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

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Has anyone investigated or explained the discrepancies between the high-def television broadcasts and the Blu-ray transfers? If we're truly dealing with a source issue, and this is the best 'FotR' can possibly look, how is it that the high-def TV broadcast showcases more fine detail in key shots than the BD transfer? If the DNR that's being discussed was present all along, how was it reduced or removed for the TV broadcast?

Please don't misunderstand. I'm certainly not trying to be argumentative -- there are many people, Jeff included, who are far more knowledgeable when it comes to source/master/print matters than me -- but I'm genuinely curious. I would really like to hear someone offer an explanation that addresses the Blu-ray/HD-broadcast discrepancies.

+1........Does not make sense to me and I would love to hear an explanation.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by bfellow

Umm I thought the first Fifth Element sucked so they had to remaster that one.

Yes it did, but for a time before they did there were screenshots of the HDTV broadcast that initially appeared more detailed than the BD. Further investigaton revealed that it was just detail enhancement. Same transfer.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by MCT

precisely. They've essentially admitted guilt with that move. Bet you if that review had been littered with praise, those screenshots would still be there.

edit: it's probably a combination of what the poster above me said and this.

They did the same thing with the Batman Anthology review, and yet those discs look fine.

[billzfan]

Has anyone on this board actually seen the blu-rays? Are the video transfers that terrible?

[jw]

Originally Posted by billzfan

Has anyone on this board actually seen the blu-rays? Are the video transfers that terrible?

99% of them, No
Most have seen some bit torrent version or screencaps. That's what I have gathered from reading this thread over the past few weeks

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me and I doubt they'll do it. This is probably the most popular film franchise they own rights to and they would do well to hear out the polite and calm public in this case.

Not much to hear out - this is what the theatrical editions are gonna look like for a real long time.

They will get eaten up by super-fans with a healthy dose of "Please sir may I have another".

That said, I've learned to take Blu-ray reviews with a grain of salt when it comes to PQ. I've found many reviewers have very strange and in some cases ridiculously high standards when it comes to transfers. I've read many a Blu-ray review where they say it's got sub-par picture quality and when I've seen the actual disc I've thought they were spectacular. I don't watch movies from six inches from the screen staring at a set of pixels so close I can see them individually to critique, so even the worst Blu-ray transfer looks pretty darn good to me.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by mredman

Thats what i am saying also. I bet this was the intended look by Peter Jackson and the crazy nitpicky videophiles will not see that they will never be happy because they expected a 5/5 PQ.

Also he wouldn't have approved this. And this was actually the 4th transfer they did for him and he approved this one.

Based on this post, I'm running out and buying two copies, as mredman's constant spiel has convinced me...

[gaeljet]

http://www.blurayenfrancais.com/blu-...-arrivent.html
translate it intot english, it says that the EE should be released at the end of the year with a new transfer

[jw]

Originally Posted by gaeljet

http://www.blurayenfrancais.com/blu-...-arrivent.html
translate it intot english, it says that the EE should be released at the end of the year with a new transfer

That information is incorrect, try 2012
https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=3817

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by billzfan

Has anyone on this board actually seen the blu-rays? Are the video transfers that terrible?

Yeah, I have the UK box set and it looks fine. I've checked it on two tv's, my 48inch LG Plasma, and a 22inch Samsung LCD, and there were no problems. Fellowship looked a little underwhelming, but thats about the worst I can say. In all honesty I don't see anyone in the "real" world actually even noticing any supposed "issues". The two big film magazines in the UK reviewed the set this month, with not a mention towards any problems with the transfers. It really is just a situation for the obsessives to torture themselves over.

[hurm]

Originally Posted by gaeljet

http://www.blurayenfrancais.com/blu-...-arrivent.html
translate it intot english, it says that the EE should be released at the end of the year with a new transfer

It makes sense since the EE on DVD are out of print...

[Celerony]

Out of print?
Here in the Netherlands you can still find the whole 12 disc DVD trilogy for 30 euros or so.

[jpeterross]

As I was disappointed that we will have to wait for the EE for the holy trilogy, i have been kicking myself, that i sold, the theatrical editions years ago when the extended editions came out, and have been wanting to rebuy them for my collection, and have my kciking myself ever since.

So i may pick these up. As they are my favorite movies, and I love the Rings. I was over at a friends house a few weeks ago, and they only have the theatrical editions, and we watched Fellowship, and i noticed it is quite a different experience, because i have not watched the theatrical editions in a long time.

[hurm]

Originally Posted by Celerony

Out of print?
Here in the Netherlands you can still find the whole 12 disc DVD trilogy for 30 euros or so.

In the US, they are out of print

[Paulst10]

Originally Posted by billzfan

Has anyone on this board actually seen the blu-rays? Are the video transfers that terrible?

Yes, I have, I posted a few days ago then deleted it as it got ignored in all the mayhem


Fellowship IMO, has more bad looking content than good but also has some spectacular looking scenes (Moria for example). When I say bad looking I don't mean horrendous by any means... it's better than the DVD but doesn't compare to the sequels.

Two Towers, I couldn't really fault it, roughly 95% of the film looks stunning on my system... maybe members with better systems/bigger screens will be able to find more faults, but I can't

Return Of The King is meant to be better still but I have only flicked through it briefly.

See sig for system...

[_ck]

Originally Posted by captveg

Not at all. It screams of a legal department that has contracts for actor images to protect. If places they send discs to for official reviews put those contracts in jeopardy they will no longer send that website review copies. If they were "guilty" about the discs they would have made them remove the text of the review as well.

I don't buy that one bit. Especially when Ken said (paraphrasing) that WB doesn't like "unauthorized" screencaps (period), yet the new Sherlock Holmes review just posted has screencaps, and they didn't make them take down screencaps for ALL WB titles. What would make LOTR so extremely special compared to EVERYTHING else they've released? No, I don't buy your explanation one bit. They've never done it before, and now it just "randomly" happens with a major release that gets panned. Their reasons aren't legal, they are damage control and guilt.

WB can't force a site take out their text/review. Blu-ray.com has authorship and copyright of what they write, as anyone does with anything they create. WB do own the films, and the screencaps fall under their ownership, but to take away a review they need to go to court (or put a lot of pressure on a site to coerce them to remove it). WB aren't so dumb that they'd try to force Blu-ray.com take down the review though, they know that'd just make it even worse.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Paulst10

Yes, I have, I posted a few days ago then deleted it as it got ignored in all the mayhem


Fellowship IMO, has more bad looking content than good but also has some spectacular looking scenes (Moria for example). When I say bad looking I don't mean horrendous by any means... it's better than the DVD but doesn't compare to the sequels.

Two Towers, I couldn't really fault it, roughly 95% of the film looks stunning on my system... maybe members with better systems/bigger screens will be able to find more faults, but I can't

Return Of The King is meant to be better still but I have only flicked through it briefly.

See sig for system...

Interesting, you guys have separate cases.

[Paulst10]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Interesting, you guys have separate cases.

Yeh, but you get Digital Copies

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Paulst10

Yeh, but you get Digital Copies

True that

[radagast]

Originally Posted by aimforsilence

If you don't all already know, blu-ray.com has reviewed the set. Sad to hear that fellowship supposedly get screwed by a shitty video transfer. Though on second thought i guess you have to half expect that, as they are probably hard at work at transferring the Extended versions to be released along side The Hobbit in theaters.. either way, I am still getting suckered into buying it, as they are 3 (or in my mind 1) of my favorite films.

If the news on this site is correct, the EEs are coming out later this year, which does not bode well. It sounds like Warner isn't putting out any extra effort to make them look better than the TEs.