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

[Diesel]

Yep, 16:9

[tkdkid717]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

If the Blu-Ray theatrical cuts were a significant upgrade from the standard DVD versions I might have considered buying. But in reading the reviews and looking online at the comparison screenshots I just can't justify buying them. I'll probably Netflix them and wait till the extended cuts to come out before actually buying.

Can you point me in the direction of these comparison pics?

[Stinky-Dinkins]

It's going to be tough to use those as a frame of reference, then.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

If the Blu-Ray theatrical cuts were a significant upgrade from the standard DVD versions I might have considered buying. But in reading the reviews and looking online at the comparison screenshots I just can't justify buying them. I'll probably Netflix them and wait till the extended cuts to come out before actually buying.

actually that's only FotR that's been given mediocre PQ reviews. the other two were given great reviews.

and to the OP... Get these, Beleive me the Theatricals are much less boring and tedious to get through than the over bloated Extended cuts. They are much leaner movies and are much closer to what the director wanted. That's why they are called Extended cuts, not directors cuts. Peter Jackson created them to satiate the fans just like "Watchmen Ultimate edition"

[tkdkid717]

Originally Posted by wormraper

actually that's only FotR that's been given mediocre PQ reviews. the other two were given great reviews.

and to the OP... Get these, Beleive me the Theatricals are much less boring and tedious to get through than the over bloated Extended cuts. They are much leaner movies and are much closer to what the director wanted. That's why they are called Extended cuts, not directors cuts. Peter Jackson created them to satiate the fans just like "Watchmen Ultimate edition"

Thank you very much, i agree, the extended can be overbloated. The only thing i like about them is the inclusion of new characters such as the mouth of sauron, also the scene with sauroman on top of the tower in the beginning of ROTK is a very nice addition.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Considering the VERY credible sources who have reported and backed up their claims with evidence, not to mention a good chunk of these guys are watching on big FP screens at appropriate view distances for 1080p (how many people in this particular forum actually fit this criteria???) which makes seeing these issues MUCH easier, I would say your theory is one of conspiracy in nature.........needless to say, I strongly disagree with you. If all we had were a bunch of useless (for the most part) uneducated user reviews, I could go along with your theory as a strong possibility, but considering the sources of disappointment, that is clearly not the case, not even a chance IMO.

I will say this though, if I was viewing this on a 50" or smaller set, at more than 2.0 screen widths away, I would not even waste an ounce of energy worrying about these issues since viewing on that small a screen at that view range will not reveal the issues to the VAST majority of users who dont know any better (which fits MANY is this forum). If you fit this description, hell go enjoy the films as I know I would

Why are you even still discussing this. When Jonmoz who has seen FOTR on a 108 screen. And says it looks good and DEFINITELY not as bad as the screenshots show and some people say.
Actually all on this board who has seen it says it looks good and they even were expecting the worst, yet they got positively surprised by the BD's

That got to count for something when you expect the worst and then get surprised that it is not as bad as some people say it is

[EZMOHR]

Originally Posted by kernel_thai

How much was it at Blockbuster?

It was $67.00 at Blockbuster. But, I had a $20 Gift Card at Blockbuster anyway, so I used that on it as well.

[billzfan]

If people are this heated over Lord of the Rings, can you imagine when Star Wars comes to blu-ray? This is just a warm-up.

[robertc88]

Originally Posted by billzfan

If people are this heated over Lord of the Rings, can you imagine when Star Wars comes to blu-ray? This is just a warm-up.

No, the warm-up was Gladiator and some others before it actually that were high profile.

I expect nothing less then that back and forth then with those and LOTR now (especially FOTR) after it is viewed.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by billzfan

If people are this heated over Lord of the Rings, can you imagine when Star Wars comes to blu-ray? This is just a warm-up.

It's going to be easy for Star Wars, most people won't be buying them since they will be the Special Edition and 90% of members here hate them

Anyone know if LOTR are available for renting?

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

It's going to be easy for Star Wars, most people won't be buying them since they will be the Special Edition and 90% of members here hate them

Anyone know if LOTR are available for renting?

We'll just hear the complaining about THAT

[BPHusker]

I just found that I had a $40 RZ certificate, so I am thinking about picking these up. Just for a warm-up, I threw my FOTR DVD in my PS3 and wow, even upscaled looks pretty ehhhh. Maybe I'm just used to Blu-rays, but I thought it looked horrible on DVD. I hope that the Blu-ray of it isn't this bad.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by mredman

Why are you even still discussing this. When Jonmoz who has seen FOTR on a 108 screen. And says it looks good and DEFINITELY not as bad as the screenshots show and some people say.
Actually all on this board who has seen it says it looks good and they even were expecting the worst, yet they got positively surprised by the BD's

That got to count for something when you expect the worst and then get surprised that it is not as bad as some people say it is

Why cant I discuss this? Last I checked this was a discussion forum? If you dont want to discuss this, why respond to my post??? Kind of a crazy question. I should quit discussing this because one forum member who I am not familiar with who has a 108" screen found these transfers to be better than expected and just ignore all the posters who I have grown to trust through the years who found just the opposite? Not going to happen.

OK, what about Ken, Xylon, Dave, etc, etc, etc who all hold the opinion that IT IS as bad as people have been saying? Personally, and I mean no disrespect toward the members on here, I put MUCH more weight into Kens, Daves, and Xylons reviews which are all (or were in Kens case) backed up by actual evidence supporting what they are talking about. Not to mention these individuals have a much more critical eye than most of the people on this board (again, no offense, but it is true) which is more in-line with how I commonly see these films in my HT, all are using larger screens/projectors like I am (and many others), etc.........If you know and trust the opinions of those on this board in relation to what you commonly find, then you should put more weight into these opinions as compared to Kens, Daves, Xylons, etc........I am just the opposite as I am NOT familiar with the posters on this board (most of them at least) as far as how they view things in relation to how I commonly view things. I am however very familiar with the individuals I mention and their batting average so to speak in relation to what I commonly see in my HT is VERY close which is why I put more weight in their court.

Ultimately and Finaly though, and I think we can both agree on this, each individual needs to decide for themselves with their own eyes, on their own equipment, in their own rooms, etc...........considering this, it is impossible that all of us will agree on ANY title.

As far as expecting the worst and getting surprised that it is not as bad as some have said, there are so many reasons why this is happening and will always happen........does this really surprise you considering all the variables and different levels of experience from one user to the next? Does this really surprise you considering how harshly some of the more critical eyes in the HT community have rated this in relation to the average joe who does not have as critical of an eye (in general)? Does it really surprise you when most people (not all) are viewing these on smaller sets with larger non-optimal seating distances which makes seeing flaws (as well as all the detail 1080p has to offer) considerably harder? I could go on, but you get the point. It is all subjective how much or little these issues on these 3 movies bother you and for a variety of reasons.

[tkdkid717]

Also im worried about something else. What they remaster the picture again when they release the movies separately. Then i will feel like i got gypped. Then i dont want to see them redo the picture quality yet again when they release the extended editions.

[Q?]

Dude, why are you posting in this thread when there's already a thread for LOTR on Blu-ray? Not trying to be anal but what I'm saying, is that there's no reason for this thread.

[jonno394]

Originally Posted by tkdkid717

Also im worried about something else. What they remaster the picture again when they release the movies separately. Then i will feel like i got gypped. Then i dont want to see them redo the picture quality yet again when they release the extended editions.

I highly doubt they'll remaster the theatrical editions again. The effort will probably be put into next years Extended Edition versions. Then once they're out, there will be no reason for anyone to want a remastered theatrical blu.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

It's going to be easy for Star Wars, most people won't be buying them since they will be the Special Edition and 90% of members here hate them

Anyone know if LOTR are available for renting?

From what I know of "New Star Wars" haters and George Lucas haters, they will all buy the Blu-rays, and spend the next decade grousing about how Lucas "forced them" to buy it.

[ack_bak]

Originally Posted by BPHusker

I just found that I had a $40 RZ certificate, so I am thinking about picking these up. Just for a warm-up, I threw my FOTR DVD in my PS3 and wow, even upscaled looks pretty ehhhh. Maybe I'm just used to Blu-rays, but I thought it looked horrible on DVD. I hope that the Blu-ray of it isn't this bad.

The theatrical release on DVD never looked that good IMHO. I am sure the Blu-Ray edition is a big upgrade over the DVD's (especially for TT, and ROTK). I don't think anyone is questioning that. I think is is more of a "what might have been" situation had Warner done this properly.

I refused to buy "Gladiator" on BD after I rented it (for reference I sit just over 11' away from a 100" screen via a 1080p projector). I feel the same about this trilogy. The LOTR trilogy has won countless awards and made billions for the studio. It flat out deserves better. And I am certainly not telling people not to rent it first and watch, or even not to buy it. But if you are a major fan of the trilogy, I don't know how you can not be disappointed with the level of effort here. And I am not just talking about the PQ. They did not release the extended edition. They basically recycled the extras and slapped them on a bunch of DVD's (at least put them all on a BD50 disc). Clearly we are all being setup for a double or triple dip for these, and I am shocked at how so many people seem okay with that....

[ack_bak]

Originally Posted by mredman

Why are you even still discussing this. When Jonmoz who has seen FOTR on a 108 screen. And says it looks good and DEFINITELY not as bad as the screenshots show and some people say.
Actually all on this board who has seen it says it looks good and they even were expecting the worst, yet they got positively surprised by the BD's

That got to count for something when you expect the worst and then get surprised that it is not as bad as some people say it is

I trust Kenneth Brown. His review is very telling. Have you read it yet? Here is a snippet of what he had to say about FOTR:

The image is inconsistent from the outset, a persistent (albeit slight) instability affects the credits and other early elements in the film, colors are a tad overcooked at times, and fine detail is occasionally undermined by some rather obvious digital noise reduction. That's not to say all is lost -- entire sequences, primarily those in the Mines of Moria and the landing (and subsequent battle) at Parth Galen, still manage to make a reasonably strong impact, and the whole of the presentation handily bests its DVD counterparts -- but faces are sometimes scrubbed, Ngila Dickson's elaborate costumes don't always pop, and nighttime shots can be particularly murky (poor Bilbo's birthday party and chat with Gandalf are nearly spoiled). Worse, many key sequences are afflicted with a prevailing softness. Gandalf's visit to the Shire is a rough one, the Council of Elrond is overshadowed by medicore definition and bland textures, and Weathertop offers a stormier encounter than it should. Granted, Jackson employs a variety of camera techniques throughout Fellowship that are meant to lend scenes an otherworldly temperament, but it's easy to spot where Jackson's intentions end and Warner's average transfer begins. Alas, the hits keep on coming. The film's faint veneer of grain is occasionally little more than a soupy mess (that will easily be confused with minor artifacting), a smidgen of edge enhancement has been applied throughout, and crush, flickering, and wavering are regular (but minor) offenders. Has the studio simply taken an old master, tweaked it for high definition, and tossed it to the wargs, warts and all? Perhaps. Regardless, I imagine those who aren't sensitive to DNR will be satisfied with the results, but those who can't help but notice its side effects will be underwhelmed.

Are you going to tell me that Kenneth Brown is biased? His review is posted right on this site.

[batiatus]

Originally Posted by mredman

Actually all on this board who has seen it says it looks good

That is straight-up false.