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

[Troy73]

Originally Posted by jebhdb

I find it odd that people get so frustrated that someone else's opinion does not match their own. Regardless of who's right or wrong can't we all just get along?

I had to condense your post as a lot of what you touched on has been discussed at length.

See, it's not a "who's right" or "who's wrong" debate. It's what do we know of this release that has been presented as facts? There's much speculation at this point that the color timing in FOTR is incorrect, but all of those arguments, so far, fall under the "opinion" of the people presenting them. The only definitive statement on the matter has come from a press release that was quickly dismissed by the people who don't approve of the green tint in the film. Then, the same people scour the internet to find any and all who agree with their sentiments and present that to add to the body of their stance on this. Yet none of that is in anyway official information. The bottom line is everyone has the right to their opinion but present it as an opinion not a fact. Until more information surfaces, if ever, that's all we have. The "fact" vs. the "opinion" and until the WB statement officially is retracted or dismissed by Peter Jackson it stands as the definitive statement in regards to this release. It's really just that simple.

[Velmeran]

The questions about why sending the Army of the Dead away early was more or less a rhetorical question brought in part by the plot hole introduced with PJ and Co changed part of the original story to suit their version.

[beefytwinkie]

Originally Posted by Troy73

I still say to this day that "The Mouth of Sauron" sequence should have been in both cuts. The fact that that scene didn't make it to the theatrical cut of ROTK blows my mind. Such a creepy and eerie scene. Messes with me every time I see it.

Just saw this post and thought "What the heck is the Mouth of Sauron?" Just looked it up. Yea, that guy is weird! Will see him this Saturday when I rock Return.

[MEB]

Originally Posted by kurtlingle

Ok,

I've read all 150 (or is it now 250) pages of the "green" issue.
Not sure if anyone brought this point up, so here goes....

- It seems that some people may be more aware of the "green" than others. Isn't it possible that Peter Jackson is not one of those people? If so, then the "green" would like just fine to him, right? In other words, it's hard to say which side his eyes "sit in" on this argument/discussion.

- Another thought. It seems, that those who see the green as very strong/pervasive -- they seem to think those who don't see it as pervasive are (partially) color blind, or maybe don't see as well (or their TV is not setup right). Is it not possible that those who see to much green actually have the issue?

Not trying to start a fight. I'd like to hear Ken's thoughts on it. I mean, it's all conjecture and I guess won't "fix" this issue. But I was thinking about it over the weekend and thought I'd post it.

Thoughts to ponder.

Now that's what I call thinking outside of the box! Good job!

However, with regard to your second point.... Everyone can see the excessive green tint in the screen shots. In fact, the early screen shots are what got this all going. On my system, the screen shots are basically an exact match to what I see from the Blu-ray when I display each on my JVC TV. So, if I'm seeing the same green tint on the Blu-ray as I'm seeing from the screen shots and someone else is seeing the green tint in the screen shots but not in the Blu-ray, which side is more likely to have a vision or equipment calibration error?

I'm not aware of anyone that thinks the screen shot don't have any green tint.

Mark

[Troy73]

Originally Posted by MEB

I'm not aware of anyone that thinks the screen shot don't have any green tint.

Mark

Correct. Even I see the green tint and it doesn't bother me.

Have you tried DarkDune's "fix" yet. For those of you upset about the green tint issue it may help you enjoy the film more.

[Anubis2005X]

Originally Posted by jebhdb

I find it odd that people get so frustrated that someone else's opinion does not match their own. I am glad that so many are able to enjoy this release and find no fault with it. I truly am. But I don't see why people on either side are getting angry at those with opposing views. I personally believe there is an error with the current version of Fellowship because of the following:

The subtitles and menu text contain the tint as well as the movie. This makes no sense to me.

Previous supplemental features detailing how Peter Jackson wanted a warm color to certain scenes contradicts the new tint.

The tint is applied uniformly throughout the movie. I could understand applying a different color timing to certain scenes, but I can't believe Peter Jackson would apply the exact same shift to every scene in the movie.

If Peter Jackson prefers a shift towards green then why didn't TTT and RotK receive the same treatment as Fellowship. It would seem to me that Jackson would want uniformity between the three releases. Why would he change the color of one movie and not the others?

If this is Peter Jackson's preferred color timing for Fellowship why have we not seen it prior to now? Why did the original theatrical presentation, the original dvd presentation, the theatrical blu ray presentation not have this color timing?

Is it possible that Peter Jackson has been so busy with the Hobbit in recent years that he had little input with the EE blu rays?

Again, I am not trying to pick a fight or tell anyone they are wrong. I am not being facetious when I say that I am glad others are pleased with this release. It is obvious that there are many factors that affect peoples enjoyment of these releases such as calibration, personal settings, etc. But in my opinion there is evidence that there is an error regarding the transfer of Fellowship. Those that are happy with this release really have nothing to lose either way. If it is correct that there is no error then those who are happy with the current disc have had the luxury of enjoying their purchase while others have set on the fence hoping for a different version. If there is an error with the disc a corrected version would be released and everyone will be able to choose whether to exchange the current version or not. Regardless of who's right or wrong can't we all just get along?

Very well said!

[Icedburden]

I finished The Two Towers and damn... So far this trilogy is slowly creeping up as my all-time favorite. Helm's Deep battle was amazing. I hope ROTK is as good as the other two.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

More dramatic, yes, but at the expense of trivializing the plot and negating a primary thematic issue.

While I get why you and others hated that addition of the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff, I actually kind of liked that change.

I always had issues with how powerful Gandalf seemed in the books, and how little he did directly to defeat Sauron.

I just never bought the arguments that he (or other strong figures like Galadriel or Elrond etc.) couldn't have destroyed the ring.

Gollum and Bilbo both had it for years and never used it for evil, nor took it to Sauron. Nor did Frodo.

If those characters could do it, it's tough to make an argument that Gandalf or Elrond couldn't have gotten rid of it alone or in tandem etc.

Or that they wouldn't have the will power to use it to destroy Sauron. Some argue they would just become a new dark lord. But if the ring was infused with Sauron's power and evil, wouldn't destroying him rob the ring of it's power anyway?

Anyhow, I'm just rambling and not expecting a response as I've heard the arguments on this before.

I just kind of prefer the scene as it shows Gandalf alone isn't strong enough to beat the Witch King, much less Sauron. Whereas in the books he seems uber powerful, but just kind of half assing his mission to help the people's of middle earth by just pushing people in the right direction more than directly intervening. At least that defeat shows why he couldn't do more himself and had serve mainly a supervisory roll to rally the needed forces.

[forty1down]

is anyone else having issues with the easter eggs (the ring under the special features)? so far the one on fellowship disc 2 (two towers trailer) and two towers disc 1 (gollum at mtv awards) have just stopped midway through and then restarted. they played all the way through the 2nd try though. wondering if its just my ps3 or what...

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Ken, the reason why grain reduction (DNR) was utilized by the filmmakers of TTT and ROTK was that during the principal photography, due to the realities of filmmaking and location shooting (the cost per minute of production being very expensive), some scenes were shot on Kodak 5279 (without filter) in order to extract the last f-stop from every hour of every day of the shoot. These scenes then needed to be intercut with the principal stock, namely 5293. Well, it turns out that 5279 has a larger grain structure.

So, in order for there to be a more consistent look, without obvious grain disparity between scenes, which some theatrical audiences might have found distracting, it was a creative decision to do some de-graining, esp. to the 5279 footage. The resultant downside was that its implementation caused a slight bit of unsharpness or smearing while watching the film in motion on the BIG screen…..really only noticeable to a handful of professionals like other colorists, telecine operators, etc.

So, in a nutshell, it was performed for the sake of ‘grain matching’. But hey, for other films, that process also works the other way around. What I mean is that for example, in regards to a yet to be released motion picture, namely –

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1586752/


Although, the vast majority of this ^ motion picture was shot Super 16mm, some footage was also 35mm acquired and so grain was added to the latter (35mm footage) for essentially the same reason as the LOTR films, i.e. ‘grain matching’.

b.t.w., the tech specs as listed on imdb for ‘Machine Gun’ are incomplete.

Thanks so much for the clarification/correction! Anyone who is concerned or curious about the DNR used in TTT and ROTK would do well to read Penton's post on the matter

Originally Posted by jebhdb

I find it odd that people get so frustrated that someone else's opinion does not match their own. I am glad that so many are able to enjoy this release and find no fault with it. I truly am. But I don't see why people on either side are getting angry at those with opposing views.

...

Again, I am not trying to pick a fight or tell anyone they are wrong. I am not being facetious when I say that I am glad others are pleased with this release. It is obvious that there are many factors that affect peoples enjoyment of these releases such as calibration, personal settings, etc. But in my opinion there is evidence that there is an error regarding the transfer of Fellowship. Those that are happy with this release really have nothing to lose either way. If it is correct that there is no error then those who are happy with the current disc have had the luxury of enjoying their purchase while others have set on the fence hoping for a different version. If there is an error with the disc a corrected version would be released and everyone will be able to choose whether to exchange the current version or not. Regardless of who's right or wrong can't we all just get along?

I couldn't agree more. If you don't share someone's opinion, offer a civil counterpoint or simply ignore the post. Commenting on the post in an insulting or dismissive manner only leads to arguments and the entire thread being dominated by the tint debate. And that doesn't make the thread a nice place to visit for anyone

Again, I'm not suggesting it's an error, nor am I interested in perpetuating an argument or debate. But we all need to understand that approved does not mean error-free, whether we're talking about FOTR or any other transfer on the market. A variety of approved transfers still have small errors. And approved does not mean Jackson intentionally added the tint. It just means he approved a transfer that has the tint in it. If so many people can't see it, maybe he didn't either. There is no way of knowing until Jackson, not the studio, weighs in on the tint.

If he says it's intentional, and someone declares him a liar, I can completely understand someone getting upset at those who continue to push the tint-as-error point. For now, though, there isn't enough information or explanation to be upset at those trying to figure out why the tint is there and what it does.

Originally Posted by kurtlingle

Ok,

I've read all 150 (or is it now 250) pages of the "green" issue.
Not sure if anyone brought this point up, so here goes....

- It seems that some people may be more aware of the "green" than others. Isn't it possible that Peter Jackson is not one of those people? If so, then the "green" would like just fine to him, right? In other words, it's hard to say which side his eyes "sit in" on this argument/discussion.

- Another thought. It seems, that those who see the green as very strong/pervasive -- they seem to think those who don't see it as pervasive are (partially) color blind, or maybe don't see as well (or their TV is not setup right). Is it not possible that those who see to much green actually have the issue?

Not trying to start a fight. I'd like to hear Ken's thoughts on it. I mean, it's all conjecture and I guess won't "fix" this issue. But I was thinking about it over the weekend and thought I'd post it.

Thoughts to ponder.

I'll take a stab at it. I don't want to start any more fights either, though

Let's consider this. Even if it began as a mistake, perhaps Jackson liked the end result of that mistake. Art is in the intention and the mistakes; it's all about the end result in the eye of the artist. The question is: whether Jackson approved it, missed it, loved it or whatever the case may be, how does he feel about it now that it can be seen and understood? Did he want to add a touch of green to the whole film? If so, what was the artistic or thematic purpose? As a lover of these films, I'd love to add that detail to the 40+ hours of details he provided us in his Appendices, if for no other reason than to understand yet another fine point of his filmmaking process.

As to why some see it, some don't and everything in between, I'm fairly certain it's because there are so many, many, many factors involved that can minimize or exacerbate the tint. Viewing environments, room lighting, calibrations, proper or improper red green and blue offsets and gains (which requires a special meter to calibrate; equipment that isn't included with calibration discs), individual displays, the tendencies and hue leanings of those displays, the imperfections in each person's vision, color tendencies/sensitivities of individual eyes, and on and on and on.

That's my two cents anyway!

They key for everyone involved in this thread is to remain calm and civil. If you don't see the tint, be happy that you're one of the lucky majority who aren't bothered. If you do see the tint, don't accuse those who don't see it of anything. The arguments and insults benefit no one. Ironically, arguing and insulting someone or their posts only draws more attention to the points or posters you're attempting to berate and discredit

Like I said, of all the tint posts in the last week, only 25-30% of them are genuine analysis. The other 70-75% is bickering, attacks, rude dismissals and repeated statements. If you eliminate the bickering and re-stated and re-stated and re-stated opinions (like this one ), the tint discussion would be far more limited and other discussions about LOTR and the LOTR EE release could thrive alongside it

[Ernest Rister]

Gollum and Bilbo both had it for years and never used it for evil...

They didn't? Gollum murdered for it, and continued down a dark path. Bilbo used it for good, but even he was going a little Ring-psycho by the end. Frodo of course could not willingly destroy the Ring, and didn't.

But if the ring was infused with Sauron's power and evil, wouldn't destroying him rob the ring of it's power anyway?

You can't destroy Sauron while the Ring survives. He just comes back. The only way to destroy Sauron is to destroy the Ring, but the Ring is so cursed, no one can willingly give it up. One can understand why Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel are afraid of it. One has to respect Faramir, who scoffs at the temptation of the ring, and wouldn't pick up the ring if he found it lying by the side of the road. Well...Tolkien's Faramir, at any rate.

[Scooter1836]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Like I said, of all the tint posts in the last week, only 25-30% of them are genuine analysis. The other 70-75% is bickering and repeated statements. If you eliminate the bickering and re-stated and re-stated and re-stated opinions (like this one ), the tint discussion would be far more limited and other discussions about LOTR and the LOTR EE release could thrive alongside it

Maybe the forum developers need to put in a "Filter Snivelling" option

[frogmort]

I just finished the first disc of ROTK. It looks fantastic, and the audio is amazing. The LFE of the heartbeat when Smeagol is choking Deagol is almost wrong, in a good way!

I did notice an audio error. When Aragorn is asking the Army of the Dead to fight for him. It is from 1:56:26 to 1:56:28. The words that Aragorn is saying doesn't match his mouth at all. Anyone else notice this?

[radagast]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

While I get why you and others hated that addition of the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff, I actually kind of liked that change.

I always had issues with how powerful Gandalf seemed in the books, and how little he did directly to defeat Sauron.

I just never bought the arguments that he (or other strong figures like Galadriel or Elrond etc.) couldn't have destroyed the ring.

Gollum and Bilbo both had it for years and never used it for evil, nor took it to Sauron. Nor did Frodo.

If those characters could do it, it's tough to make an argument that Gandalf or Elrond couldn't have gotten rid of it alone or in tandem etc.

Or that they wouldn't have the will power to use it to destroy Sauron. Some argue they would just become a new dark lord. But if the ring was infused with Sauron's power and evil, wouldn't destroying him rob the ring of it's power anyway?

Anyhow, I'm just rambling and not expecting a response as I've heard the arguments on this before.

I just kind of prefer the scene as it shows Gandalf alone isn't strong enough to beat the Witch King, much less Sauron. Whereas in the books he seems uber powerful, but just kind of half assing his mission to help the people's of middle earth by just pushing people in the right direction more than directly intervening. At least that defeat shows why he couldn't do more himself and had serve mainly a supervisory roll to rally the needed forces.

Gandalf could have directly challenged Sauron but was forbidden to do so. It was up to the peoples of Middle Earth to resist or fall.

You are wrong about Gollum. He did do evil with it. But his stature was small, so the results were small.

Having the Witch-King overcome Gandalf strongly contradicts other parts of Jackson's movie which makes it even more ridiculous, and makes the movies inconsistent.

But if the ring was infused with Sauron's power and evil, wouldn't destroying him rob the ring of it's power anyway?

What does that have to do with what you said right before? It doesn't make sense.

At least that defeat shows why he couldn't do more himself and had serve mainly a supervisory roll to rally the needed forces.

As I said before, it contradicts other parts of the movies and makes it inconsistent.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

It provided a dramatic scene in the film, though, which is what it was intended to do.

They could have done other things for dramatic effect, like destroying Hobbiton, having a dragon show up and toast all the good guys. Just because a scene succeeds at being dramatic doesn't justify it, or mean it's the best choice.

[beefytwinkie]

Damn, I'm really enjoying this thread. Keep it coming! This is all good stuff. Reading all your posts just shows that I really need to read the books.

[Witch King of Angmar]

Originally Posted by radagast

They could have done other things for dramatic effect, like destroying Hobbiton, having a dragon show up and toast all the good guys. Just because a scene succeeds at being dramatic doesn't justify it, or mean it's the best choice.

Who would win in a fight? Gandalf The White or Gothmog (Lord of balrogs)?

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by JLTucker

Care to post something of substance instead of spamming the thread? I grew tired of the endless terrain descriptions and poems. I stopped when I reached Rivendell and Bilbo had written a song. I don't care about that crap!

I don't really care for all the little poems/songs either, so I've just been skipping past those parts as I read the book. I do enjoy most of the small differences between the book & movie, though. For example,

[Show spoiler]in the book, it was Gandalf's idea to go through Moria, not Gimli's.

Not a huge change, but I just like that there are several differences, because the changes make me want to read the book and watch the movies. I read Stephen King's The Green Mile during the winter and just remember that the movie was almost identical to the book (with a few little exceptions), so in that case, the book wasn't as exciting to read because the two aren't very different.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I did notice an audio error. When Aragorn is asking the Army of the Dead to fight for him. It is from 1:56:26 to 1:56:28. The words that Aragorn is saying doesn't match his mouth at all. Anyone else notice this?

Most likely a mistake in ADR.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I just finished the first disc of ROTK. It looks fantastic, and the audio is amazing. The LFE of the heartbeat when Smeagol is choking Deagol is almost wrong, in a good way!

I did notice an audio error. When Aragorn is asking the Army of the Dead to fight for him. It is from 1:56:26 to 1:56:28. The words that Aragorn is saying doesn't match his mouth at all. Anyone else notice this?

I noticed that with the DVD EEs a couple years ago and I would imagine that it was simply an ADR problem.