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

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Steve46

The most important thing is that they get the PQ and AQ right.

Its Warner, dont hold your breath

[ckenisell]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Its Warner, dont hold your breath

exactly

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by BluBrown

Not saying you're wrong at all(I actually hope you're right) but why wouldn't they do the same with the TE's knowing full well that they would prpobably make a few extra dollars?

I don't know. Maybe the Bourne and Matrix box sets sold well enough to make it worth imitating.

Maybe they decided that:

1. It will cost more to create individual releases in addition to the box set and...

2. Anyone who buys one LOTR movie is probably going to buy all three, so why bother?

It's harder to make a case for the box set when:

1. You probably have four movies per disc (assuming the BD EEs are similar to the DVD versions), and...

2. You're trying to maximize the potential for promoting The Hobbit.

[STARSCREAM]

I know there are many here and at other forums who insist they aren't buying these BUT I'd like to know the percentage of those who actually hold out when they are released. You know it's gonna be mighty tempting everytime you go out and see that LOTR blu-ray boxset just looking back at you on the shelf.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by STARSCREAM

I know there are many here and at other forums who insist they aren't buying these BUT I'd like to know the percentage of those who actually hold out when they are released. You know it's gonna be mighty tempting everytime you go out and see that LOTR blu-ray boxset just looking back at you on the shelf.

Nope! Won't be that difficult actualy, it's not like I won't be seeing the TE, I know some of my friends will be getting them, so I will see them from time to time. I truly have no problems waiting for the EE.

[Mike2060]

I'm quite sure Warner will do a good job on these Blurays. Considering how much money it's going to generate, I'm sure they will spend some time and money getting them right.

[drizzt]

I noticed upon checking the info on the aspect ratio it's coming out in 2.39:1. I wish all blu rays especially the new ones would somehow always come in 1.78:1. I know it depends on the cameras used during filming of the movie but why can't they do away with everything not in this format and from here on out just film in an aspect that will fill everyone's screens!!! There I've said it!

[helius]

Originally Posted by drizzt

I noticed upon checking the info on the aspect ratio it's coming out in 2.39:1. I wish all blu rays especially the new ones would somehow always come in 1.85:1. I know it depends on the cameras used during filming of the movie but why can't they do away with everything not in this format and from here on out just film in an aspect that will fill everyone's screens!!! There I've said it!

It won't happen because the directors don't want to. You should send your complaints to Peter Jackson.

[helius]

Originally Posted by STARSCREAM

I know there are many here and at other forums who insist they aren't buying these BUT I'd like to know the percentage of those who actually hold out when they are released. You know it's gonna be mighty tempting everytime you go out and see that LOTR blu-ray boxset just looking back at you on the shelf.

It was quite painful for me, but I managed to hold out for the extended editions back in the days of DVD. It should be even less of an issue this time around, since I still have the DVDs.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by drizzt

I noticed upon checking the info on the aspect ratio it's coming out in 2.39:1. I wish all blu rays especially the new ones would somehow always come in 1.78:1. I know it depends on the cameras used during filming of the movie but why can't they do away with everything not in this format and from here on out just film in an aspect that will fill everyone's screens!!! There I've said it!

because its the directors movies and their vision and they want to film in the aspect ratio that they see fit for the movie they are creating

[drizzt]

Originally Posted by helius

It won't happen because the directors don't want to. You should send your complaints to Peter Jackson.

You're right I should direct it to Jackson Thanks for the tip.

[drizzt]

Originally Posted by Diesel

because its the directors movies and their vision and they want to film in the aspect ratio that they see fit for the movie they are creating

But screen size should'nt affect their vision only ours because my 46" may as well be a 40 or 42 inch you know.

[drizzt]

Something I mean't to write as well was bravo that the movies are coming out on blu. and as for the ratio I should have wrote 1.78:1 or 1.85:1

[DaViD Boulet]

Sigh,

do we need another lesson in the fact that the film was *composed* by the director in the wider aspect ratio? That was his decision. Now the choice would be to cut off the left/right of the screen. Which characters did you think should be cut out?

I should have wrote

Oh, it makes sense now.

Sub par in both that still beat the DVDs are fine by me.

frightening. That's just the could-care-less attitude that studio execs are hoping for... throw out lackluster transfers and then charge you all over again to do it right later once you've realized how much better properly mastered material looks on your new large-screen HD monitor.

[DaViD Boulet]

But screen size should'nt affect their vision only ours because my 46" may as well be a 40 or 42 inch you know.

Assuming that this is new information for you:

1. screen "size" has nothing to do with aspect ratio. You can watch 2.35:1 movies on a 13" screen or a 130 foot screen.

2. When you go to the movies, have you noticed that *in the theater* they are different shapes? Some are "normal" rectangle... 1.85 which comes out close to your 16x9 TV. But others are much wider... the 2.35 and up movies.

They're that shape because that's the way they're made. The director wants the movie to have that shape for the effect they are going for.

The problem isn't the movie, the problem is your TV. the industry settled on 16x9 because it was half-way between square 4x3 TV and movies (old movies) and the wide shaped movies. But your TV can only be one shape, so it has to fit other-shaped material on it by letterboxing (either that, or you cut off part of the picture to "zoom" to fill the set or distort the shape etc.).

The real solution is to get a projector where you can mask off the unused screen without noticing that it's gone (with black curtains etc.)... then you're literally duplicating the real thing.

But for now, just learn to appreciate the picture as the artist made it.

[drizzt]

I can understand all the arguments and respect every comment. Why people come unglued over it and get nasty just makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Having said that I agree the most with any who think native filming should be shot in such a way as to fill the new widescreen televisions. It's the way of the future. People don't use vcrs the way they used to. We are now using blu ray dvd players. Why is this so hard to get? Anyhow hats off to anyone who can make both sides happy. So can everyone relax. now? Probably not right.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by drizzt

I can understand all the arguments and respect every comment. Why people come unglued over it and get nasty just makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Having said that I agree the most with any who think native filming should be shot in such a way as to fill the new widescreen televisions. It's the way of the future. People don't use vcrs the way they used to. We are now using blu ray dvd players. Why is this so hard to get? Anyhow hats off to anyone who can make both sides happy. So can everyone relax. now? Probably not right.

because if they were to use only 16-9 and make it fit in your TV, we would be missing out on some amazing camera shots, think of some of the exterior shots we see in LOTR, they would not be the same only in 16-9

[dcowboy7]

If Peter Jackson & all other directors are so intent on making people see the movie the way it was intended in the exact format it was filmed why does he let TNTHD show all 3 LOTRs movies in full screen 16x9 cutting off the sides & not OAR ?

How comes thats ok by him ?

[DaViD Boulet]

I can understand all the arguments and respect every comment. Why people come unglued over it and get nasty just makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Having said that I agree the most with any who think native filming should be shot in such a way as to fill the new widescreen televisions. It's the way of the future. People don't use vcrs the way they used to. We are now using blu ray dvd players. Why is this so hard to get? Anyhow hats off to anyone who can make both sides happy. So can everyone relax. now? Probably not right.

The confusion is that it sounded like you were implying that the *discs* should be 1.78:1... which would have meant cropping. That's why folks got so "protective" as every 5 minutes some blu-ray newbie doesn't understand why there "are black bars" on his HDTV and thinks he should zoom his 2.35:1 image cropping off the sides to see his/her screen filled. So that's the daily context through which folks read your statements.

Now, indeed you did actually say that the film-makers themselves should choose the 1.78:1 aspect ratio from the start in the theater.

Ok, nothing wrong with that... as you're not talking about chopping movies in half.

However, I'd suggest that 16x9 is a compromise for most film-makers. Next time you go to the theater and the movie switches from the opening trailer to the real 2.35:1 film watch what happens.

Does the 2.35:1 movie show up letterboxed inside the 1.85:1 window where the trailers were being shown?

Nope. The curtains pull back on the left/right so that the 2.35:1 movie is panoramic and fills the entire stage in a way that 1.85:1 movies don't do. In other words, 2.35:1 movies are supposed to be WIDER, not "narrower" like they are on your 16x9 screen.

The drama and impact of a 2.35:1 movie on the big screen cannot be beat... 1.85:1 movies feel "budget" by comparison (in general).

The future may not be as 16x9-locked as you think, even in the home. Now that we're free from CRT tubes, displays can be made in any shape without difficulty. With no vacuum tube to create physical problems, a native 2.35:1 HDTV would be no big deal to manufacture. Expect to see some "high end" 2.35:1 sets showing up over the next few years. And naturally, in the front-projection world, you can really do constant-height and have 2.35:1 movies "get wider" just like they do in the theater.

because if they were to use only 16-9 and make it fit in your TV, we would be missing out on some amazing camera shots, think of some of the exterior shots we see in LOTR, they would not be the same only in 16-9

Agreed. The dramatic cinematography of real widescreen would feel pretty cramped if all you had to work with was 16x9.

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

If Peter Jackson & all other directors are so intent on making people see the movie the way it was intended in the exact format it was filmed why does he let TNTHD show all 3 LOTRs movies in full screen 16x9 cutting off the sides & not OAR ?

How comes thats ok by him ?

Um, it's not, but he has no control over TV broadcasts like he does over the DVD and Blu-rays.

16:9 "full-screen" vs. OAR is more a matter of the network's policy than anything else. For example, I think HBO tends to crop films to 16:9 on their HD channels while Showtime doesn't. Or vice-versa.