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

[Ken Brown]

Just a thought/suggestion. When posting large collections of screenshots, it might be helpful to encase them in Spoiler tags. That way, members have to click on the Spoiler tag to see the images, and the images wouldn't take up so much space when members initially view the thread.

It would certainly help make the thread manageable and prevent people who don't want to read about the tint from feeling as if the entire thread is being dominated by tint discussion. It would also make it easier to open and close one comparison at a time, and to more easily read your comments before or after viewing a comparison

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind looking at the screenshot comparisons at all. I'm curious, so I find them fascinating. But even I found the chunk-o-screenshots to be a bit overwhelming on this page

[Velmeran]

can you please put the massive amount of pics into a spoiler or 2?
warps the forum and that's a lot of pics...

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by JLTucker

Which part of the Appendices does Boyens say that? I didn't hear it during the first two involving Fellowship.

Edit: Are there subtitles for the Appendices on the EE DVD set?

can't remember exactly where, but it is in reference to the part where Boromir dies. Apparently, it was better the way she wrote it because in the book Boromir didn't repent for all of his sins to Aragorn, and call him brother, and tell him he's sorry that he didn't accept him as king in the 35 seconds that he knew him... But if I'm not mistaken... ummm... Boromir didn't know that Aragorn was Isildur's heir at that point in the book did he? I forget...

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

Nothing is perfect, although it's fair to call Tolkien an amazing worldbuilder and an amazing wordsmith. The writers did improve on Tolkien in some areas for films aimed at mass audiences. Now those weren't necessarily weaknesses in the novels, but could have been for what the films needed to be.

That's why I said "In my opinion" I know not everyone thinks the same way I do, just as I understand not everyone is going to dislike Boyens for her comments. But that is all my opinion.

[mredman]

i think it looks better with the green tint. The image without it makes the picture over exposed and some of the faces seems smudged. seeing these posted from kingkong it is clear now for me why PJ put a green tint over the movie

[Velmeran]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

can't remember exactly where, but it is in reference to the part where Boromir dies. Apparently, it was better the way she wrote it because in the book Boromir didn't repent for all of his sins to Aragorn, and call him brother, and tell him he's sorry that he didn't accept him as king in the 35 seconds that he knew him... But if I'm not mistaken... ummm... Boromir didn't know that Aragorn was Isildur's heir at that point in the book did he? I forget...

Aragorn reveals himself as Isildur's heir at the council (shows part of Narsil which he carries)

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by kingkong650

A lot of those that like the constant green tint on the fotr extended edition blu-ray have been saying how much they prefer the colours of Rivendell on the extended edition blu-ray over the colours of Rivendell on the theatrical edition blu-ray.

With that in mind, I thought that it'd be interesting to leave the DNRed theatrical edition blu-ray now to one side, seeing as we've established that the picture quality of the extended edition blu-ray is much better, and look at how Rivendell on the extended edition would look without the green tint and whether it looks better or not.

Here are comparisons between the official extended edition blu-ray (top screencap) and the same screencaps with exactly the same filter as my previous comparisons applied to remove the constant green tint that runs throughout the whole of the fotr extended edition blu-ray (bottom screencap). Apologies once again for the size of these.

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

What is the general consensus on these? Do people prefer the greenish look of Rivendell on the official fotr extended edition blu-ray or do they prefer Rivendell with the green tint removed, making it look more similar to the theatrical edition, albeit much more toned down? I personally think it looks much better with the green tint removed.

Will you PLEASE start using Spoiler tags to post these images? It makes the page take an unbearably long time to load.

EDIT: SPOILER TAGS added. THANK YOU!

Yes, I think the new colors make Rivendell look WAYYYY better.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

Aragorn reveals himself as Isildur's heir at the council (shows part of Narsil which he carries)

Man, I can't wait to get to the council... not there yet, I sat the book down a few weeks ago after the ford and haven't picked it up yet again. Thanks Verlmeran!

[kingkong650]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Will you PLEASE start using Spoiler tags to post these images? It makes the page take an unbearably long time to load.

EDIT: SPOILER TAGS added. THANK YOU!

Yes, I think the new colors make Rivendell look WAYYYY better.

Will do. Glad you like the new colours! (unless you're being sarcastic...)

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by kingkong650

Will do.

Thanks! That makes it much more manageable

Originally Posted by mredman

i think it looks better with the green tint. The image without it makes the picture over exposed and some of the faces seems smudged. seeing these posted from kingkong it is clear now for me why PJ put a green tint over the movie

I think it's interesting that if you scroll from the top down, the "fixed" images look too red. If you scroll from the bottom up, the actual images look too green. Again, it's all in what reference points you have when observing the shots. It's fascinating to me how much expectation, reference and preference enters into it all

And, sorry to play devil's advocate, but: PJ could have easily accomplished what you're suggesting by simply putting the tint over the over-exposed faces. Or even over an entire scene. That's what he was so excited about in the Digital Grading doc in the Appendices: the ability to adjust things on a region-by-region, face-by-face basis. Applying it to the entire film, though? Even when he was already taking the time to go through the entire film and re-grade every shot and scene, one by one? Even if it's 100% intention, it's a strange intention IMO.

[flodsby]

Oh my! The map at the beginning of FOTR is green....

[Show spoiler]

LOL J/K

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Thanks! That makes it much more manageable



I think it's interesting that if you scroll from the top down, the "fixed" images look too red. If you scroll from the bottom up, the actual images look too green. Again, it's all in what reference points you have when observing the shots. It's fascinating to me how much expectation, reference and preference enters into it all

And, sorry to play devil's advocate, but: PJ could have easily accomplished what you're suggesting by simply putting the tint over the over-exposed faces. Or even over an entire scene. That's what he was so excited about in the Digital Grading doc in the Appendices: the ability to adjust things on a region-by-region, face-by-face basis. Applying it to the entire film, though? Even when he was already taking the time to go through the entire film and re-grade every shot and scene, one by one? Even if it's 100% intention, it's a very strange intention IMO. I'm not suggesting he didn't have a reason; just that I'd love to know what it is, cause I can't figure it out.

I think he did this to FOTR because it was always the movie of the 3 that looked older and not so polished like TTT and ROTK.And with him adding this tint over the image it now looks better IMO. And from the pictures kingkong posted it is more clear then ever that it has helped the overall picture. The only scene the tint bothered me while watching was the second breakfast scene even my girlfriend said this scene looked kind of strange. But the mountain scenes and rivendell scenes now seems more rich.

[El_Jay]

Dead horse beating follows, I'm putting spoiler tags around it because frankly I'm tired of the regurgitation. Warning: green tint discussion follows.

[Show spoiler]In all honesty, we don't know that this green tint was "PJ's intention" or that "this is why PJ did it" etc. based on one flimsy and vague PR statement. The only documentation we have of "PJs intention" is on the special features DVD and it doesn't mention any of this green tint stuff. I'd really LOVE to stop hearing "PJs intention PJs intention PJs intention" ad infinitum until we actually hear from Peter Jackson himself, unfiltered and unadulterated. Put aside "PJs intention" and there is still a school of thought that strongly believes, with good reason and historical precedent, that it is an eyesore and could/should be rectified for the good of the presentation.

The most interesting part of this argument, from a psychological standpoint, is how people have naively abandoned skepticism for statements that align with their personal beliefs, but are downright cynical and hostile when a contrary statement is made. I see comments like "oh so we're supposed to believe some internet flunky that claims he's a cinematographer?" but a vague, canned PR statement from a faceless member of WB studios is clutched to as if it's "Peter Jacksons final word on the subject".

[retablo]

Originally Posted by death_from_above

Well it sure as hell aint white!

It's not white in the theatricals either, so that's not really valid.

[PRO-630HD]

Originally Posted by kingkong650

What is the general consensus on these? Do people prefer the greenish look of Rivendell on the official fotr extended edition blu-ray or do they prefer Rivendell with the green tint removed, making it look more similar to the theatrical edition, albeit much more toned down? I personally think it looks much better with the green tint removed.

It look much better with the green tint removed.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

The most interesting part of this argument, from a psychological standpoint, is how people have naively abandoned skepticism for statements that align with their personal beliefs, but are downright cynical and hostile when a contrary statement is made. I see comments like "oh so we're supposed to believe some internet flunky that claims he's a cinematographer?" but a vague, canned PR statement from a faceless member of WB studios is clutched to as if it's "Peter Jacksons final word on the subject".[/SPOILER]

I have vacillated four times now about the significance of the different colors used in the title page text menus as I progress through the discussion here and on that "other" forum. I thought the differences might have been "the smoking gun" ie. FotR green menu text, TTT blue menu text, RotK blue menu text. Now, after close scrutiny, TTT menu text is a darker blue than the RotK menu text. So I'm back to "no smoking gun". Hard to say what I'll think after a few more pages.

[HeKS]

Originally Posted by BleedingEdge

HeKS,

I'm posting this here in case you cannot log in for some reason (ahem ).
Sorry it took so long. I was out for 3 days.

Some things to note when looking at these analyses:
1. The small size will cause a loss in fine details and may effect certain color channels more than others, depending on the compressor.
2. The compression will result in missing data that will appear as horizontal black lines and some cragginess along those lines.
3. The black text overlays will effect the image in some way, mostly at the bottom end in the shadow range. I'm glad you switch to black instead of white because that would show up at the top end, which we are most concerned with.

Of course these things aren't critical to the analysis of the overall color, but are important to note for honesty and posterity's sake.

Theatrical Edition:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64762175@N07/5912418050/

Extended Edition:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64762175@N07/5911858833/

Re-broken EE:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64762175@N07/5911858911/

Fixed:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64762175@N07/5911858979/

Looking at these, I'd say you did a fine job of making the footage look more "natural" (funny how I've started looking at histograms to see if I have the kind of image I like over the years). Unfortunately, trying to fix something like the clipping out of 2 stops of dynamic range of one color is about like painting the side of a barn to paint the nail heads, if you catch my meaning. It doesn't mean that your work is worthless. It just means that I understand the limitations you are working with.

Of course, if you were absolutely obsessed with retaining the original color grading while inheriting the new detail, you could always use "Ye-Olde-Fashioned Method":
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64762175@N07/5912520000/

Naturally, I aways encourage people to experiment with this kind of thing. Sometimes the most fascinating things come from those who just want to make their favorite things just a little better.

Hey BleedingEdge,

Thanks for that analysis. The results for my fix are essentially what I expected, but what interested me most was the analysis of my re-broken version, because it's nearly identical to the read-out on the untouched EE version. To me, that suggests that, apart from issues relating to dynamic range and stuff like that, my fix is probably pretty accurate, since simply applying a green photo filter and turning of my contrast fix gets back to a read-out almost identical to the EE image.

HeKS

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

Nothing is perfect, although it's fair to call Tolkien an amazing worldbuilder and an amazing wordsmith. The writers did improve on Tolkien in some areas for films aimed at mass audiences. Now those weren't necessarily weaknesses in the novels, but could have been for what the films needed to be.

Okay, read the following list. It isn't complete because there are so many instances that I can't remember them all.

1) Merry and Pippin run into Sam and Frodo fleeing the Shire, while they are running away from Farmer Maggot who caught them stealing crops.

2) Bilbo is left out of The Council of Elrond, as well as the arguing by the different folks at the Council right before Frodo speaks up.

3) Aragorn and the Hobbits do not see the lights from the fight between Gandalf and the Ringwraiths at Weathertop.

4) Gandalf doesn't want to go through Moria.

5) Galadriel is a sorceress.

6) Arwen is dying because of the Ring.

7) The manner in which the Fellowship breaks up.

8) Aragorn falling off a cliff.

9) The manner in which the Ents get involved to stop Saruman.

10) "No one tosses a dwarf".

11) "Not the beard".

12) The manner in which Gandalf restores Theoden's health.

13) The replacement of Faramir with someone who has the same name but a completely different personality.

14) The cruelty shown by Faramir's men towards Gollum.

15) Aragorn's reluctance to step up and accept his destiny.

16) Sam's use of the Phial.

17) Frodo trusting Gollum enough to turn on Sam.

18) Gandalf, an angelic being, who after killing a Balrog, and driving off several Ringwraiths who were attacking Faramir, is bested by a mere man, the Witch-King, who is, shortly thereafter, killed by a woman and a hobbit.

Just a small fraction of the examples I could cite. The question for you is this: How did the changes made by PJ and the writers improve over what Tolkien wrote, either as a story OR as a movie?

There are so MANY changes from the book that the movies aren't an adaptation. They are an alternate universe to Tolkien's mythology.

[#Darren]

Hey guys, I just watched the EE Fellowship of the Ring and noticed a strange greenish tint to the entire film. Anyone else notice this?

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by radagast

1) Merry and Pippin run into Sam and Frodo fleeing the Shire, while they are running away from Farmer Maggot who caught them stealing crops.

Not an improvement from the book. But didn't really bother me either. In some ways it makes their growth by the end of the saga more profound by giving them a lesser start.

2) Bilbo is left out of The Council of Elrond, as well as the arguing by the different folks at the Council right before Frodo speaks up.

Bilbo didn't need to be there as there was no way he'd get sent on the quest given the hold the ring had over him and his declining health.

The argument showed the frailty of the fellowship and how risky it was for anyone to take the ring. It showed how difficult the mission would be right from the start.

So I like those changes.

3) Aragorn and the Hobbits do not see the lights from the fight between Gandalf and the Ringwraiths at Weathertop.

That makes the wraiths attacking the hobbits on top Weathertop more of a surprise. Plus it's kind of silly for them to seek refuge there when they'd seen lights flashing on top of it recently as that should signal that it may not be a safe place to spend a night.

So I like that change.

4) Gandalf doesn't want to go through Moria.

If he wasn't scared of going through Moria, then they should have chosen that shorter path from the start rather than trying a treacherous path across a mountain.

So that change makes sense and gives reason for trying a much more difficulty path initially.

5) Galadriel is a sorceress.

I don't recall enough about her depiction in the book to comment on this one really. But in the movie it at least made for a cool scene and a valid reason why she couldn't take the ring.

6) Arwen is dying because of the Ring.

This one I agree was a bad change. I don't mind Arwen's more prevalent role, but having her die because of the ring was lame and not explained.

7) The manner in which the Fellowship breaks up.

I don't recall it being much different in the books, but maybe my memory is lacking.

8) Aragorn falling off a cliff.

In consequential change IMO. And as someone else said it gave away to have him see Saruman's army marching and report back to Helm's deep about the size of the army etc. which I though was good touch.

9) The manner in which the Ents get involved to stop Saruman.

Not an improvement, but I didn't mind it. Made sense to me that the Ents would want to get involved in the war until having a personal motivation given they'd been largely removed from the world (i.e. isolated) for such a long time.

10) "No one tosses a dwarf".

Good comic relief. I chuckled.

11) "Not the beard".

See above.

12) The manner in which Gandalf restores Theoden's health.

Just saw it as a way to visualize the breaking of the spell in movie form. So no problems with that, thought it worked well.

13) The replacement of Faramir with someone who has the same name but a completely different personality.

Always saw Faramir as a fairly extraneous character in the books, so I didn't mind the change. Just gave the movie yet another example of the frailty of men which was a strong theme in the movie.

But I can see how people who are a fan of his character in the book (and not just skimming through him to get back to the main characters when reading like me) wouldn't like the change.

14) The cruelty shown by Faramir's men towards Gollum.

Not an improvement, but didn't bother me either. Reasonable that men wouldn't treat a creature like Gollum roughly.

15) Aragorn's reluctance to step up and accept his destiny.

It gave him a lot more of a character arc, so I liked it. One of my faults with Tolkien's work is I think the character development is pretty weak. It's more about the overall story and mythology etc. than it is developing characters. And character development is one thing that really makes me love books and movies.

16) Sam's use of the Phial.

Thought this was inconsequential personally.

17) Frodo trusting Gollum enough to turn on Sam.

It was portrayed as the ring getting to him enough that he would turn on his best friend.

So for the movie I thought it did a great job of showing how the ring was wearing him down.

[Darth Fredius]

Originally Posted by Bad Boy Dazza

Hey guys, I just watched the EE Fellowship of the Ring and noticed a strange greenish tint to the entire film. Anyone else notice this?

No... nobody here...
This "seams to be" greenish FOTR color issue is boring me.
I love Tolkien and Peter Jackson movies but I don't have time and patience to read all the previus messages...
I saw the EE Blu-ray of the FOTR it looks awesome to me.