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

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

um, there's still only 3 movies so it's actually $16.67 per movie, the number of discs it comes on is irrelevant to that.

No. That $16.67 is for the each individual five-disc set with the bonus features. Do you care more about the bonus features or the movies themselves? I said "movie" for a reason. This is such a stupid argument and thanks for nitpickery?

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

No. That $16.67 is for the each individual five-disc set with the bonus features.Do you care more about the bonus features or the movies themselves? I said "movie" for a reason. This is such a stupid argument and thanks for nitpickery?

Exactly you said movie. There are 3 MOVIES. It's $16.67 per movie, there is no such spin you can do to change that fact. You do also realize that 9 of the discs here are DVD's with SD material that are rehashes from the DVD set right? They don't even hold much value.There is no nitpicking here, you're just simply wrong. I don't know if English is your first language or what (I mean no offense), but there's a difference between Per Movie Value and per disc value. As lng as you agree that there are 3 movies here, then I don't see how you can possibly say for $50 it's $6.67 a movie.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

Well most people divide boxsets by the number of FULL films, not by discs. So while this may be a stupid argument, they're both right. Most people are going to divide the total cost by three (which is the real number of films...not discs with half of a film on it).

Perhaps I should have said $3.33 per disc to avoid nitpicks? I did it this way because I don't think the casual viewer cares about the bonus features as they are in fact not what you are paying for. Recall the OUTRAGE of the bonus features being on DVDs, and the resulting double dip with them. My entire point, which sailed over the nitpicker's head, is that the cost to disc ratio is extremely low, especially when you take into account how much it is elsewhere (Amazon and Barnes and Noble).

I think I'll nitpick and say that the real price is not $16.67, but $16.66 as there is no rounding up, and the price is $49.99 and not $50.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

Perhaps I should have said $3.33 per disc to avoid nitpicks? I did it this way because I don't think the casual viewer cares about the bonus features as they are in fact not what you are paying for. Recall the OUTRAGE of the bonus features being on DVDs, and the resulting double dip with them. My entire point, which sailed over the nitpicker's head, is that the cost to disc ratio is extremely low, especially when you take into account how much it is elsewhere (Amazon and Barnes and Noble).

I think I'll nitpick and say that the real price is not $16.67, but $16.66 as there is no rounding up, and the price is $49.99 and not $50.

I deleted that post like 10 minutes ago, because I don't really care to get into this silly debate.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

Perhaps I should have said $3.33 per disc to avoid nitpicks? I did it this way because I don't think the casual viewer cares about the bonus features as they are in fact not what you are paying for. Recall the OUTRAGE of the bonus features being on DVDs, and the resulting double dip with them. My entire point, which sailed over the nitpicker's head, is that the cost to disc ratio is extremely low, especially when you take into account how much it is elsewhere (Amazon and Barnes and Noble).

I think I'll nitpick and say that the real price is not $16.67, but $16.66 as there is no rounding up, and the price is $49.99 and not $50.

Why praise the cost to disc ratio and at the same time bash the fact that most of the discs are in fact immaterial with regards to value to most people? Sounds rather contradictory to me. I don't see why it even matters how many discs it comes on. Judging value based on the number of discs is rather silly in my opinion. The amount of content should matter more than the number of discs they're spread across. That's all I'll say about this

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Exactly you said movie. There are 3 MOVIES. It's $16.67 per movie, there is no such spin you can do to change that fact. You do also realize that 9 of the discs here are DVD's with SD material that are rehashes from the DVD set right? They don't even hold much value.There is no nitpicking here, you're just simply wrong. I don't know if English is your first language or what (I mean no offense), but there's a difference between Per Movie Value and per disc value. As lng as you agree that there are 3 movies here, then I don't see how you can possibly say for $50 it's $6.67 a movie.

Three movies that cover six discs. A 5-disc set with bonus features is not a full movie. I had no idea that each film had an extra 7.5 hours tacked on to the runtime. I purposefully excluded the bonus features for what you just quoted: the constant bleating in the past over the bonus features being on DVDs and a part of simple repackaging. Once again, outside of hardcore film fans, how many give a shit about the bonus features? If you had said "It's $16.66 for each release," I wouldn't have objected.

$49.99/15 = $3.33. $3.33*2 = $6.66

This isn't advanced calculus.

[MifuneFan]

just wow....

*slowly backs out of the twilight zone*

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

I deleted that post like 10 minutes ago, because I don't really care to get into this silly debate.

I don't even know why it started, to be honest. When I see a boxed set, I always go by the cost to disc ratio because I have a habit at laughing at how much studios charge per disc. I am probably an outlier. But yes, I'm ending this ridiculous argument too.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

just wow....

*slowly backs out of the twilight zone*

Sod off.

[crazyBLUE]

How about we get back on topic.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

How about we get back on topic.

Indeed!

I am kind of wishing we did have a decent theatrical cut of FotR and TTT on Blu-ray. I have seen the EE so much that I do not recall all the differences outside of the extended prologue, Concerning Hobbits, and Aragorn reciting the tale of Beren and Luthien. After I reconstructed the TE prologue using the EE cut, I started wishing for it quite a lot. If I had the hardware and time, I'd do the entire movie.

[TheBluRayPrince]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

Indeed!

I am kind of wishing we did have a decent theatrical cut of FotR and TTT on Blu-ray. I have seen the EE so much that I do not recall all the differences outside of the extended prologue, Concerning Hobbits, and Aragorn reciting the tale of Beren and Luthien. After I reconstructed the TE prologue using the EE cut, I started wishing for it quite a lot. If I had the hardware and time, I'd do the entire movie.

Wow, lol I just thought you did a typo and forgot the 1.

Anyway, do you mean you wish the two movies had better quality or just a better cut as in scenes and stuff? I have the theatrical cuts on blu but haven't gotten around to watch them.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by TheBluRayPrince

Wow, lol I just thought you did a typo and forgot the 1.

Anyway, do you mean you wish the two movies had better quality or just a better cut as in scenes and stuff? I have the theatrical cuts on blu but haven't gotten around to watch them.

I wish the theatrical BDs for Fellowship and Towers didn't range from a mess to uneven.

[mzupeman]

Comparing the TE's of FOTR to TTT is a little extreme, no? TTT could have looked better but I don't think there was anything about it that looked like a 'mess'... there were certainly shots in FOTR that looked that way but not TTT.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

Comparing the TE's of FOTR to TTT is a little extreme, no? TTT could have looked better but I don't think there was anything about it that looked like a 'mess'... there were certainly shots in FOTR that looked that way but not TTT.

TTT is uneven. I forgot a word in the sentence to indicate that ("respectively"). The first 45 minutes or so of TTT is amazing, but once you hit Rohan with Gandalf, it's not on par with what preceded it.

[Falconer]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

No. That $16.67 is for the each individual five-disc set with the bonus features. Do you care more about the bonus features or the movies themselves? I said "movie" for a reason. This is such a stupid argument and thanks for nitpickery?

If I bought a single-disk movie that contained the movie and bonus features for $9.99 total, how much would the movie itself cost?

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

TTT is uneven. I forgot a word in the sentence to indicate that ("respectively"). The first 45 minutes or so of TTT is amazing, but once you hit Rohan with Gandalf, it's not on par with what preceded it.

That's certainly a fair assessment!

[Deciazulado]

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition Blu-ray

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers Extended Edition Blu-ray

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Extended Edition Blu-ray

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

So, I went to a few Best Buys yesterday and I did not see a single copy of the Extended Set. Amazon is not selling it, either. Third parties are. Is this thing out of print?

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

So, I went to a few Best Buys yesterday and I did not see a single copy of the Extended Set. Amazon is not selling it, either. Third parties are. Is this thing out of print?

What do you mean Amazon is not selling it?

The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy Blu-ray

My Best Buy had a few I think (and the New Line Blades for $10 and Stealing Harvard for a steal, etc)