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

[Stinky-Dinkins]

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.

WB already made an official statement. They said they tried - they said they could fit everything on one disc but Sean Astin, so it had to be put onto two because of the Astin factor. It's the same reason Goonies is spread out over 4 discs.

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by Troy73

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.

One side is absolutely no better than the other, there's no reason to be sanctimonious about it.

[Troy73]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

WB already made an official statement. They said they tried - they said they could fit everything on one disc but Sean Astin, so it had to be put onto two because of the Astin factor. It's the same reason Goonies is spread out over 4 discs.

LOL!!!!! Bhahaha!!!!

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Doesn't make sense, otherwise every single white would not be green (and that's how it is now.) In the original the whites varied, and they when they were supposed to be white they were often so close to neutral they actually appeared to be white or off-white (even in screens) despite at times having slight biases towards red, blue, green, etc. That's not how you "tone down" whites. Why in the world would they go back and give all white a blanket green tint? That makes absolutely no sense.

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

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




I can't watch anything and not think of Aerosmith. It's my curse.

LOL

Every single white is the movie is not green!

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

LOL

Every single white is the movie is not green!

It's not strictly-speaking GREEN but the green tint is there throughout.

If you put sunglasses on with an reddish/orangish tint, trees do not become red, but they don't look as they did before you put the glasses on. That's sort of what it's like.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

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

Just wow. Something is not correct on your set-up, kitty.

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Just wow. Something is not correct on your set-up, kitty.

I strongly recommend you watch FOTR in it's entirety, and then watch at least half an hour of TTT before you really weigh in.

I know I ended up eating my words, and I was literally saying the exact same thing as you are. Almost verbatim.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

I disagree. The Royal Treatment would be what Criterion did with The Thin Red Line. It's simply impossible to disagree with and nearly impossible to find even the most minute fault with.

I would have liked to see that love and attention to detail go into the FOTR. It's evident that it didn't, hence this 600 page clusterfart of a debate. These people are all fans of the movie and wanted the Thin Red Line treatment badly. It's not a conspiracy of people that don't like the movie or hate Peter Jackson or something.

I think it's an outstanding release. I can understand some people not liking the new color; fine, that can be argued all day long. However, I believe the disc was handled quite well and I see no mistakes actually watching this disc.

One of these days Peter Jackson is going to make specific comments of the color and why he did what he did. I guarantee you, some of you guys will still not believe him and you know who are. Your minds are made up and that's the end of it. Period.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

LOL

Every single white is the movie is not green!

Produce one screen, one single frame, at any point during the entire film that was once white or off-white that is now not a light shade of green, or any frame that displays white or slightly off white. There is literally not one instance of white in the entire film. That is a fact.

You won't be able to, because what was once white off-white is now completely green across the board, no exceptions.

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Just wow. Something is not correct on your set-up, kitty.

OK. You're wrong, sorry buddy.

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I think it's an outstanding release. I can understand some people not liking the new color; fine, that can be argued all day long. However, I believe the disc was handled quite well and I see no mistakes actually watching this disc.

One of these days Peter Jackson is going to make specific comments of the color and why he did what he did. I guarantee you, some of you guys will still not believe him and you know who are. Your minds are made up and that's the end of it. Period.

On the other hand, some people are so predisposed to needing to love every element of this that they are completely ruling out the possibility of a mistake, even though it doesn't make any sense as an artistic choice.

What will you say if they come out and admit it was a mistake, either directly, or the Sapphire Series way? It still looks better and you like the artistic decision?

[Stinky-Dinkins]

If you'd not like to take my word for it either it was pointed out by this site's reviewer quite a while ago, as well:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mo...ml#post4881175

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by hijeff1

Pressing the enter button did let me resume the movie, but pressing the right arrow didn't work. But atleast I can watch the movie again. Thank you. Any idea when the update will be released?

If you stopped watching the 2nd disk after the beginning, just press the down arrow to bring up the "resume movie/play from beginning" pop up. It's the same issue, with the player not responding to the metadata flag telling it bring up the menu after the disk loads:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-pl...ml#post4912737

[MEB]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

This may sound harsh to some of you - especially the loudest complainers of this disc - but unless you've had your display calibrated by one of the top, professional, traveling ISF calibrators, your opinion doesn't mean much at all in terms of judging color. No offense at all, but it's just the truth.

Fact: The green/teal/cyan tint exists in the Blu-ray discs. It's baked in. It's been measured to be there WITHOUT using a display.

Fact: A screen shot created from the disc is a slice of digital data. A bunch of zeros and ones that represent exactly what is encoded on the disc.

Fact: My expensive computer display has been calibrated with a colorimeter. When I view the screen shots on my computer display, I can see the tint.

Fact: My home theater display is also connected to a computer. It, too, has been calibrated with a colorimeter. When I view the screen shots on my theater display via the computer I can see the tint.

The tint exists, whether you or anyone can see it or not.

Fact: When I play the Blu-ray disc on my theater display (calibrated with the WOW disc) I can see the tint and it MATCHES the tint I see via the computer on the same display.

Fact: Anyone's display that is NOT showing the tint owns a display that is NOT reproducing what is on the disc.

Fact: Those of us that can see the tint are still waiting for a single one of you that claims there is no tint to produce a screen shot or even a photo of your display showing that there is no tint.

Mark

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

If you'd not like to take my word for it either it was pointed out by this site's reviewer quite a while ago, as well:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mo...ml#post4881175

You are correct sir!

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by MEB

Fact: Those of us that can see the tint are still waiting for a single one of you that claims there is no tint to produce a screen shot or even a photo of your display showing that there is no tint.

Even that would prove nothing. Plenty of commercial sets do murderous things to color, even from shot to shot, even after "calibration". See Samsung's "Flesh Tone" mode (or any other brand's equivalent) for further clarification. Also, any set that tries to adjust white balance on the fly is suspect.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

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).

Interesting point. Another thing worth mentioning about Gladiator, is that a better version, grain and all, ALREADY existed overseas! Taking that master and encoding it for over here was probably a breeze. To hope we get something that doesn't exist as an encode already somewhere for the Blu-ray format, is probably fruitless.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by retablo

I have Ten Commandments. And I CAN say FOTR looks exactly as Ken described it. Sorry.

But you want to compare something shot in 70mm (It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World) to something shot in regular 35? Give me a break. Of course it'll most likely look superior, its a larger negative. Come up with something better than that, we aren't all dumb and swayed by every little opinion posted on the internet.

It's a perfect agrument. They are superior, end of story. LOTR should have been shot in 65mm-70mm. Mistake 1 for sure. Mistake 2 was to coat the first movie in green. The very idea, let alone a review, stating colors are rich and bold for LOTR is ridiculous considering what is seen in 65mm-70mm films. The LOTR series, with the exception of the first movie when it actually had some normal resemblance of color, doesn't look bold or rich in color and using those words to describe it as such are completely and utterly false.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

Interesting point. Another thing worth mentioning about Gladiator, is that a better version, grain and all, ALREADY existed overseas! Taking that master and encoding it for over here was probably a breeze. To hope we get something that doesn't exist as an encode already somewhere for the Blu-ray format, is probably fruitless.

I don't think it already existed at the time.

They remastered it only after several months worth of complaints, it just happened to surface in Holland first.

https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=4901

[mredman]

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).

Yep couldn't agree more. It is so obvious that there is no mistake and the people that think there is one are gonna get severely disappointed

There is no mistake when the studio been out and commented on the release and saying no mistake is present in the transfer. Even more evidence is that PJ has not said anything about it. Thats because IMO he thinks the studio saying it for him is enough and he also made a statement in the theaters. But some think it is not enough.

[The Dragon]

These movies look simply AWESOME!