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

[#Darren]

So Peter Jackson never made a comment about the "Kermit the Frog" edition?

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by #Darren

So Peter Jackson never made a comment about the "Kermit the Frog" edition?

He did. He gave tacit approval during the intro before the theatrical presentation last June. "The best it's ever looked" is approval.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

He did. He gave tacit approval during the intro before the theatrical presentation last June. "The best it's ever looked" is approval.

And did he stay to watch it? Friedkin gave approval over the original French Connection but the final product on disc was screwed up. So unless he watched the blu-ray itself, that means nothing. He approved the new transfer, but is that what we are seeing on disc? That's the question. During the credits, the green tint turns off very suddenly, and then the text is white as it should be. Seems strange, no?

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

And did he stay to watch it? Friedkin gave approval over the original French Connection but the final product on disc was screwed up. So unless he watched the blu-ray itself, that means nothing. He approved the new transfer, but is that what we are seeing on disc? That's the question. During the credits, the green tint turns off very suddenly, and then the text is white as it should be. Seems strange, no?

I was answering the man's question. I'm not starting another *****fest about this issue that should have died last year.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

I was answering the man's question. I'm not starting another *****fest about this issue that should have died last year.

It is a legitimate question, don't dodge it. Fact of the matter is, approving the transfer that was made and approving how it appeared on disc are two different things.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

It is a legitimate question, don't dodge it. Fact of the matter is, approving the transfer that was made and approving how it appeared on disc are two different things.

I didn't respond directly to it because you had the better point. Of course the way he saw it may have been ****ed up when it was put on disc.
There's no way to know if Jackson saw the BD. If he did and gave approval, people would still complain. His words are irrelevant to me. I are about what I see. I think the EE transfer is miles a head of the EE DVD detail wise and I prefer the coloring.

[#Darren]

Oh well I am waiting for them to re-release the EE's with all the DVD content ported to BD like they have done with the new Blade Runner release. And if there is an error maybe they will correct it at that time.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

I didn't respond directly to it because you had the better point. Of course the way he saw it may have been ****ed up when it was put on disc.
There's no way to know if Jackson saw the BD. If he did and gave approval, people would still complain. His words are irrelevant to me. I are about what I see. I think the EE transfer is miles a head of the EE DVD detail wise and I prefer the coloring.

I prefer the new color timing as well, save for a few shots throughout (those yellow flowers in the Shire now look dreadful). And detail is a huge leap in improvement. That being said, even though I like most of what I see, I still would prefer to own a product the director intended for us to see. If this is it, great. If not, it deserves to be fixed, otherwise we'll never see what we were supposed to be seeing on this format.

[MacEachaidh]

To be clear, Jackson saying it was "The best it's ever looked" — which is arguably true — doesn't in any way mean he was actually happy with it, nor that it was how he had intended it to look.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

To be clear, Jackson saying it was "The best it's ever looked" — which is arguably true — doesn't in any way mean he was actually happy with it, nor that it was how he had intended it to look.

It is implied, and this is where the discussion starts falling apart when we start thinking TOO hard about semantics.

[jeremycarrier]

The LotR color tint debate...

will it EVER end?

[stvn1974]

Peter Jackson should replace Gandalf with Hayden Christianson and make him crayola green.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

To be clear, Jackson saying it was "The best it's ever looked" — which is arguably true — doesn't in any way mean he was actually happy with it, nor that it was how he had intended it to look.

Oh brother.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by jeremycarrier

The LotR color tint debate...

will it EVER end?

No, because purists INSIST on everything being the same as they remember

I am just as happy as ever that purists don't get their way. Why?

1. TV would still be black and white

2. Widescreen would never have taken over in film.

3. The NFL would never have adopted two-point conversion or instant replay.


They hate it on principal and not on actual fact.

[Falaskan]

If purists had their way...

4. People would still be riding around in horse and buggy.

Maybe this needs its own separate thread. lol

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by MerrickG

No, because purists INSIST on everything being the same as they remember

I am just as happy as ever that purists don't get their way. Why?

1. TV would still be black and white

2. Widescreen would never have taken over in film.

3. The NFL would never have adopted two-point conversion or instant replay.


They hate it on principal and not on actual fact.

Preferences based on exposure versus wanting to preserve a film the way a director intended are two different things. There is nothing wrong with wanting to see what the director wanted for ANY given film. And the longer people express their discontent, the more of a chance we have of seeing some sort of corrected version SOMEday, be it on this format or the next.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by jeremycarrier

The LotR color tint debate...

will it EVER end?

Probably not.

Originally Posted by retablo

Oh brother.

+1

Originally Posted by MerrickG

No, because purists INSIST on everything being the same as they remember

I am just as happy as ever that purists don't get their way. Why?

1. TV would still be black and white

2. Widescreen would never have taken over in film.

3. The NFL would never have adopted two-point conversion or instant replay.


They hate it on principal and not on actual fact.

oh boy...

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by retablo

Oh brother.

Yes, well you can put your sneer away. It doesn't do you any credit. I have no idea what you took my post to mean, but given your snotty response, I don't give a toss about finding out.

People make ridiculous claims about what Jackson has or hasn't said, and they've always been due to people inferring what they want to hear from something that doesn't say that at all.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

Preferences based on exposure versus wanting to preserve a film the way a director intended are two different things. There is nothing wrong with wanting to see what the director wanted for ANY given film. And the longer people express their discontent, the more of a chance we have of seeing some sort of corrected version SOMEday, be it on this format or the next.

I agree completely. The problem is that people refuse to accept that this is what Jackson preferred and every bit of evidence we have out there suggests that this IS what Jackson preferred.

On the contrary, there is not one public statement, one bit of evidence that suggests that the green tint was a mistake for the past year.

If there WAS and it turned out the disc WAS an error I would HAPPILY apologize to everyone I "insulted" last year and get in line and DEMAND a replacement.

[bookcase]

I can't believe we're still talking about the same color tint issue more than 12,000 posts later.