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

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by flodsby

Yeah I saw them with the umbrellas. that was a funny scene. Glad you liked the movies. I plan to start watching them again soon.

They're also completely different than the Appendices documentaries. The fly-on-the-wall style Botes employs is a nice change of pace, and leads to a lot of great stuff.

Personally, I love Viggo running off to fly fish in full costume while PJ and crew are readying his next shot

[Phoenix Theory]

since im not a fan of the lord of the rings should i just buy the theatrical cut for only $20 and if i like it buy the extended cut later on when its cheaper? is there pq Differences?

[42041]

Originally Posted by xphoenix23

is there pq Differences?

Yes, major ones in the first film.

[flodsby]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

They're also completely different than the Appendices documentaries. The fly-on-the-wall style Botes employs is a nice change of pace, and leads to a lot of great stuff.

Personally, I love Viggo running off to fly fish in full costume while PJ and crew are readying his next shot

Yeah the fishing thing was pretty funny. I remember watching the appendices when the EE dvd's first came out. I think the Botes docs are cool and more films should have docs like these

[PRO-630HD]

Originally Posted by Fanboyz

Yeah, on my calibrated Panny things look fine.

Color temperature has a lot to do with what people are seeing on their sets. With most sets on a preset warm or film mode, which typically is the closest to 6500K the green tint is rather obnoxious. Those who have it on standard, live, news, vibrant, etc. with cooler temps closer to 7500K or greater won't notice the tint to nearly the degree. If your set tends to push green anyway get ready for a swampy experience.

[Maggot]

I have to say it here.........

Looks like meat is back on the menu boys! As in hot dogs and hamburgers today! Potato salad, macarroni salad, 3 bean salad, etc!

Happy 4th and eat hardy!

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by flodsby

Yeah the fishing thing was pretty funny. I remember watching the appendices when the EE dvd's first came out. I think the Botes docs are cool and more films should have docs like these

Not that everyone has kids, but if you do, I have to say my son loved the Botes documentaries as well. He's still too young to really enjoy the Appendices docs (save a few select scenes from some that were up his alley), but the Botes docs? You would have thought he stumbled across three new LOTR films to gobble up

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by Jimbo976

Curious if anyone has done the whole EE marathon in 1 day yet. There is no way I could stay awake to do that but we got half way through TTT last night. Maybe we'll watch the rest tonight. I have held off watching the whole set again until the EE came out on Blu-ray and it is finally here now

I don't think I could do it.

I love the movies, but even watching FOTR Saturday and TTT last night I was ready to do something else after they were over. 3-4 hours is a long time to sit/lay on the couch and watch a movie, must less 11+ hours!

Planning on watching ROTK today, haven't decided on whether to do it all or just the first disc.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by PRO-630HD

Color temperature has a lot to do with what people are seeing on their sets. With most sets on a preset warm or film mode, which typically is the closest to 6500K the green tint is rather obnoxious. Those who have it on standard, live, news, vibrant, etc. with cooler temps closer to 7500K or greater won't notice the tint to nearly the degree. If your set tends to push green anyway get ready for a swampy experience.

Agreed. The real lesson that could benefit everyone here (and the discussion as a whole) is that the number of factors that contribute to whether or not you see the tint -- and how apparent it is -- are numerous and complex. So numerous and complex that no one should really be frustrated with those who don't see what you're seeing. At least not as frustrated as a few of you fine gents are getting

You don't have to declare your eyes or TV inadequate to allow people to discuss the tint if you don't see it. You also don't have to declare someone blind or poorly calibrated if you do see it. There are too many factors involved to insult those with different viewing experiences, tastes, hangups and issues.

And if I haven't said it already, enjoy your 4th of July!

[PRO-630HD]

These EE versions do very well as a 6 episode miniseries.

[Icedburden]

I'm going to watch FOTR for the first time shortly. It better live up to the hype.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Jimbo976

Curious if anyone has done the whole EE marathon in 1 day yet. There is no way I could stay awake to do that but we got half way through TTT last night. Maybe we'll watch the rest tonight. I have held off watching the whole set again until the EE came out on Blu-ray and it is finally here now

Maybe when I was younger and less intrigued by afternoon naps

[beefytwinkie]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I have done so a few times with the DVD set. Started ultra early in the morning and finish at around 11 pm the same night. Fun but very long

That's sick. I tried that once. Started at 10am and got through Fellowship and Towers. I couldn't do Return. The only adjective I can think of is "brutal". But really fun! I just couldn't handle it.

[flodsby]

I was wondering if anyone put any thought into my previous post?

https://forum.blu-ray.com/4920874-post9009.html

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by HeKS

Well, that would be one of the two main issues we've been discussing: the green tint and the contrast boost.

Take care,
HeKS

I have my laptop connected to an HDMI input on my display and have been comparing screencaps in this thread to the FOTR EE BD. Could someone get me some screencaps of moria, say around ch 7 at 19:19 on the EE and ch 28 at 1:48:39 on the TE? (the reveal). I see a lot of detail on my display in that scene, I can easily see the pathway going through the overhead arch, then over the arch bridge and on along the cliff face terminating in a dark cavern far in the distance. There is a lot of texture in the rock on the side facing the camera. It seems to accurately depict what the scene would look like with the only illumination coming from Gandalf's staff and the single torch. I see little evidence of black crush in the scene whether it is paused or in motion. I'm not saying it isn't there, just that it does not greatly affect the scene.

I boosted my brightness from 50 to 65, and even more detail was revealed in the chasms on either side of the path and in the rockface on the left of the scene.

Knowing that the set is a miniature does not detract from the enjoyment of watching it. There is an incredible amount of detail in it.

The difference in the title page of FOTR vis a vis TTT and RotK is still puzzling, but I'm beginning to feel very comfortable with the changes to the FOTR. They just feel "right"

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

No



Fantastic



The words Peter Jackson, director and filmmaker are nowhere to be found in the official statement. That, the nature of intentionally vague PR statements issued by any corporation's PR firms, and the fact that Jackson is completely mum on the subject of the green tint is why there is lingering doubt. Jackson isn't a recluse like Terrence Malick. He answers every question out there, is active on his Facebook discussion threads, and is the same guy who compiled 40+ hours of special features for LOTR documenting every decision, down to the individual chain links in a piece of fake chain mail.

Whether you share it or not, the doubt isn't entirely unreasonable or 100% unfounded. No need to get so upset with those who doubt



Before I touch on this one, I'd just like to make it clear I'm not trying to start an argument. I just think it's important to keep a cool head when discussing the tint and the official statement so as not to make broad, hyperbolic statements. It will benefit everyone involved and prevent the pot from being stirred unnecessarily if everyone avoids making such extreme points

Anyway, I agree that, in light of the official statement, it is unlikely. It would be a PR nightmare to suddenly fess up. But it happens all the time. Companies, not just movie studios, reassure consumers with PR statements and confirmations while continuing to check into complaints. They even continue to insist all is well when it's determined opposing stances would be disadvantageous to said company.

I'm not suggesting Warner is lying, but there is always a chance that any statement -- be it from an individual or a company -- is false or misleading. We're not machines, and neither are the folks who run corporations



I disagree. The evidence, subjective or objective, is not clear in either direction. That's why Jackson's thoughts on the tint would be so helpful. Whether people like the tint or not, his addressing the tint would -- at the very least -- end the error vs. intention debate. Then we could move to a debate on film revisionism

Personally, Warner Home Video's statement sent my doubt plummeting to a low 10%. But as I've examined some of the objective evidence being presented in this thread, it's floating around 20 or 25%. (No, it's probably not going to drift any higher unless a smoking gun or a PJ statement shoves it in one direction or the other.) Again, that's why Jackson addressing the tint would be so helpful, so long as he addressed the tint and not the color changes we definitely know he made beneath the tint. One sentence -- "I know about the tint, we put it there to give the film a more xyz tone" -- would put an end to that doubt entirely.

I'm sure someone would then accuse Peter Jackson of lying, but then I would cry foul. Jackson has shown himself to be very candid. If it isn't intentional and he's playing ball, I suspect we'll never hear from him. (Or see a statement that doesn't include the word "tint" in any way.) If it is intentional, he must have a reason for it. If he has a reason for it, it only stands to reason that he would want people to know what it is. Again, this is the guy who devoted entire chunks of the Appendices to individual links of chain mail. I can stress that point enough



I would be a happy man. Like it or not, I just want to be 100% sure the tint is intentional. I know he made color changes, supervised the remastering, etc. I just want to know what artistic or thematic merit he attributes to the tint. If nothing else, it would help those confused by its presence to understand it and, perhaps, even appreciate it. Just sayin

Ken i see where you are going with this and i to want PJ to come out and say something but i believe he thinks warners statement last week and his statement at the theater is enough.
But now with reports that the green tint was at the theater as well. Just almost kills all doubt that there is a mistake. because if the theater version of the EE FOTR is the same as the blu rays as this guy states.There can't be a mistake IMO:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/...?p=1#184184347

The amount of fine detail visible was indeed very clear. I saw the film 7 times in the theater, and I don't remember some of that detail being so sharp. Of course, that was also 10 years ago... But certainly seeing it huge on a big screen helped, and I think the remaster has enhanced that too.

Apparently some of the color timing has been changed by PJ. This sometimes bugged me because it looked to me like some scenes were just too dark. And I wasn't sure if it was the theater to blame or PJ. Like the snows on Caradhras looked too blue to me at times. But then the bright light elements were so bright, I thought maybe it's not the projection. When Arwen comes glowing on the screen, she's GLOWING.

And yeah, maybe the CG does look better. I remember the one shot I always hated was the digital doubles going down the stairs in Moria. It always looked fake to me. It didn't look nearly so bad this time (though it also seemed darker, and maybe this covered a multitude of sins).

But pleased all in all, and looking forward to the next two!

-TK

After this guy seeing the same thing in the theater i can't see there being any doubt anymore that the transfer that is on the blu rays is indeed approved by PJ.

[NYorker]

Just because it was also present in the theater is not irrefutable proof that it was intentional. It doesn't kill any doubt at all. Three weeks with no answer from PJ and a cheesy PR statement - not irrefutable in my book.

On a brighter note, it's been a year since Gandalf was at the world cup, so I thought I'd stir up a few memories - hopefully no green tint!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B2LP...ature=youtu.be

[mredman]

Originally Posted by NYorker

Just because it was also present in the theater is not irrefutable proof that it was intentional. It doesn't kill any doubt at all. Three weeks with no answer from PJ and a cheesy PR statement - not irrefutable in my book.

On a brighter note, it's been a year since Gandalf was at the world cup, so I thought I'd stir up a few memories - hopefully no green tint!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B2LP...ature=youtu.be

Yes it should kill any doubt when did you hear of a theater transfer that was an error in plus PJ approved that screening at the theater with the green tint as that guy said.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by PRO-630HD

Color temperature has a lot to do with what people are seeing on their sets. With most sets on a preset warm or film mode, which typically is the closest to 6500K the green tint is rather obnoxious. Those who have it on standard, live, news, vibrant, etc. with cooler temps closer to 7500K or greater won't notice the tint to nearly the degree. If your set tends to push green anyway get ready for a swampy experience.

I have my Sony KDL-HX800 set to Cinema. I watched segments of the EE BD of FOTR with color temp on neutral, warm1 and warm 2. I accually prefer watching it on Warm 2 which is the Cinema setting default.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by flodsby

I was wondering if anyone put any thought into my previous post?

https://forum.blu-ray.com/4920874-post9009.html

I believe someone a few pages back confirmed that the iTunes copy features the previous color timing and that it was indeed taken from the old masters.

Originally Posted by mredman

Ken i see where you are going with this and i to want PJ to come out and say something but i believe he thinks warners statement last week and his statement at the theater is enough.

Secondhand reports from Bill Hunt and Harry Knowles have confirmed Jackson at least knows how hot the debate has grown over the tint. And other posts from Mr. Hunt indicate he's made it clear to both Warner and Wingnut the debate is still raging. I think Jackson is fully aware of the fact that the official statement hasn't helped very much in some circles.

If he's making a stand on principle or annoyance, I have to confess as to feeling as if I misjudged him. Peter Jackson, as I've seen him, has been eager to address every question and concern that comes his way. I don't recall him ever taking a principled silence on any matter; certainly not something as simple as expressing the reasoning behind one of his intentional decisions

Originally Posted by mredman

But now with reports that the green tint was at the theater as well. Just almost kills all doubt that there is a mistake. because if the theater version of the EE FOTR is the same as the blu rays as this guy states.There can't be a mistake IMO:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/...?p=1#184184347

Subjective accounts of theatrical presentations have gone both ways, so it's a wash for me. Plus, several non-tinters have argued that people are posting that the theatrical print exhibited the tint because those people believe that will somehow prove there is an error.

Honestly, it's all so muddled, nothing but Jackson's comments could cut through all of the conflicting reports and confusing information on the subject.

Originally Posted by mredman

After this guy seeing the same thing in the theater i can't see there being any doubt anymore that the transfer that is on the blu rays is indeed approved by PJ.

Oh, Peter Jackson definitely approved the transfer. I don't think anyone is arguing that. The source of the tint-as-error-despite-approval argument is two-fold:

1) If so many people can't see the tint, or consider it a non-issue, Jackson might have missed it as well. Those arguing that the tint is difficult to see are actually arguing that Jackson might have simply missed it and approved a transfer that does indeed feature a mistake.

2) It's really about the process and the semantics. I "approved" my review of 'Arthur' last night after reading over it several times. I think I caught all of my mistakes. I'd even say it represents my accurate intentions. However, I'm sure if someone goes digging, they'll find typos, grammatical errors, etc. My approval and my intentions never guarantee mistakes don't exist in my work. They only guarantee that I approved my mistakes right along with everything else.

Again, I'm not suggesting this is what happened. I'm only suggesting it isn't outside the realm of possibility that a director could approve a transfer and mistakes could be present. It happens all the time; more than most of us catch.

If it isn't outside the realm of possibility, then we can discuss the tint without calling each other crazy

(Not you and me. We always have pleasant chats. There are just multiple members in the thread who are more interested in the argument than the tint and its subjective or objective effects. We don't all have to agree on any given point to all be on the same page. Tint? Up for civil debate. Anger and arguments? Come on, gents. Take it somewhere else. There are plenty of more contentious boards out there if any of you are hungry for a tussle )