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

[Ken Brown]

Hi all. Thought I'd enter the fray for a moment. I'm currently working on the Blu-ray.com review and thought I'd both confirm and assuage some fears. 'Fellowship' does suffer from DNR and edge enhancement issues, and looks strangely older than it should -- its transfer is fairly inconsistent and almost seems unstable at times. 'Two Towers' is much better, and certainly sharper when it comes to fine details, but still has some problems, although mainly in the EE department. However, 'Return of the King' looks much more like all three films should. I'm still in the early stages of my analysis, but DNR isn't a significant factor (if one at all), the image is quite crisp, and I haven't been distracted by any significant EE, non-source inconsistencies, or instabilities. At least not yet

Again, this is just an early assessment -- a full review will be coming soon -- but I thought you might be interested in my initial findings. Thanks as always for posting.

[RyRyMcNizzy13]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Hi all. Thought I'd enter the fray for a moment. I'm currently working on the Blu-ray.com review and thought I'd both confirm and assuage some fears. 'Fellowship' does suffer from DNR and edge enhancement issues, and looks strangely older than it should -- its transfer is fairly inconsistent and almost seems unstable at times. 'Two Towers' is much better, and certainly sharper when it comes to fine details, but still has some problems, although mainly in the EE department. However, 'Return of the King' looks much more like all three films should. I'm still in the early stages of my analysis, but DNR isn't a significant factor (if one at all), the image is quite crisp, and I haven't been distracted by any significant EE, non-source inconsistencies, or instabilities. At least not yet

Again, this is just an early assessment -- a full review will be coming soon -- but I thought you might be interested in my initial findings. Thanks as always for posting.

sounds to me like wit will be worth the asking price. thank you.

[42041]

Originally Posted by RyRyMcNizzy13

if the reviewers are giving it good reviews but saying it looks like the crappy screencaps then what gives?

It would be far from the first time people watched the same disc and came to completely different conclusions about it. I think The Dark Knight is a very average disc for the most part, others think it's reference. Who knows. Everyone's got different displays, different viewing distances, different standards and expectations. Since this is a release of such magnitude, any flaws are attacked much more vigorously by disappointed fans expecting all three movies to be solid gold. Someone with more grounded expectations might think it's a solid release.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by 42041

It would be far from the first time people watched the same disc and came to completely different conclusions about it. I think The Dark Knight is a very average disc for the most part, others think it's reference. Who knows. Everyone's got different displays, different viewing distances, different standards and expectations. Since this is a release of such magnitude, any flaws are attacked much more vigorously by disappointed fans expecting all three movies to be solid gold. Someone with more grounded expectations might think it's a solid release.

Peoples expectations are perfectly grounded given the technology that exists to restore and remaster a film.

Peoples expectations are perfectly grounded in expecting an image that is one of the very best Blu-ray/1080p can offer in that:

1. These movies are highly regarded and well respected masterpieces, completely and without question, argument or debate, deserving of the "full treatment" as it were.

2. Given past masterful transfers of even older movies, there's no reason these should not be, for lack of a better word, PERFECT.

3. the movies themselves where beautifully shot and we are not talking on bad 80's film stock here either.

Basically what that reasonably, really does amount to is: Solid gold.

[Porco Azzurro]

We all want great picture quality, but honestly some of those 'terrible' screenshots of the BD version look a lot better to me. I do prefer grain to be left in usually, and I will admit that there is some detail lost in some of those shots, but there's also a lot of what look like compression artifacts on the HDTV version that are just not there on the BD one, and I would find them far more annoying. The colour fidelity looks much better on the BD shots to me too, as much as you can tell with screengrabs online anyway. This isn't anywhere near the same order of fail as Gladiator was IMHO. Although I don't know if any arrows are missing yet The DNR people must really hate films with arrows in now.

These are a must buy for me anyway. I find it hugely hilarious that there are so many people complaining these aren't the Extended Editions when I bet many of those people complaining will be the same ones moaning about George Lucas not releasing the 'theatrical' Star Wars films on BD... I'll be happy to double dip on these films on BD.

The later release of the EEs gives them a chance to please some of you unhappy with this release anyway.

[HeManster03]

Originally Posted by 42041

do they have my setup?
do they have my eyes?
do they have my quality standards?
if not, who cares? only an idiot would trust others' opinions over his own.

This goes to illustrate the point that who cares what reviewers say,and who cares what the screencaps say. If your not buying it day 1, which I personally am, then you can head to your netflix account and que it up and when it gets to your house watch it and make up your own mind. My eyes are different from your eyes. My set up is different from your set up. Standards are probably the same. Why must we keep beating this dead horse. Wait until the movie comes out and we can all watch it THEN if we think it sucks, we can ***** up and down all we like(much like we did with Gladiator). Until then, this thread equates to slamming your head against a wall. It's entertaining, but essentially pointless.

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by radagast

Yes. I agree.

Please, don't insult us. That is a ridiculous statement. I wasn't planning on buying this release even if it looked amazing. I'm just disappointing it doesn't look good because the EE may look the same.

[Mike2060]

Originally Posted by RyRyMcNizzy13

all i know is I'm going to trust trusted reviewers over anybody posting screencaps on forums. you never the people on these forums could be trying to sabotage this movie in hope of them releasing the extened editions sooner. people do stupid things on the internet. however these reviewers have reviewed movies time and time and they always seem to be spot on specially with the quality of the discs and now there being put in question of some forum people? and why does every screen shot i see (from different people) always have the same exact shots in them? and why of why is it just of the 1st movie and then they say all movies are bad? IMO dont trust people on a forum that could possibly be pissed that the EE's arent released. i would go with the reviewers.

The same reviewers who gave Gladiator a glowing review? The people who have done the screen caps are completely trusted, they aren't some unknown person.

Some of you people have the most retarded conspiracy theories as to why the BDs look bad. You seriously think that eric.exe applied the DNR himself?? REALLLY?!?!? That is the most convoluted bullshit I've heard in a while, especially doing it because they don't like the TE LOL. You guys are definitely in some sort of denial that your most beloved LOTR trilogy could be screwed up and you just can't accept it. It's something a 10 year old would do.

[HAVOKK]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Hi all. Thought I'd enter the fray for a moment. I'm currently working on the Blu-ray.com review and thought I'd both confirm and assuage some fears. 'Fellowship' does suffer from DNR and edge enhancement issues, and looks strangely older than it should -- its transfer is fairly inconsistent and almost seems unstable at times. 'Two Towers' is much better, and certainly sharper when it comes to fine details, but still has some problems, although mainly in the EE department. However, 'Return of the King' looks much more like all three films should. I'm still in the early stages of my analysis, but DNR isn't a significant factor (if one at all), the image is quite crisp, and I haven't been distracted by any significant EE, non-source inconsistencies, or instabilities. At least not yet

Again, this is just an early assessment -- a full review will be coming soon -- but I thought you might be interested in my initial findings. Thanks as always for posting.

Well I had to let out a sigh of relief after reading this. Having only watched the first, I feared the next two would look the same, and I totally agree on the first looking old.. Even the titles, like the text seems like that of a classic film. I'm not sure how they managed to pull that one off with a 2001 movie but it is what it is.

Will be checking out the second here later today hopefully, and I can only pray you are right

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Uh, what's to argue with?

He'll said he'll ask why they look bad and he'll look into if the BD versions look worse than the broadcast versions. He then talks about how they definitely shouldn't be. He said it "demands a thorough review." OK, fine. I agree. He says:

However, if the screenshots posted by ‘eric.exe’ are indeed reliable, I honestly don’t understand why the screenshots of the broadcast version of FOTR are ”better” as they claim, compared to the Blu-ray. That just shouldn’t be, meaning the broadcast version should not be of better picture quality than the Blu-ray edition.

Eric.exe's screens are most certainly reliable, as they always have been. He was the first to reveal the Gladiator problems. He is never deceptive with these screens.

So, once again, I agree.

Well, they do look worse. And he's right -they shouldn't be. It's not acceptable.

It's obvious they were using the old master used for the broadcast versions. He goes on to say he hopes it wasn't due to an application of DNR. Well, I agree. Unfortunately - it was. Look at the comparison pics - in many examples things are completely robbed of fine detail and turned to wax. It could not be more of a cut and dried example of DNR application. It virtually is the broadcast plus DNR, and for a Blu Ray release that is seriously lackluster.

Do you post just to post by the way?

Look who's talking. You keep saying the same things over and over. There was more to his post than what you quoted.

Digital Bits has been a well respected site for information, esp. during the format wars. NOW, because he gives a positive review to the LOTR BD, the site is branded as a hack site. What did Penton-man say about PJ's involvement with the production of the LOTR BDs? Why don't we all vent our anger at him now?

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Hi all. Thought I'd enter the fray for a moment. I'm currently working on the Blu-ray.com review and thought I'd both confirm and assuage some fears. 'Fellowship' does suffer from DNR and edge enhancement issues, and looks strangely older than it should -- its transfer is fairly inconsistent and almost seems unstable at times. 'Two Towers' is much better, and certainly sharper when it comes to fine details, but still has some problems, although mainly in the EE department. However, 'Return of the King' looks much more like all three films should. I'm still in the early stages of my analysis, but DNR isn't a significant factor (if one at all), the image is quite crisp, and I haven't been distracted by any significant EE, non-source inconsistencies, or instabilities. At least not yet

Again, this is just an early assessment -- a full review will be coming soon -- but I thought you might be interested in my initial findings. Thanks as always for posting.

If you don't fully agree with Stinky and his horde, prepare for the onslaught. I applaud your bravery though.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

What, that PJ said he approved them? Everyone knows this. This information goes back to interviews he did in December and is hardly new.


That certainly doesn't mean they weren't using the same old master. The fact that it looks virtually identical to the broadcast version + added DNR is the issue here. THe fact that they didn't remaster it and it looks nowhere near as good as it should. Even a reviewer on this site, a few posts above yours, is saying it looks oddly old and has DNR issues.

I think you just like being annoying for the sake of being annoying.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by radagast

If you don't fully agree with Stinky and his horde, prepare for the onslaught. I applaud your bravery though.

Hahahahaha, did you even read his post:


I'm currently working on the Blu-ray.com review and thought I'd both confirm and assuage some fears. 'Fellowship' does suffer from DNR and edge enhancement issues, and looks strangely older than it should -- its transfer is fairly inconsistent and almost seems unstable at times.


That's exactly what we've been saying all along, Einstein.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

Please, don't insult us. That is a ridiculous statement. I wasn't planning on buying this release even if it looked amazing. I'm just disappointing it doesn't look good because the EE may look the same.

How is my agreeing with someone else insulting you, unless you have a sick need to have everyone agree with you? Deal with it.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Hi all. Thought I'd enter the fray for a moment. I'm currently working on the Blu-ray.com review and thought I'd both confirm and assuage some fears. 'Fellowship' does suffer from DNR and edge enhancement issues, and looks strangely older than it should -- its transfer is fairly inconsistent and almost seems unstable at times. 'Two Towers' is much better, and certainly sharper when it comes to fine details, but still has some problems, although mainly in the EE department. However, 'Return of the King' looks much more like all three films should. I'm still in the early stages of my analysis, but DNR isn't a significant factor (if one at all), the image is quite crisp, and I haven't been distracted by any significant EE, non-source inconsistencies, or instabilities. At least not yet

Again, this is just an early assessment -- a full review will be coming soon -- but I thought you might be interested in my initial findings. Thanks as always for posting.

Thanks for taking the time to address the issue Ken

I can't wait to read your reviews of them

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Here, start with my first post about 10 pages back and move on from there.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mo...ml#post3052401

What he's talking about in the last page is exactly what we've been talking about.

Apparently you haven't even understood what we've been saying up to this point.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

How is that any different trhan me saying "You buy it and stop posting about it? You've said what you think now go rant about something else."

Change in the next two weeks? No.

Change in the next several months? Maybe.

The same thing happened with Galdiator.


And Peter Jackson had nothing to do with the mastering (or lack thereof) of this film. He just approved the discs they sent him - that's all. They could've obviously sent him the broadcast versions transferred to BD's and he would've approved it, it doesn't make the quality of the transfer any less of a let down.

And I don't hate Warner, I just don't like this release, it has nothing to do with Warner as a company. I didn't like the Gladiator release at all but I don't hate Paramount. The treatment Warner gave Bladerunner, another one of my favorite movies, I had no complaints about whatsoever.

Regardless of you continuing to endlessly talk in circles this movie is nowhere near the level of quality it should be. I don't even know what you're defending at this point.

[aquariuz]

Special Features:
Disc 1

* Feature Film: The Fellowship of the Ring
* Trailers:
o The Lord of the Rings trilogy supertrailer
o The Lord of the Rings: Aragorn's Quest game trailer
o The Lord of the Rings: War in the North game trailer

Disc 2

* Houghton Mifflin In-Store Special: Welcome to Middle-Earth
* Fox TV Special: Quest for the Ring
* Sci-Fi Channel Special: A Passage to Middle-Earth
* Lordoftherings.net featurettes:
o Finding Hobbiton
o Hobbiton Comes Alive
o Believing the World of Bree
o Ringwraiths: The Fallen Kings
o Rivendell: The Elven Refuge
o Languages of Middle-Earth
o Two Wizards
o Music of Middle-Earth
o Elijah Wood
o Viggo Mortensen
o Orlando Bloom
o Cate Blanchett
o Liv Tyler
o Ian McKellen
o Weathertop: The Windy Hill
* Six TV spots
* Music video: Enya, May it Be
* Special extended DVD edition preview
* The Two TowersBehind-the-scenes preview

Disc 3

* Feature film: The Two Towers
* Trailers:
o The Lord of the Rings trilogy supertrailer
o The Lord of the Rings: Aragorn's Quest game trailer
o The Lord of the Rings: War in the North game trailer

Disc 4

* Starz Encore Special: On the Set "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers"
* WB Special: Return to Middle-Earth
* The Long and Short of It, a short film directed by Sean Astin
* The Making of "The Long and Short of It"
* Lordoftherings.net featurettes:
o Forces of Darkness
o Designing the Sounds of Middle-Earth
o Edoras: The Rohan Capital
o Creatures of Middle-Earth
o Gandalf the White
o Arms and Armor
o The Battle of Helm's Deep
o Bringing Gollum to Life
* 16 TV spots
* Music video: Emiliana Torrini, Gollum's Song
* Special extended DVD edition preview
* Behind-the-scenes preview of "The Return of the King"

Disc 5

* Feature Film: The Return of the King
* Trailers:
o The Lord of the Rings trilogy supertrailer
o The Lord of the Rings: Aragorn's Quest game trailer
o The Lord of the Rings: War in the North game trailer

Disc 6

* The Quest Fulfilled: A Director's Vision
* A Filmaker's journey: Making "The Return of the King"
* National Geographic Special: "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"
* Lordoftherings.net featurettes:
o Aragorn's Destiny
o Minas Tirith: Capital of Gondor
o The Battle of Pelennor Fields
o Samwise the Brave
o Eowyn: White Lady of Rohan
o Digital Horse Doubles
* 13 TV spots
* Special extended DVD edition preview

Disc 7

* Digital copy on disc: The Fellowship of the Ring

Disc 8

* Digital copy on disc: The Two Towers

Disc 9

* Digital copy on disc: The Return of the King

[robertc88]

Here's the short of it:

Those who do not have the access to HDTV broadcasts of these movies (the majority) will be asking for comparisons of the BDs to the SD DVDs or they can rent the BDs and do that themselves. Another release is quite awhile away. If the price is right, the trilogy on BD will be scarfed up like hotcakes if it is no contest. And there is the upgrade of the audio to consider as well.

[robertc88]

Eric endorsed Gladiator from what I remember for the most part and was confused as to why what he posted on his take was taken so negatively. Look through that thread and see for oneself.

This isn't Gladiator, right?