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

[SymbioticFunction]

Originally Posted by lilgigs

Just sent WB a message, thanking them for a great set.

Thanks for helping to ruin any chance of an exchange program for FOTR. Keep up the 'great' work.

[HeKS]

Originally Posted by BluRayFiend

man its not like he put a fake Jabba the hut in the movie then I could see a complaint then.

At least if he did that there could be no question it was intentional. You don't drop Jabba in you film by accident

[Underworld54]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

Thanks for helping to ruin any chance of an exchange program for FOTR. Keep up the 'great' work.

So only negative responses can be sent? They don't deserve to get any praise when people are actually happy with a product? That seems a little selfish, wouldn't you say?

[death_from_above]

I have watched the fotr ee on dvd recently and the tint really does change the image drastically in many scenes and not for the better. I am not happy about this at all but the increase in detail is so much better compared to the dvd that I am forced to accept this unnecessary change.

[42041]

Originally Posted by HeKS

Can you point me to these?

hope the mods don't mind me linking to avs, this thread is way too gigantic to find anything in...

In these I just tried to remove the blanket tint:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post20579633

After I examined the disc I also noticed the brightness never seems to go above a certain value, which I attempted to compensate for here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post20644425

[SymbioticFunction]

Originally Posted by gates70

Maybe some of you guys should get your sets calibrated or something. I watched mine tonight and it's just beautiful ! None of that green crap you guys are talking about. The set is perfection.

*TUMBLEWEED ROLLS BY*

The irony....

[SymbioticFunction]

Originally Posted by Underworld54

So only negative responses can be sent? They don't deserve to get any praise when people are actually happy with a product? That seems a little selfish, wouldn't you say?

FOTR does not deserve praise, it deserves an exchange program. It's blatantly an authoring fault throughout the entire running time.

[MEB]

Originally Posted by Falcon Eddie

I finished watching the 2nd disc of Fellowship and I still did not have any green tint. All looked fantastic on my set. The menu book changed colors though from disc 1. On my set disc one's menu book was the slightest hint of mint green on the pages and the menu bar was a little darker green. The disc 2 menu book was the slightest hint of cyan for some weird reason, but the menu bar was still the same intensity green as disc one. I am still not getting any of this green tint like was shown earlier in those screenshots throughout Fellowship. Don't know what to say to those that are having that problem though.

Please post objective proof that your Fellowship of the Ring lacks any green tint. Where are your screen shots and photos proving that your FOTR EE discs do not have the flaw?

Several of us have posted objective proof that FOTR has a green tint. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON THAT SAYS THERE IS NO GREEN TINT HAS POSTED ANY FORM OF OBJECTIVE PROOF.

Mark

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

Thanks for helping to ruin any chance of an exchange program for FOTR. Keep up the 'great' work.

I did the same thing and I do NOT think Warner should offer a replacement program for those who preferred the original colors.

Given the way studio budgets are being slashed and special features are being cut I think that there are FAR better ways for Warner to spend their money rather than trying to please a slim minority of fans who feel that the original looked better.

Of course, my opinion will completely change if it turns out that there was a legitimate error, but the probability of that at this point is next to nothing.

My post is not intended to offend but that's how I feel.

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

FOTR does not deserve praise, it deserves an exchange program. It's blatantly an authoring fault throughout the entire running time.

It does deserve praise. It looks beautiful. It's blatantly Peter Jackson's intention and its a better film because of it.

[arnie]

I think the remaster looks awesome and I didn't notice any obtrusive green tint. I'm very pleased

[greg_achen]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Okay folks - here's my problem.

Six weeks ago, this was an easy choice on my top 10 most coveted blu-ray releases (#1 right now, as I imagine it is for many others, is Lawrence of Arabia).

Now? The controversey is so intense (and from where I sit hardly unwarranted) I don't even want the title. And worse, I've decided I no longer care. On the one hand, you have some of the most respected eyes in the business stating the green tint is either not there, or hardly noticeable. On the other, well. Green snow, rampant corrected screenshots, and a statement from a corporation assuring everyone the look is intentional.

Well, I come from a theater background, and on the stage, you use green lighting to make someone look either sick, undead, poisoned, or like Frankenstein's monster. There is a language to color - green is great for trees and nature, it is unnatural to human skin, hence the use of green for the conditions I just mentioned (on the stage). A three-hour movie that has been re-tinted a slight green from start to finish? And not just any movie, but perhaps, arguably the best home video release of all time (the LOTR EE of FOTR)? I understand the tint is supposed to be barely noticeable - almost subliminal - but is the audience supposed to receive a subliminal message that everyone in the movie is sick?

Ken stated that perhaps this is how Jackson wants the film to look now, versus how he wanted the film to look in 2001. Fair enough. But then there are all the other signs that point to this being a technical goof, with a filmmaker refusing to comment directly on the issue, and so I'm left at the end of the day with a choice...either the film is retimed in a way that is subliminally nauseating and that is how Jackson wants the film to look, or it is technically faulty...either way, I lose.

That's enough to make me pass on the title just on its face. Now, I don't even care. Maybe in a year, after all this has settled down and cooler heads are prevailing, I'll be able to reapproach it, but I'd rather spend the coin on some other titles for now. This embroglio has completely turned me off from purchasing the set. I know respected people have praised the set, but many of these same people also praised the SW DVDs from several years ago, with flopped surround tracks and blue-fuzz video noise around the Death Star explosion and pink lightsabres and the rest of that song. I'm lurking on the sidelines of this debate, I'm just saying the whole thing has completely turned me off from purchasing what was one of my most sought-after Blu-Ray home video titles. If Star Wars comes to Blu and the flopped surround tracks and all the other issues haven't been addressed, I'll pass on that as well.

The worst feeling any home video film collector has when looking at his or her collection (other than, 'God, did I really buy a Roland Emmerich film?') is that nagging longing...that feeling of, "If only", as in, this is ok, but if only the studio had cared more...if only the studio hadn't cut this or that...if only such or such had paid more attention and not approved it with lines of dialog missing...

I don't want to spend $70 on a Blu-Ray of LOTR just to place it on my shelf, look at it, and say to myself, "If only..."

And that's why I don't care about it anymore. I don't want the subliminal green tint version because I haven't heard Jackson himself address it, and I certainly don't trust PR statements from studios who can't even be trusted with reliable assertions of their weekend box office receipts, a studio Jackson himself had to sue because they lied about their actual profits from Fellowship.

So, I guess now maybe I can pick up that Watchmen: Ultimate Edition blu-ray that I've been wanting for over two years. Same studio as LOTR, but I haven't heard anyone complain Dr. Manhattan is slightly more turqouise this time out. I can't buy the EE on Blu under these circumstances. No "If only" on this set for me...I just can't do it. There's enough titles in my home video collection that bother me already, I don't need to add to the pile.

Great post!

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Okay folks - here's my problem.

Six weeks ago, this was an easy choice on my top 10 most coveted blu-ray releases (#1 right now, as I imagine it is for many others, is Lawrence of Arabia).

Now? The controversey is so intense (and from where I sit hardly unwarranted) I don't even want the title. And worse, I've decided I no longer care. On the one hand, you have some of the most respected eyes in the business stating the green tint is either not there, or hardly noticeable. On the other, well. Green snow, rampant corrected screenshots, and a statement from a corporation assuring everyone the look is intentional.

Well, I come from a theater background, and on the stage, you use green lighting to make someone look either sick, undead, poisoned, or like Frankenstein's monster. There is a language to color - green is great for trees and nature, it is unnatural to human skin, hence the use of green for the conditions I just mentioned (on the stage). A three-hour movie that has been re-tinted a slight green from start to finish? And not just any movie, but perhaps, arguably the best home video release of all time (the LOTR EE of FOTR)? I understand the tint is supposed to be barely noticeable - almost subliminal - but is the audience supposed to receive a subliminal message that everyone in the movie is sick?

Ken stated that perhaps this is how Jackson wants the film to look now, versus how he wanted the film to look in 2001. Fair enough. But then there are all the other signs that point to this being a technical goof, with a filmmaker refusing to comment directly on the issue, and so I'm left at the end of the day with a choice...either the film is retimed in a way that is subliminally nauseating and that is how Jackson wants the film to look, or it is technically faulty...either way, I lose.

That's enough to make me pass on the title just on its face. Now, I don't even care. Maybe in a year, after all this has settled down and cooler heads are prevailing, I'll be able to reapproach it, but I'd rather spend the coin on some other titles for now. This embroglio has completely turned me off from purchasing the set. I know respected people have praised the set, but many of these same people also praised the SW DVDs from several years ago, with flopped surround tracks and blue-fuzz video noise around the Death Star explosion and pink lightsabres and the rest of that song. I'm lurking on the sidelines of this debate, I'm just saying the whole thing has completely turned me off from purchasing what was one of my most sought-after Blu-Ray home video titles. If Star Wars comes to Blu and the flopped surround tracks and all the other issues haven't been addressed, I'll pass on that as well.

The worst feeling any home video film collector has when looking at his or her collection (other than, 'God, did I really buy a Roland Emmerich film?') is that nagging longing...that feeling of, "If only", as in, this is ok, but if only the studio had cared more...if only the studio hadn't cut this or that...if only such or such had paid more attention and not approved it with lines of dialog missing...

I don't want to spend $70 on a Blu-Ray of LOTR just to place it on my shelf, look at it, and say to myself, "If only..."

And that's why I don't care about it anymore. I don't want the subliminal green tint version because I haven't heard Jackson himself address it, and I certainly don't trust PR statements from studios who can't even be trusted with reliable assertions of their weekend box office receipts, a studio Jackson himself had to sue because they lied about their actual profits from Fellowship.

So, I guess now maybe I can pick up that Watchmen: Ultimate Edition blu-ray that I've been wanting for over two years. Same studio as LOTR, but I haven't heard anyone complain Dr. Manhattan is slightly more turqouise this time out. I can't buy the EE on Blu under these circumstances. No "If only" on this set for me...I just can't do it. There's enough titles in my home video collection that bother me already, I don't need to add to the pile.

You should rent it and judge for yourself. Thats always been the best advice.

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by merrick97

You should rent it and judge for yourself. Thats always been the best advice.

Agreed. IMAO - I would say that this issue has been blown out of proportion more then any other thread on this site.

As for me and my wife and friends who watched all three yesterday.... not one compliant about the video. I did not mention the tint, but they sure mentioned how great the picture was (especially for FOTR)

[WorkShed]

Originally Posted by merrick97

You should rent it and judge for yourself. Thats always been the best advice.

Who has it available to rent?

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

FOTR does not deserve praise, it deserves an exchange program. It's blatantly an authoring fault throughout the entire running time.

And that's why there is so much controversy is this thread between members. Just like u have the right to send a complaint to WB stating what u think of the fotr EE blu-ray, others who like it have the right to submit an email praising it if they are happy with the release. If u think this effects your changes of a replacement program coming into place then that's tough, because your rights are not more important than someone else's, they are exactly the same.

I'm not on anyone's side here, I just think your statement is arrogant because u only seem to care about your rights and what u think about the issue, and your not respecting other peoples views but are expecting them to respect yours.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

FOTR does not deserve praise, it deserves an exchange program. It's blatantly an authoring fault throughout the entire running time.

Oh, is it? The green tint was not applied like a blanket from beginning to end. Other scenes actually have a blue-ish tint applied. And only certain shots in certain scenes at times have received the green tint. This was done with some supervision, and that's the only 'blatant' thing that can be said about it if you've actually watched the disc.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by WorkShed

Who has it available to rent?

Exactly...one easy step to remove the whole "buyer-beware" issue that has - um - tinted, shall we say - the enthusiasm for this release.

[Underworld54]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

And that's why there is so much controversy is this thread between members. Just like u have the right to send a complant to WB stating what u think of the fotr EE blu-ray, others who like it have the right to submit an email praising it if they are happy with the release. If u think this effects your changes of a replacement program coming into place then that's tough, because your rights are not more important than someone else's, they are exactly the same.

I'm not on anyone's side here, I just think your statement is arrogant because u only seem to care about your rights and what u think about the issue, and your not respecting other peoples views but are expecting them to respect yours.

I concur!

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Farid

I'm borrowing this picture from an earlier post.

The top picture is EXACTLY how Fellowship looked in the theaters. There is plenty of symbolism in the color of the picture. Rivendell is a safe-haven. A place of warmth, a beautiful place. A golden look enhances all of this. The second picture downright kills it. Away is the warmth and safe of Rivendell.

I disagree 1000 times over. The Rivendell scenes look so amazing on the EE set. The improvement of those scenes alone make the new timing worth it.

[Underworld54]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

FOTR does not deserve praise, it deserves an exchange program. It's blatantly an authoring fault throughout the entire running time.

In your opinion there is an error, but Peter Jackson says that it's the way he wants it. So it looks like you're stuck.