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

[Mike2060]

The center rear channel is not discrete but it was divided up into the SR and SL channels so that a decoder could process those channels and derive a center rear. So I believe you will get better rear quality than a normal 5.1 upmixed to 7.1.

[Ashamed Pegasus]

Well if I had any intention at all of buying this, that review just killed it... Now I have absolutely no problems at all waiting for the EE...

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

The center rear channel is not discrete but it was divided up into the SR and SL channels so that a decoder could process those channels and derive a center rear. So I believe you will get better rear quality than a normal 5.1 upmixed to 7.1.

My DVD of all three films has a discrete 6.1 channel, why should I be satisfied with a 5.1 on a Blu-Ray?

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by TheZoof

Personally that is why I enjoyed the movies MORE than the books. I thought the books were really dry and too detail oriented.

So if Tolkien had included more fart, burp, and piss jokes and dwarf-tossing jokes, that would have improved his book?

Interesting.

[Fors*]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

My DVD of all three films has a discrete 6.1 channel, why should I be satisfied with a 5.1 on a Blu-Ray?

Dolby Digital (DVD) < DTS-HD MA (blu) ....regardless of # of discrete channels, this is a highly superior audio format.

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

My DVD of all three films has a discrete 6.1 channel, why should I be satisfied with a 5.1 on a Blu-Ray?

I believe the DVDs don't have a discrete rear channel but your AVR's decoder is told that it's a DD EX source so it knows to up-mix the 5.1 to 6.1. The TE DVDs feature DD 5.1 EX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Digital). The EE feature DTS ES which can either feature a discrete or matrixed rear center channel. But the movie was mixed with the rear center in mind so it should sound natural no matter what version you are watching.

[tacomaprime]

I like how the reviewer said that if you are not sensitive to dnr, you will like the blu rays. I have never been able to notice that kind of stuff. Still don't know how to pick that kind of stuff out.

So I will be buying these AND the ee's when they come out.

[Brodo Faggins]

Ive just put the first disc in and im watching the super trailer, which looks pretty good.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by jalabar

Good honest review. Thanks Ken. Hope this gets more people to wait for the EE's.

Why? Why do you care how many people buy, or don't buy something????

I don't think the "People don't buy it, the studios will be forced to put out better transfer" argument is the only one to consider..... I think it's more likely that "People don't buy it, people like George Lucas won't see a point of releasing Star Wars because the market share of Blu-ray isn't big enough yet"

If you take the #1 selling Blu-ray title ever (whatever that may be) make it into a trilogy, and then double the number sold despite being an expensive box set....... I bet people would be much more excited about the potential sales, and would bring their films to Blu-ray....... Many like Lucas, are waiting for Blu-ray to hold more of a stake in the market..... it's still early, and poor sales don't help the matter.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

For anyone saying these look "identical", you either have eye or monitor issues or both........



Watch as Bilbo turns 15 years younger or so and transforms into a wax figure in the first shot

How can you not see a difference in favor of the HDTV???

crap

[_ck]

Wow, what a spectacular failure on WB/New Line's behalf. I wasn't planning on buying these anyway, but I'm shocked they would let such poor transfers slip through for such a high profile release.

The saddest thing is that a ton of people are going to buy these anyway. Even people in this thread who KNOW the video quality isn't what it should be say they're buying them, which is the same as telling WB/New Line that this is totally okay, when it really isn't. It's fine for those of us who know about this and can pass on buying them, but you gotta feel bad for those who'll cough up a pretty penny for this box set and end up disappointed.

There's no excuse.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Correct.

this is not good

[BobbyB]

Originally Posted by Ashamed Pegasus

Well if I had any intention at all of buying this, that review just killed it... Now I have absolutely no problems at all waiting for the EE...

+1 (though I really didn't plan on buying until the EE's anyhow...but a stellar review and discount price would have ebeen tempting...)

[Brodo Faggins]

Originally Posted by _ck

Wow, what a spectacular failure on WB/New Line's behalf. I wasn't planning on buying these anyway, but I'm shocked they would let such poor transfers slip through for such a high profile release.

The saddest thing is that a ton of people are going to buy these anyway. Even people in this thread who KNOW the video quality isn't what it should be say they're buying them, which is the same as telling WB/New Line that this is totally okay, when it really isn't. It's fine for those of us who know about this and can pass on buying them, but you gotta feel bad for those who'll cough up a pretty penny for this box set and end up disappointed.

There's no excuse.

Please, dont feel bad for me. I am going to enjoy watching these films as they have never looked better. FOTR doesnt appear to be the best it could have been, but TT and ROTK look ****ing awesome. Then there is the audio.

[dborgill]

Originally Posted by _ck

The saddest thing is that a ton of people are going to buy these anyway. Even people in this thread who KNOW the video quality isn't what it should be say they're buying them, which is the same as telling WB/New Line that this is totally okay, when it really isn't. It's fine for those of us who know about this and can pass on buying them, but you gotta feel bad for those who'll cough up a pretty penny for this box set and end up disappointed.

There's no excuse.

Exactly. WB can do anything they want and still make millions. It's pathetic and sad that someone gave the thumbs up on the FOTR release. "Yep, that looks good enough."

On George Lucas waiting on Blu-Ray releases, that man is legally insane after releasing the latest Indy film. That pile of filth shows the man has no reason or logic anymore

On LOTR books vs film, give me a break. We all knew it wouldn't be 100% faithful from book to film. That would honestly me, a boring trilogy in many parts with endless poetry, etc. The movies aren't perfect but do we really need to argue that in a Blu-Ray forum?

[radagast]

Originally Posted by TheZoof

Personally that is why I enjoyed the movies MORE than the books. I thought the books were really dry and too detail oriented

It's the detail that makes it seem so real. And it was Tolkien's attention to details and descriptions that inspired PJ and company to go to so much trouble when making the sets, the weapons, costumes, special effects, etc.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Why? Why do you care how many people buy, or don't buy something????

I don't think the "People don't buy it, the studios will be forced to put out better transfer" argument is the only one to consider..... I think it's more likely that "People don't buy it, people like George Lucas won't see a point of releasing Star Wars because the market share of Blu-ray isn't big enough yet"

If you take the #1 selling Blu-ray title ever (whatever that may be) make it into a trilogy, and then double the number sold despite being an expensive box set....... I bet people would be much more excited about the potential sales, and would bring their films to Blu-ray....... Many like Lucas, are waiting for Blu-ray to hold more of a stake in the market..... it's still early, and poor sales don't help the matter.

Couldn't one just as well argue that if many buy the inferior version,why go the extra mile?

Think that the $ vote is a pretty good vote.Have no illusions that it won't sell well,but it gets me every time when someone releases an inferior product for either speculative reasons or lazy one

[radagast]

Originally Posted by captclueless

I like how the reviewer said that if you are not sensitive to dnr, you will like the blu rays. I have never been able to notice that kind of stuff. Still don't know how to pick that kind of stuff out.

So I will be buying these AND the ee's when they come out.

If DNR is so bad, why do they use it?

[hamchuck1]

I think this could be a pivotal moment. Companies need to do things right the first time. But is was easy for them to do this. They knew they would be rereleasing the same product (basically) again later under the guise of it would be bigger and better than the previous version and people would re buy. Otherwise they would release both editions of each movie with great quality at the same time. They do it this way to make the most money they can from us.

I can't buy this set, almost knowing that the next one is going to be better.

I hope they dont turn a profit on a sub par product. Tha'd be a shame

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by mredman

Ok you are so wrong.
Because you can definitely see that the HDTV version is more soft then the blu ray version on these shots. Yo do know when the mouse is over the picture that is the the bluray picture right?

Both the HDTV version and the BluRay version are very soft. Taking the HDTV version and removing all fine detail doesn't make it any less soft.

In the screen you're talking about the BluRay version is essentially visually identical with very fine details stripped out of the image.

If you look at the HDTV shot you'll notice Bilbo's face has actual life-like skin texture. Pores, tiny hair follicles, the tiny imperfections and detail that makes skin appear as skin. NOw, the HDTV version is hardly an impressive transfer or anything - it comes from an old, dated master, but in the BluRay version these fine-detail elements have been stripped out entirely and it leaves his skin looking so absurdly smooth and texture free that is looks like wax, or clay.

Again, if you prefer the insanely unrealistic-looking DNR 'ed look then this won't bother you (you might even prefer it!) For those that like nice, natural-looking film presentations with fine detail something is horrendously off in that picture. The larger and/or higher quality display you use to watch the movie will also bring these flaws more to the forefront as well. For people using PJ's sections like that are borderline comedic.