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

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by radagast

Are you sure PJ saw all 5 masters? I think anyone would get weary after watching 5 versions of 9 hours+ of movie material. There might have been infighting between different interests in Warner. There is probably a better version waiting in the wings to get people to double-dip.

Jackson is a technical guy, and I imagine PQ of something he invested seven years of blood, sweat, and tears into would be fairly important. So I have to guess that he hasn't seen the BD release in full, due to the other projects he had been working on. That is my hope - he finally sees them and does a WTF? Then (and maybe only then) we'll get the release these movies deserve.

[Brodo Faggins]

Originally Posted by mredman

How up there in bad would you say FOTR is. Da vinci code bad?

Ive flicked through a little, some of it is underwhelming, but some of it is pretty decent. Personally, I wouldnt call it bad, just average. The audio, however, is excellent. Ive not seen Da Vinci Code.

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

That's how The DaVinci code was shot. That being said the transfer had othter issues as well.

As for why studios used DNR, I'd say firstly that it was used because DVDs didn't have the requisite resolution to display film grain, resulting in images where detail was awash with artifacts and noise. By using DNR and EE they were able to provide resolution where the compression could not have on it's own. Now a-days I believe it's a combination of things. I think that for some it's a habit. I also believe that DNR is used to meld digital special effects into live action shots in an attempt to remove that rear projection look of some stop motion films or practical effects shots from the first half of last century.

I'm curious to hear from an expert on the possibility that special effects may have influenced the decision to use DNR on these transfers.

Sorry, I forgot to say that Da Vinci was shot soft on purpose and wasn't the result of a bad transfer.

[Witch King of Angmar]

Waiting for IGN.com review. They will probably give 10/10 video rating to all movies.

[petmic10]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

And that's the thing everyone should probably keep in mind, particularly when evaluating my video score for 'Fellowship.' I imagine those who aren't annoyed by DNR will rate FotR's transfer somewhere in the neighborhood of a 3.0, perhaps as high as a 3.5.

There are still too many inconsistencies, instabilities, etc to warrant a higher score IMO, but DNR drags it down another full notch in my book (especially considering that some sequences look quite good, and others like the Council of Elrond look quite bad). Thanks as always for posting!

Ken,

Great review, you pretty much confirmed what I feared.

First Gladiator and know this.

These movies made well over a billion dollars world wide and to
give it this kind treatment is a travesty.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

A 2.5 for FOTR? Please. Gladiator received a 3 and that's hands down probably the worst transfer on the format along with Near Dark. The screens I've seen of FOTR don't look as good as TTT or ROTK, but they certainly look fine, at least a 3.5 or 4 out of five. Given the way FOTR was processed in post, the look of the film on the Blu-Ray seems fine. I'm sticking with my pre-order, especially since I'm using a $25 gift card anyway.

I would say ALL the scores he gave seem very appropriate from what we have seen of the shots

2.5/5 Fellowship.....check
3.5/5 TTT.............seems fair
4/5 ROTK..............again, seems fair.

Originally Posted by stace5000

Finally a official blu-ray.com review that states my exact thoughts.. extreme disappointment, even more reason to void this release.

I hear you. I was pleasantly surprised to see this site actually give the PQ a review it derserves. Bravo Ken



So the screen shots were right after all? Wow.....shocking

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Brodo Faggins

Ive flicked through a little, some of it is underwhelming, but some of it is pretty decent. Personally, I wouldnt call it bad, just average. The audio, however, is excellent. Ive not seen Da Vinci Code.

Ok thanks, Does it look like he describes it:

The opening sequences of "The Fellowship of the Ring" demonstrate the director's varying visual style for the films. The first sequence looks deliberately subdued, dull, and veiled to convey the feeling of a flashback, a memory. Then, when the film shifts to the present day in the Shire, it's absolutely glorious, the beauty of the landscape practically bringing tears to one's eyes. Colors are deep, rich, vivid, brilliant, glistening, and glowing by turns, with object delineation varying from slightly bland to remarkably precise. For reasons I can't explain, the color and definition on "The Return of the King" seem the cleanest, brightest, and sharpest of all the movies, although you will hear no complaints from me about any of the transfers. There are scenes here of ravishing beauty. In fact, I can't imagine any viewer being disappointed by the picture quality except those people who might take exception to the director's intentions.


If it does i am satisfied

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

You can keep endlessly posting though, if you like. You seem to really dig doing it.

Pot meet kettle.
Takes one to know one.

[solarrdadd]

while i will probably buy the trilogy when release on blu, i'm bothered that for all of the waiting and delays the PQ has received a very low rating by our reviewer here at the site. the AQ got a perfect 5 for all. for some reason i thought the trilogy was going to have a 7.1 track, i guess this changed. I don't know that i'll double dip but i will more than likely pick this one up. i expect the sound will make the difference for my. i can accept the video looking a bit off par but if the sound is as good as reviewed than i can live with that.

still, i wonder, what they were doing all of this time if they could pulll a perfect 5 x 5 for A & P quality. I will bet you that Avatar will pull a perfect score. cameron won't let that out without it. i guess mr. jackson should have been more involved--if that were even possible that is.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Jackson is a technical guy, and I imagine PQ of something he invested seven years of blood, sweat, and tears into would be fairly important. So I have to guess that he hasn't seen the BD release in full, due to the other projects he had been working on. That is my hope - he finally sees them and does a WTF? Then (and maybe only then) we'll get the release these movies deserve.

Don't forget Jackson and Newline/Warner have not exactly had the smoothest relationship. They tried to screw Jackson out of royalties by creative accounting, a common practice since 'high-profile' talent expects to share in the wealth. Remember Jackson was a pratical unknown before LOTR, but he delivered way beyond the expectations of the studio and they tried to screw him.

Also, remember Jackson has probably been very occupied with getting the production of the Hobbit films ready so I doubt he committed a significant portion of time to 'approve' the transfers.

Let's just keep our fingers crossed, the EEs make up for this. But mark my words Warner, I am only buying this set once and I don't buy anything anymore especially from your studio until I hear a consensus of opinions on the final product. I don't always believe the 'scientists' at that other forum since some still have an axe to grind against BD, but their initial opinions have proved right several times.

[Brodo Faggins]

Originally Posted by mredman

Ok thanks, Does it look like he describes it:

The opening sequences of "The Fellowship of the Ring" demonstrate the director's varying visual style for the films. The first sequence looks deliberately subdued, dull, and veiled to convey the feeling of a flashback, a memory. Then, when the film shifts to the present day in the Shire, it's absolutely glorious, the beauty of the landscape practically bringing tears to one's eyes. Colors are deep, rich, vivid, brilliant, glistening, and glowing by turns, with object delineation varying from slightly bland to remarkably precise. For reasons I can't explain, the color and definition on "The Return of the King" seem the cleanest, brightest, and sharpest of all the movies, although you will hear no complaints from me about any of the transfers. There are scenes here of ravishing beauty. In fact, I can't imagine any viewer being disappointed by the picture quality except those people who might take exception to the director's intentions.


If it does i am satisfied

The first half of it, for me, is spot on. The Shire looks exactly how he describes it in FOTR. The colour is rich and vivid. Frodo's skin does look a little 'waxy' to me, but strangely, Gandalf's, not so much. But when you flick through TT and ROTK, you notice that these films are better.

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by kdo

So, based on the picture quality of these releases, does anyone feel that they will go out of their way to make these look 'better' when they release the 'Extended Editions'?

I think the the theatricals were mostly in the hands of Warners while we've heard that PJ is working on the future release of the extended versions. Presumably the extended versions will have to be remastered separately from the theatricals (they are different movies, after all).

I have a feeling that WB thought the theatrical versions were just the "mass-market" release for those who wouldn't know good PQ if it bit them on the @$$. The EE versions are in the hands of those who are aware that these Blu-rays will be purchased by the hardcore fans.

I am disappointed but oddly relieved. My decision to wait on the EE release is easy now.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

I would say ALL the scores he gave seem very appropriate from what we have seen of the shots

2.5/5 Fellowship.....check
3.5/5 TTT.............seems fair
4/5 ROTK..............again, seems fair.



I hear you. I was pleasantly surprised to see this site actually give the PQ a review it derserves. Bravo Ken



So the screen shots were right after all? Wow.....shocking

FOTR received the same grade as Near Dark for picture, which has the worst transfer of all Blu-Ray's released by a major studio and worse than Gladiator, again one of the worst transfers on the format. The LOTR review is way off, especially considering Bill Hunt and the other pro-critics analysis.

[wafi]

Originally Posted by AintNoSin

I am disappointed but oddly relieved. My decision to wait on the EE release is easy now.

Ditto!

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by radagast

Pot meet kettle.
Takes one to know one.

Don't introduce me to the Kettle Alf. I was working up the courage to introduce myself to the Kettle.

[Emotiva]

Originally Posted by solarrdadd

while i will probably buy the trilogy when release on blu, i'm bothered that for all of the waiting and delays the PQ has received a very low rating by our reviewer here at the site. the AQ got a perfect 5 for all. for some reason i thought the trilogy was going to have a 7.1 track, i guess this changed. I don't know that i'll double dip but i will more than likely pick this one up. i expect the sound will make the difference for my. i can accept the video looking a bit off par but if the sound is as good as reviewed than i can live with that.

still, i wonder, what they were doing all of this time if they could pulll a perfect 5 x 5 for A & P quality. I will bet you that Avatar will pull a perfect score. cameron won't let that out without it. i guess mr. jackson should have been more involved--if that were even possible that is.

I honestly dont believe in reviews anymore, Everyone was against Gladiator on Blu and I didnt mind at all. It was way better then the DVD version, and the same goes for Lord Of The Rings. Is it better then DVD? Yes, is the sound better? Of Course, and thats all that matters. Some people are too picky and nothing is good enough for them. I will buy it for sure, and will enjoy it all the way. I wonder what KEN (Reviewer) watched it on. Maybe a bubble TV lol. Dont listen to them, believe in your own eyes with your own equippment. Take Care

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

FOTR received the same grade as Near Dark for picture, which has the worst transfer of all Blu-Ray's released by a major studio and worse than Gladiator, again one of the worst transfers on the format. The LOTR review is way off, especially considering Bill Hunt and the other pro-critics analysis.

All reviewers have their own system. You can't say X reviewer gave this movie Y and A reviewer gave this movie B, it doesn't work .

[kslee]

Today I received this triology and will watch them during the Easter holidays. As per the blu-ray reviewer, the PQ of LOTR I is below par and I will find out whether it is true or not.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by CraigW

Don't forget Jackson and Newline/Warner have not exactly had the smoothest relationship. They tried to screw Jackson out of royalties by creative accounting, a common practice since 'high-profile' talent expects to share in the wealth. Remember Jackson was a pratical unknown before LOTR, but he delivered way beyond the expectations of the studio and they tried to screw him.

Also, remember Jackson has probably been very occupied with getting the production of the Hobbit films ready so I doubt he committed a significant portion of time to 'approve' the transfers.

Let's just keep our fingers crossed, the EEs make up for this. But mark my words Warner, I am only buying this set once and I don't buy anything anymore especially from your studio until I hear a consensus of opinions on the final product. I don't always believe the 'scientists' at that other forum since some still have an axe to grind against BD, but their initial opinions have proved right several times.

Jackson wields considerable power in the film industry, and LoTR will undoubtedly go down as a masterpiece and his finest effort. If he wants his finest effort to get the best effort from the company that is marketing the product of his labor, I must assume he can make it happen. Let's hope so, because it is pretty much in his ballpark now. Remastering and reissuing the movies is not a trivial endeavor for the studio, and the suits are going to balk against it. I think will take someone like Jackson to get WB to confess to their sins and move the executive inertia.

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by Emotiva

I honestly dont believe in reviews anymore, Everyone was against Gladiator on Blu and I didnt mind at all. It was way better then the DVD version, and the same goes for Lord Of The Rings. Is it better then DVD? Yes, is the sound better? Of Course, and thats all that matters. Some people are too picky and nothing is good enough for them. I will buy it for sure, and will enjoy it all the way. I wonder what KEN (Reviewer) watched it on. Maybe a bubble TV lol. Dont listen to them, believe in your own eyes with your own equippment. Take Care

What if you had a 10 foot screen and sat 12 feet away? Movies with sub par transfers would look bad. So it is all relative although some people can really notice DNR even from 2+ screen widths away.