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

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Cook

That they do, but its ironic because Lucas was trying to jump ahead of everyone and be cutting edge and it will end up making his films look more dated than they would have if he would have used real sets. He chose a cutting edge underdeveloped style over a more lasting approach.

Agreed. That's why a lot of the shots on the OT still hold up fairly well today. Matte paintings and miniatures are a film makers friend. There is something more tangible about a real object even if it is much smaller than it will look in the film. CG has its place and there are some things that you just cannot do with paintings and puppets. But, like many good things, it gets abused.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's why I dig both cuts. The theatricals are a more streamlined experience, paced like proper movies, whereas the EEs tend to meander along in a mini-series stylee and allow you to wallow in Middle Earth that little bit longer. Depends on how numb you want your arse to get, really.

Your second point is a very pertinent one, what with all the talk about the quality of the adaptation itself; people love to wax lyrical about how the EEs add so much more from the book blah blah, but the EEs also add a heck of a lot of useless fluff, which is why I don't see them as any sort of 'definitive' version.

And +1 to the other comment about the Pelennor Fields CG, 'cause it just didn't work for me either. Looked too soft and rubbery, whereas most of the other stuff in the films is excellent. I've always loved that shot in Two Towers where Legolas switches from Orlando Bloom to a digital double as he does that one-handed swing up onto the horse, in slow motion, in broad daylight. It's not perfect but it's a magnificent effort.

Absolutely....

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Cook

That they do, but its ironic because Lucas was trying to jump ahead of everyone and be cutting edge and it will end up making his films look more dated than they would have if he would have used real sets. He chose a cutting edge underdeveloped style over a more lasting approach.

Not Episode III....

[gettodamoofies]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Not Episode III....

Yes, Episode III as well. It was filmed at 1920x1080 resolution. Any theatres or future home video formats featuring 4K resolution will mean Episode III will have to be upscaled or re-rendered with the live action components being limited to their original resolution.

As for LOTR, I only have a few issues with some effects sequences but I find the work by WETA has a far greater sense of scale and weight. The pains taken to weather everything gives it all such a lived in look that it feels natural so even those shots which may lack a little realism have other aspects working hard to sell them.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by atexp80

Yes, Episode III as well. It was filmed at 1920x1080 resolution. Any theatres or future home video formats featuring 4K resolution will mean Episode III will have to be upscaled or re-rendered with the live action components being limited to their original resolution.

So?

There won't be another commercial home theater format that the average person will be willing to invest (again) in.

For the majority of collectors, Blu Ray will be it. Who the hell wants to reinvest in all of their favorites in a 4k format? Especially when it won't be that much of a difference....unless you sit right up on your screen.

I love Star Wars dearly but this BD set was the last time. The same goes for the Rings Trilogy....unless Jackson does a real director's cut.

My new investment is digital copies. A larger library that takes up much less physical space. I've been over picture quality for over a year now. The top picture quality is still going to the theatre. At this point, it's about seeing the films I want to see, not the picture quality at the home theater format level.

My absolute cream of the crop, I'll collect on BD. But, 90% of the films that come out in a given year aren't worth the BD investment. Digital copies or rental streaming is the way to go forward.

[gettodamoofies]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

So?

You said Episode III wouldn't look dated. I was just pointing out that it's limited to its current resolution which means when it's as old as the Original Trilogy and 4K theatre is the norm it most definitely will look dated.

There won't be another commercial home theater format that the average person will be willing to invest (again) in.

That would have been said about Blu-ray (or Full HD resolution) about 10-12 years ago. Save your post and revisit it in 15 years.

For the majority of collectors, Blu Ray will be it. Who the hell wants to reinvest in all of their favorites in a 4k format? Especially when it won't be that much of a difference....unless you sit right up on your screen.

Heaps of things are going 4K now. Digital cameras like the Red are filming in 4K, titles are being remastered in 4K and major filmmakers like Peter Jackson are filming in these resolutions with higher frame rates. Everything is trending that way and theatres are now adopting projectors that display at 4K also. To think that businesses will just up and say "Oh well - that's it. No more money for us. We can't come up with something to sell now!" is sorely underestimating the greed for $$$ of companies and the willingness of the public to buy the latest, greatest thing.

There will most certainly be a 4K format. It may not have as much market penetration as Blu-ray and it may not be a physical media format but to think that studios and filmmakers are producing titles at 4K resolution solely for theatrical release and with no thought as to the future of home media is not giving them much credit.

Whatever price you can buy a 55" LED 3D display for now you can bet that in ten years you'll be able to get a 55" 4K display of the latest technology for the same price or less. People will buy it and they'll start being common. 10 or so years back big screen LCD TVs were going for $20,000 that you'd now find in people's homes that cost them under $1000.

As for "collectors", well it may not be us buying it in droves and it may not be a disc format but you can bet the current generation of kids won't be settling for some 20 year old format if there's something better out there. They'll be the next generation of collectors...

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by atexp80

You said Episode III wouldn't look dated. I was just pointing out that it's limited to its current resolution which means when it's as old as the Original Trilogy and 4K theatre is the norm it most definitely will look dated.

That would have been said about Blu-ray (or Full HD resolution) about 10-12 years ago. Save your post and revisit it in 15 years.

Heaps of things are going 4K now. Digital cameras like the Red are filming in 4K, titles are being remastered in 4K and major filmmakers like Peter Jackson are filming in these resolutions with higher frame rates. Everything is trending that way and theatres are now adopting projectors that display at 4K also. To think that businesses will just up and say "Oh well - that's it. No more money for us. We can't come up with something to sell now!" is sorely underestimating the greed for $$$ of companies and the willingness of the public to buy the latest, greatest thing.

There will most certainly be a 4K format. It may not have as much market penetration as Blu-ray and it may not be a physical media format but to think that studios and filmmakers are producing titles at 4K resolution solely for theatrical release and with no thought as to the future of home media is not giving them much credit.

Whatever price you can buy a 55" LED 3D display for now you can bet that in ten years you'll be able to get a 55" 4K display of the latest technology for the same price or less. People will buy it and they'll start being common. 10 or so years back big screen LCD TVs were going for $20,000 that you'd now find in people's homes that cost them under $1000.

As for "collectors", well it may not be us buying it in droves and it may not be a disc format but you can bet the current generation of kids won't be settling for some 20 year old format if there's something better out there. They'll be the next generation of collectors...

I'm not disputing the notion of 4k as a format. I know everything is going 4k. My issue is are people really going to reinvest in a new format where the picture quality between BD and 4k is based on various factors and the result is a marginal uptick in picture quality?

To me, that doesn't make much sense to invest yet again and you may get a 10% bump in quality, if you get the right display and sit at the appropriate viewing distance...if you find the house that can provide that for you.

BD is the sweet spot, I think for the majority of people...right now.

I'll invest in 4k if it's digital.....big IF.

[Jumpman]

Honestly, you can't really blame Lucas for pushing the envelope, in terms of tech. While he may have limited the Prequels, he was at the forefront to push digital to where it is now.

That's always been his legacy.

I don't think people will have a problem with how dated the films are. Again, there are aspects of the Rings Trilogy that were dated the moment the films were released. That's the nature of cinema. Films are basically dated the next day after released because tech keeps improving.

I don't hold that against any filmmaker. What will never be dated is storytelling and how well a filmmaker tells it.

40 years from now, we'll be discussing (well maybe not all of us) how well Jackson told the stories, how well WB told the Potter Saga....not the tech of the films. That can't be helped.

And yes, I contradicted myself with this post because I still believe Episode III is virtually seamless and won't be dated in the years to follow.

Episode II is a different matter. And just based in the Hobbit trailer, they'll out class the Rings Trilogy, visually, by miles.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

I'm not disputing the notion of 4k as a format. I know everything is going 4k. My issue is are people really going to reinvest in a new format where the picture quality between BD and 4k is based on various factors and the result is a marginal uptick in picture quality?

To me, that doesn't make much sense to invest yet again and you may get a 10% bump in quality, if you get the right display and sit at the appropriate viewing distance...if you find the house that can provide that for you.

BD is the sweet spot, I think for the majority of people...right now.

I'll invest in 4k if it's digital.....big IF.

I totally agree. I was talking about this with my bro the other night and after the HD DVD fiasco and the fact that many of us rebought a lot of stuff on blu-ray and pared out the DVD collection, there aint no way Im doing this again. I realize that some people will chase the next step in resolution no matter what but the number of people who will do that is quite small.

Lets review:

VHS to DVD was a HUGE step forward. Even the most simpleton viewer could easily see and usually hear the difference.

DVD to BLU-RAY was a pretty huge step forward. Just about everyone could see and usually hear the difference.

BLU-RAY to 4K will be a trivial upgrade for most people and I think at this point we have to conclude that 4K will only benefit those with 150 foot screens who sit 12 feet away. Even then, there is only so much your eyes can see. And, the sound cant really be upgraded anymore - how do you top multi-channel lossless audio? I mean.... seriously? So Im expected to rebuy everything AGAIN in 4K for trivial video updates and thats it? Nope, not me, not ever.

Im all about the next best thing. Everyone here gets the whole blu-ray quality thing or we wouldnt be here. But, I feel like the crew of the Enterprise: We have boldly gone where no video format has gone before. We've reached the final frontier. The human eye is now the limiting factor and you cant out-engineer that limitation.

Ill gladly revisit this thread/post in 15 years. Me and most others will be doing the blu-ray thing and still enjoying it with NO incentive to upgrade.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Considering that when Jackson made LotR ASoIaF was about 3 books into what will be a 7 book series it would've been kind of hard for him to make the movies, right?

Right, but what about since then?

[radagast]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

... I'm glad Stinky fielded this question, cuz wow.

Jackson choosing to make movies based on something is definitive proof that one thing > another? That's some very, very strange logic. Jackson is not an oracle.

HBO began filming Game of Thrones before the Song of Ice and Fire series was 2/3's finished. Consequently, New Line took like 70 years to adapt LOTR. I guess the fact that they were in such a hurry to get it on screen means ASOIAF > LOTR.

Read the books and then tell me I'm wrong, that's all I'm asking. Giving demigod status to a book or movie and then claiming it's never going to be topped is just a recipe for disappointment, if you ask me.

You obviously don't understand logic. Are you trying to tell me that no high fantasy series was completely written, finished and published before Jackson filmed LOTR? Really?

When did I say LOTR would never be topped? Talk about lack of logic. Like straw much? I just said that the examples cited are a matter of opinion. You and Stinky are the ones making the claims about the other books as though it is inarguable fact. It isn't. It's subjective.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

I totally agree. I was talking about this with my bro the other night and after the HD DVD fiasco and the fact that many of us rebought a lot of stuff on blu-ray and pared out the DVD collection, there aint no way Im doing this again. I realize that some people will chase the next step in resolution no matter what but the number of people who will do that is quite small.

Lets review:

VHS to DVD was a HUGE step forward. Even the most simpleton viewer could easily see and usually hear the difference.

DVD to BLU-RAY was a pretty huge step forward. Just about everyone could see and usually hear the difference.

BLU-RAY to 4K will be a trivial upgrade for most people and I think at this point we have to conclude that 4K will only benefit those with 150 foot screens who sit 12 feet away. Even then, there is only so much your eyes can see. And, the sound cant really be upgraded anymore - how do you top multi-channel lossless audio? I mean.... seriously? So Im expected to rebuy everything AGAIN in 4K for trivial video updates and thats it? Nope, not me, not ever.

Im all about the next best thing. Everyone here gets the whole blu-ray quality thing or we wouldnt be here. But, I feel like the crew of the Enterprise: We have boldly gone where no video format has gone before. We've reached the final frontier. The human eye is now the limiting factor and you cant out-engineer that limitation.

Ill gladly revisit this thread/post in 15 years. Me and most others will be doing the blu-ray thing and still enjoying it with NO incentive to upgrade.

some people are never happy with what they allready have.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

I totally agree. I was talking about this with my bro the other night and after the HD DVD fiasco and the fact that many of us rebought a lot of stuff on blu-ray and pared out the DVD collection, there aint no way Im doing this again. I realize that some people will chase the next step in resolution no matter what but the number of people who will do that is quite small.

Lets review:

VHS to DVD was a HUGE step forward. Even the most simpleton viewer could easily see and usually hear the difference.

DVD to BLU-RAY was a pretty huge step forward. Just about everyone could see and usually hear the difference.

BLU-RAY to 4K will be a trivial upgrade for most people and I think at this point we have to conclude that 4K will only benefit those with 150 foot screens who sit 12 feet away. Even then, there is only so much your eyes can see. And, the sound cant really be upgraded anymore - how do you top multi-channel lossless audio? I mean.... seriously? So Im expected to rebuy everything AGAIN in 4K for trivial video updates and thats it? Nope, not me, not ever.

Im all about the next best thing. Everyone here gets the whole blu-ray quality thing or we wouldnt be here. But, I feel like the crew of the Enterprise: We have boldly gone where no video format has gone before. We've reached the final frontier. The human eye is now the limiting factor and you cant out-engineer that limitation.

Ill gladly revisit this thread/post in 15 years. Me and most others will be doing the blu-ray thing and still enjoying it with NO incentive to upgrade.

Look at this way. If 4K ever makes it to the consumer level that means there will probably be players that upconvert 1080p content to 4K. I would personally only buy my favorites in a 4K format and even then it would have to be a physical format and not some digital/cloud medium.

[billzfan]

I had to chime in on all the 4K talk. This will never be a home video format. It's really only meant to up the resolution on large theater screens where you can actually see the difference. It's not viable in the home where the average screen is less than 50 inches. You'd have to have an entirely new TV that could run it, a format that could hande it, and a consumer willing to spend the cash on it. I am a huge theater buff but I would never invest in something that is impossible to tell the difference from 1080p on a home HDTV.

Also, the guy who said Episode II and III were shot at 1080p is 100% correct. Almost all digitally shot films between 2000 and 2010 were shot at 1080p at 24 frames a second. Only nopw is it starting to change and it's not like blu-ray couldn't handle digital at 60 frames, like the Hobbit is being shot.

You are free to come back in 15 years and check but 1080p is the last stop for 2D in the home.

[Todd Smith]

So it seems there are some comments on Amazon of people who bought the EE blus when first released and just recently purchased again. After comparing the 2 FOTR discs, the new one has the green tint GONE. Has there been mention of that here (sorry, dont feel like reading the last however many pages of this thread) and is there ANY truth to this?

Thanks

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by Bunker

They look dated and awful now. I guess that's what happens when you have a director more concerned with finishing on-time and under-budget, rather than a true visionary director like Peter Jackson, James Cameron, etc. Oddly enough, The Phantom Menace is probably my "favorite" of the prequel trilogy because they actually used real sets and props in most of the scenes, rather than just blue screening everything.

Best jokes ever! Are you blind, or do you have the worst setup of all times?

The VFX in the PT is light-years better than LOTR, which already looked terribly fake and dated when it was first released.

Originally Posted by riverbelow

Man get better screens or calibrate them to utilize blu-ray?

The CGI in LOTR holds up for my setup. In DVD it was kinda iffy at times.

LOTR has not one second of bad use of CG. Anything they chose to CG absolutely could not be done practically...

OK. This beats the poster above. POTC II+III have pretty flawless VFX, but LOTR has so many absolutely silly moments, it's not even funny anymore.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Best jokes ever! Are you blind, or do you have the worst setup of all times?

The VFX in the PT is light-years better than LOTR, which already looked terribly fake and dated when it was first released.

What looked out dated when the films were released? I wouldn't hesitate to call you crazy if you felt the balrog looked terrible in 2001.

Jar Jar looks worse than anything in LotR.

[Impossible]

The battle at the end of PM looks REALLY terrible and much worse than anything in the LOTR.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Don't get me wrong: LotR has its weaknesses in its CGI, especially in HD. The water monster (I don't know the mame) in FotR looks pretty terrible. The bit in TTT where Legolas flips over the horse is pretty bad. There are a few moments during the Pelennor Fields battle in RotK that look bad, but I don' think they look worse than what was done in TPM. Now, RotS kicks LotR's ass up and down the block.

[Constitution 101]

Not sure, but I think you'd need to have a display that can actually show 4K. I don't think for most people here just upscaling would be satisfactory enough to invest in it. Streaming, cable, and satellite would probably ALL have to go "true" 4K along w/ your display to make it worth it. I believe the gov't regulates the resolution that cable/satellite broadcast in. I suppose if the bandwidth was there the streaming services could hypothetically do it, but it seems it'd be a huge undertaking for broadcasters(assuming the gov't even approved it). I'd also be curious to see what you all have to say regarding Baraka, etc. regarding the future of picture quality. I always find these discussions to be fascinating, as many people on the site at least SEEM to have a certain degree of knowledge.