrete since the dvds were discrete.

The theatrical BDs had a matrixed surround back channel, even though it sez DTS-HD MA 6.1 on the packaging, menus etc. DTS apparently label matrixed mixes as 6.1 nowadays, having left the ES nomenclature behind with DVD.

PLEASE let the EEs be discrete 6.1 on Blu!

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

Everyone should agree with this post! Why on earth would you buy the same thing over and over again? Its perfectly logical to buy a BD that you already own on DVD because it is a different product. Buying the same DVD's you already own is folly. I have the DVD set and have no use for anything other than a BD version of the EE. No thanks Jackson!

Except the DVDs are just the bonus features. You think this is the only movie released on Blu-Ray that has the same bonus features as the DVD? I don't get why everyone loves to whine so much.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

except the dvds are just the bonus features. You think this is the only movie released on blu-ray that has the same bonus features as the dvd? I don't get why everyone loves to whine so much.

qft

[ArrestedDevelopment]

Originally Posted by KulasDevorn

Ugh. ALL these DVD's instead of placing the same material on 3 Blu-Rays. It seems to me they did this on purpose in order to charge more for the set and get away with it. Personally, I only want the Extended Editions and that's all since I already have the DVD's with most all these special features in this set. I waited for the EE on Blu-Ray because I have no desire for the theatrical cuts. I may just buy them separately. I don't like how they put this set together. It seems ridiculous to me.

THIS.

It's obvious they're jacking up the price with a set of a "whopping" 15 discs to get unsuspecting people to think that it's worth their money. Seeing how those same DVDs have been out for years, they're worth next to nothing. If they insist on releasing the set with a measly 6 BDs and a ridiculously retarded 9 DVDs, the price should go WAY DOWN.

All the people who have been waiting for the extended release most likely own the extended editions on DVD. At least put the features on a couple of BDs instead.

****ing ridiculous.

[Geoff D]

But who in their right mind will hold on to the EE DVDs once they've got the Blu-rays? Hell, I sold my fancy EE versions (with the Argonath bookends, Gollum statue etc) when I heard about the theatrical BDs, never mind this latest release.

Here's the kicker: it'd still be the same content even if it were squeezed onto a Blu-ray! And that stuff would have to be re-encoded and a new BD authored & pressed etc., all adding to the turnaround time of this set. It ain't cheap as it is, and sticking in another Blu-ray or two would jack the price up even higher. Oh, and I can hear the complaints now: "WHY are there SD extras on a BLU-RAY DISC! What a GIP!".

Don't get me wrongo: I'd love to see the EE extras repurposed with a slicker interface and put on one disc, as the DVDs are a pain in the arse to navigate (hence the sprawling 'map' that came with them). But I don't feel outraged by Warners re-using the existing discs, not at all. You people had better not check the extras discs in your Blu-ray editions of Patton or The Longest Day, you might blow a gasket.