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

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

It has been given the royal treatment; high bit rate, spread over two discs, new scan, no DNR or EE (that's noticeable anyway). Color changes were made that some will like and others will dislike. However, watching this movie - I see nothing that stands out as a glitch or issue. It's evident they were deliberated BASED on how they were applied to specific scenes.

What I don't rule out is that all of the whites in the entire movie (including title) were given a blanket tone down as I believe they were blown out in the theatrical. I can buy this was done, but see no issue with it.

This was not a new scan. It is a new master made by the original 2k elements.

[petmic10]

Just the fact that we're questioning each others tv calibration or
lack thereof, should tell you something is amiss with this film.

I don't hear many/if any people complaining about TTT and ROTK.
No panel adjustments needed for those two movies.

[punisher]

Originally Posted by petmic10

just the fact that we're questioning each others tv calibration or
lack thereof, should tell you something is amiss with this film.

I don't hear many/if any people complaining about ttt and rotk.
No panel adjustments needed for those two movies.

+1............................

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by petmic10

Just the fact that we're questioning each others tv calibration or
lack thereof, should tell you something is amiss with this film.

I don't hear many/if any people complaining about TTT and ROTK.
No panel adjustments needed for those two movies.

Nope, they remain faithful to their original color timing.

Which makes it all the more jarring watching the films in succession.

[El_Jay]

So much de ja vu...

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

So much de ja vu...

usually means a glitch in the matrix.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by jebhdb

I remember reading multiple articles in the early days of the format war between blu ray and hd dvd backing blu ray based on the greater storage capacity. I know at least one article claimed that an advantage of blu ray would be the ability to contain an entire season of a television series on a single blu ray disc.

No one is saying that the extended editions can't fit on a single disc each. Of course they can. But it's a zero sum game. When you increase run-time, you have to decrease bit-rate (assuming you are filling the disc to capacity). On DVD, this causes artifacts. On blu-ray, this causes softening (assuming AVC or VC-1 is being used). By splitting the films, bit-rate becomes virtually a non-issue.

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by Troy73

DarkDune covered it a few pages back. I think he said you have to go 4 or 6 clicks in to the green tint side on the red50 green50.

Did anyone else try this?

[Troy73]

Originally Posted by petmic10

Just the fact that we're questioning each others tv calibration or
lack thereof, should tell you something is amiss with this film.

I don't hear many/if any people complaining about TTT and ROTK.
No panel adjustments needed for those two movies.

I remember when Bram Stoker's Dracula was recolored when it hit blu and the debate was very much the same. There were no new pressings to correct it though. What was seen on all the previous dvd releases was declared too warm and the Blu-ray corrected this error.

[Truewitt]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

It's not just white, the green clearly interacts with every color.

And the blacks are certainly crushed, there are serious contrast issues.

Everyone is saying this, but I clearly think the contrast makes the film look more like film. I think the other two movies could use this gamma squeeze because they look like bad home HD video, they are so overblown. But, to each their own, I say.

[Velmeran]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

So much de ja vu...

Can't imagine why?


Though I am pretty sure the suspensions on a few individuals ended today.....

Edit: Though at least it's at pretty civil discussions this time, that's always a plus

[El_Jay]

People continue to attribute the arguably nicer look of FOTR to the green tint and not the digital color timing that is new to this release.

[joenostalgia23]

Wow, we're still talking about this tint, eh? I know that I said that my last post would be my last green tint related one... but that's partially because I thought the discussion was soon coming to an end. I think we can be sure that Jackson approved of this transfer because he felt that the film didn't look up to his standard(he states in the special features that he's never 100% satisfied) and with FOTR, it was the film that wasn't completely digitally graded and it stood out visually from the other films. So, he added a thin layer of coloring and now it looks more like what he originally sought.

The difference in colors are hardly noticeable. If you go to DVDBeaver, you'll see through DVD and Blu-ray comparisons that the majority films will look different on their various releases. I was looking at Brazil and Oldboy and some versions lean towards teal and some towards magenta. But when watching these films, I don't go "WWWWWHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAH WHY IS THE WALL GREEN WHY WHHHHYYY" or "UUUUUUUUUGGGGHHHH WHY ARE THE CLOUDS PINK WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY" because my brain adjusts.
Blood is still red, walls are still white, etc etc. even when they carry a bit of a tint, it's not really noticeable. The tint in FOTR is minor compared to a lot of the releases I've seen.

There most likely won't be a replacement program. There wasn't one for The Godfather, there wasn't one for French Connection.
Asking for a replacement is like asking Paramount for another remastered Gladiator because the colors are more saturated and scenes have stronger contrast, and therefore looks different from its original DNR-ridden release. WB already had a director/cinematographer approved remaster and color retiming. To them, the release is not "a mistake" and while theres a few people on forums who hate these new colors, Peter Jackson wanted the film to look that way and the majority of buyers don't notice it(because it is minor) or think it looks a lot better(Rivendell).

[joenostalgia23]

Originally Posted by Troy73

I remember when Bram Stoker's Dracula was recolored when it hit blu and the debate was very much the same. There were no new pressings to correct it though. What was seen on all the previous dvd releases was declared too warm and the Blu-ray corrected this error.

I thought that Dracula was made darker? I don't remember a new color correction. What I do know is that the new remaster was approved by Coppola himself.
I'd love a new pressing for Dracula because I actually think Coppola didn't know what he was doing when he redid the look of that film. I think he was trying to reinvent the film, because the darkness actually changes some scenes drastically.
Still, like FOTR, it's adjustments by the director, and it's not a glitch.

[El_Jay]

Well thanks for coming out of retirement to reiterate the same exact statement as 50+ pages ago, that people will still disagree with for reasons they also made clear 50+ pages ago.

The argument is not going to be ended by anything less than an official statement that actually involves someone important on the LOTR crew. That's it. So either participate, or don't, but don't break your back trying to end it.

Personally I think the books vs movies debate is far more pointless and tiring because it's a 10-year-old argument that I've already read as a younger man.

[Daddydave]

I don't know if this has been asked or covered yet, but dose anyone know why these extended cuts are on two discs and not one? They should be able to fit on one, and it's a major pain to have to swap discs.

[Troy73]

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

Wow, we're still talking about this tint, eh? I know that I said that my last post would be my last green tint related one... but that's partially because I thought the discussion was soon coming to an end. I think we can be sure that Jackson approved of this transfer because he felt that the film didn't look up to his standard(he states in the special features that he's never 100% satisfied) and with FOTR, it was the film that wasn't completely digitally graded and it stood out visually from the other films. So, he added a thin layer of coloring and now it looks more like what he originally sought.

The difference in colors are hardly noticeable. If you go to DVDBeaver, you'll see through DVD and Blu-ray comparisons that the majority films will look different on their various releases. I was looking at Brazil and Oldboy and some versions lean towards teal and some towards magenta. But when watching these films, I don't go "WWWWWHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAH WHY IS THE WALL GREEN WHY WHHHHYYY" or "UUUUUUUUUGGGGHHHH WHY ARE THE CLOUDS PINK WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY" because my brain adjusts.
Blood is still red, walls are still white, etc etc. even when they carry a bit of a tint, it's not really noticeable. The tint in FOTR is minor compared to a lot of the releases I've seen.

There most likely won't be a replacement program. There wasn't one for The Godfather, there wasn't one for French Connection.
Asking for a replacement is like asking Paramount for another remastered Gladiator because the colors are more saturated and scenes have stronger contrast, and therefore looks different from its original DNR-ridden release. WB already had a director/cinematographer approved remaster and color retiming. To them, the release is not "a mistake" and while theres a few people on forums who hate these new colors, Peter Jackson wanted the film to look that way and the majority of buyers don't notice it(because it is minor) or think it looks a lot better(Rivendell).

Let me just give you the coming response from some forum members now. "I'm waiting for Peter Jackson to tell me that this is how he wanted it so I can still not be satisfied but at least lean all my previous posts in a new direction at him while saying nothing different."

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by Daddydave

I don't know if this has been asked or covered yet, but dose anyone know why these extended cuts are on two discs and not one? They should be able to fit on one, and it's a major pain to have to swap discs.

Yes, I know. But I refuse to tell you.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by Daddydave

I don't know if this has been asked or covered yet, but dose anyone know why these extended cuts are on two discs and not one? They should be able to fit on one, and it's a major pain to have to swap discs.

Yes. Putting 3.5+ hours on a single disc reduces quality. Putting King on a single disc would be a travesty. The average bitrate of all films is around 30mbs. That would not happen on a single disc.

[Troy73]

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

I thought that Dracula was made darker? I don't remember a new color correction. What I do know is that the new remaster was approved by Coppola himself.
I'd love a new pressing for Dracula because I actually think Coppola didn't know what he was doing when he redid the look of that film. I think he was trying to reinvent the film, because the darkness actually changes some scenes drastically.
Still, like FOTR, it's adjustments by the director, and it's not a glitch.

Oh no my friend it was recolored as well. Not so much the whole film, but, it was given a darker look and some colors enhanced or completely subdued.