Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Theatrical Versions) - April 6, 2010

[Slim Jim]

Originally Posted by Fors*

I think the biggest thing about it being on blu is the audio....that Dolby TrueHD soundtrack is going to sound inbelieveable when Gandalf faces Balrog!

I can't wait to see the battle at Helm's Deep in HD

[Fors*]

Originally Posted by Slim Jim

I can't wait to see the battle at Helm's Deep in HD

I hear ya on that Slim Jim!!!...last time I saw the trilogy (I have purposely avoided it for over a year now) was on my old 36" screen TV....I now have a 92" screen and projector set-up....oh yeah, it's goona be a good time indeed!

[wvl]

Originally Posted by Gremal

That'd be cheaper than the DVDs when they first were released.

And what's wrong with that?

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Fors*

I hear ya on that Slim Jim!!!...last time I saw the trilogy (I have purposely avoided it for over a year now) was on my old 36" screen TV....I now have a 92" screen and projector set-up....oh yeah, it's goona be a good time indeed!

not gonna be THAT sweet for me, it will be sweet none the less... I watch the theatricals and the extendeds at least once each every year... they are the first movies I watched on my 46" lcd when I upgraded from my 32" tube... It was MARVELOUS times... bet the upgrade to lossless and 1080p make me gonna go

[wvl]

You heard me! Price needs to drop 20 bucks! Can't you hear?

Originally Posted by supercutz

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by jabcleg

They will sell like hotcakes though, because most regular folks don't realize another bigger, better set is coming somewhere down the line.

And most don't care, either.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Gremal

That'd be cheaper than the DVDs when they first were released.

And I think it should be like this.

I am ok for new releases to be a a certain high price after leaving theaters and making it's way to home video.

In this case, the movies have had a good theater release, multiple succesful DVD releases. I think they could sell these at a lower price while still making a good profit.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by GregBe

I was going to wait for the EEs, but I went to watch my DVD EEs last weekend and had to turn it off. It made me sad that I have become such a BD snob, but if I am going to spend 10 hours watching LOTR, I want it to be in the best quality possible. If I knew that the EEs would be coming out within the year, I would wait, but it looks like double dip for me.

Yep.

Hard to believe that we once regarded these DVD transfers as "reference". All 3 are so bad now that my eyes have been tuned to watching artifact-free Blu-ray Disc... MPEG2 noise has become very, very obvious to me now and many times intolerable... as in this case.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by Fors*

I think the biggest thing about it being on blu is the audio....that Dolby TrueHD soundtrack is going to sound inbelieveable when Gandalf faces Balrog!

Originally Posted by Slim Jim

I can't wait to see the battle at Helm's Deep in HD

I can't wait to see hot Elves in HD... XD

[Lincoln6Echo]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Yep.

Hard to believe that we once regarded these DVD transfers as "reference". All 3 are so bad now that my eyes have been tuned to watching artifact-free Blu-ray Disc... MPEG2 noise has become very, very obvious to me now and many times intolerable... as in this case.

Which is why I don't get the high PQ ratings for the Kingdom of Heaven BD. If I have my TV set anything above -4 Sharpness, I get a ridiculous amount of digital noise in certain scenes with that film, usually the dark, shadowy scenes. Like before Liam Neesam and co, leave their French village for the Middle East, he's standing there at a window, the picture is fine, then they show a shot of what he was looking at, the exterior, and it's got all this vertical-banding digital noise in it.

The film needs a new MPEG-4/AVC remastering something bad.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Lincoln6Echo

Which is why I don't get the high PQ ratings for the Kingdom of Heaven BD. If I have my TV set anything above -4 Sharpness, I get a ridiculous amount of digital noise in certain scenes with that film, usually the dark, shadowy scenes. Like before Liam Neesam and co, leave their French village for the Middle East, he's standing there at a window, the picture is fine, then they show a shot of what he was looking at, the exterior, and it's got all this vertical-banding digital noise in it.

The film needs a new MPEG-4/AVC remastering something bad.

Borrow or buy The untouchables.That is the sharpest BD I have ever seen.If that looks spectacular,then it's not your setup which is wrong,just the opinions of others

+It's a solid,fun movie.Connory is great there as well

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Borrow or buy The untouchables.That is the sharpest BD I have ever seen.If that looks spectacular,then it's not your setup which is wrong,just the opinions of others

+It's a solid,fun movie.Connory is great there as well

'Zodiac' looks really interesting too. Cause apparently they used some kind of digital camera.
Which doesn't use film, thus there is no grain whatsoever.
Which in its turn would create an image as if there's nothing in between you and the subjects in the video.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by nametag

Check out the thread in the steelbook forum

It will be a 'jumbo' steelbook like Up and Monsters Inc were (google search Jumbo steelbook if you so wish). Those releases held 4 discs, but jumbos can hold up to 6. Therefore all the films and special features discs will fit. The digital copies wont, but apparently will be included outside the packaging... or, well, in the case of the US, Best Buy are releasing just the case as part of a pre order, and then you can fill it up with the discs on release date. In that case, I guess people will just have to live with having the digital copies separate (no problem for me, they're pretty much redundant once used once anyway).

Lots of people don't like jumbos because they look out of place on the shelf next to normal ones, are generally more plasticy, and the disc holders have had a tendency to break on some occasions. I for one don't mind them, particularly for something like LOTR when it's for a collection of films so it's kind of ok that it's in a bigger case.

Thanks for the info, I will certainly be buying that version!

[david118383]

I'll buy these if I can get them at $40 or less like I did with the Xmen trilogy. But there is no way I'm paying more for them. I already have the extended trilogy anyways, which I prefer over the theatricals. Hopefully these theatrical versions will have low sales and New Line will be forced to release the extended versions sooner, rather than later.

[KubrickFan]

I'm still hesitating if I should get this. The EE DVDs actually don't look that bad to me, they're clearly not Blu-rays but are hardly unwatchable. But the problem I have when I start comparing a longer version with the original cut is that the added scenes are becoming so much more obvious, that you can't watch the EE without thinking 'that thing was added, and that too'. I don't have that now because I've seen the theatrical versions only once. All I remember are the extended versions.
Right now I think I'll only buythe EEs, but maybe I'll get both.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

'Zodiac' looks really interesting too. Cause apparently they used some kind of digital camera.
Which doesn't use film, thus there is no grain whatsoever.
Which in its turn would create an image as if there's nothing in between you and the subjects in the video.

Will check Zodiac out.Thnx for tip

[radagast]

Originally Posted by wvl

And what's wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with that other than it is an unreasonable and unrealistic expectation.

[Gremal]

Exactly!

Originally Posted by wvl

And what's wrong with that?

Nothing's "wrong" with Blu-ray versions being cheaper than DVD versions from a customer perspective but that expectation just points to sense of entitlement that I think is unhealthy. If companies can't generate significantly greater revenue from newer technologies, their executives are not going to be as supportive of those technologies. As a consumer who values the technical advantages of Blu-ray over DVD, I am amazed how inexpensive Blu-ray is--even prices on date of release. I really don't think we have anything to complain about.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Nothing's "wrong" with Blu-ray versions being cheaper than DVD versions from a customer perspective but that expectation just points to sense of entitlement that I think is unhealthy. If companies can't generate significantly greater revenue from newer technologies, their executives are not going to be as supportive of those technologies. As a consumer who values the technical advantages of Blu-ray over DVD, I am amazed how inexpensive Blu-ray is--even prices on date of release. I really don't think we have anything to complain about.

True, and the best example I can think of is "2001". I bought the original pan-and-scan VHS version for $60 in 1980 (not sure what that would be adjusted for inflation) and I have seen the BD at Costco for $7.99. I can understand people wanting to spend as little as possible, but $65 for all three LOTR BD's is an incredible bargain!

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Exactly!



Nothing's "wrong" with Blu-ray versions being cheaper than DVD versions from a customer perspective but that expectation just points to sense of entitlement that I think is unhealthy. If companies can't generate significantly greater revenue from newer technologies, their executives are not going to be as supportive of those technologies. As a consumer who values the technical advantages of Blu-ray over DVD, I am amazed how inexpensive Blu-ray is--even prices on date of release. I really don't think we have anything to complain about.

I think a lot of people with this form of entitlement grew up when Napster exploded and don't think paying for media makes sense at all.