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

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

It certainly is not standing by your review 100% either. Like I said above, you really think this was a initial mistake considering he changed the score when he added his little PQ comments? I dont buy that for a second.

Why don't you consider the possibility of a typo? Maybe when he went back he saw that there was a mistake in the score and changed it. It didn't change that much anyway, so you are REALLY picking at the nits.

[42041]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

When are people going to realise that no matter how much money you throw at certain Blu-ray transfers,they still will only look so good.

Complete nonsense for 99% of the (older) movies out there, including Fellowship.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

bill might have made an error when he posted the review? Who knows but the difference is hardly groundbreaking.

+1

[bhampton]

Hey,

I think about movies like Casino Royale. It's not much newer than LotR all things considered but it was possible to have a nearly reference quality video presentation on Blu and they also didn't take anywhere near as much time to release it.

Movies like The Fifth Element are older than LotR and also have nearly 5 star video quality. I can't possibly believe that given the success of the LotR movies no one bothered to keep a copy in better shape than you can possibly have with Blu Ray. Digital Projectors in theaters have higher resolution than Blu Ray... Is there no digital copy of the video that still exists with top notch quality? No way I can believe that, just no way. I'm sure these movies will come back to theaters again and again over the years. The material exists, they are purposely making this the "can't wait so I'll get them anyway" edition.

-Brian

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by bhampton

This is sort of what I'm thinking. These movies were amazing in the theaters not long ago. Somewhere they exist in a better form and higher resolution than you can get with Blu Ray. (4K at least... There had to have been digital projection versions of these for theaters that had that back then.) It looked "real" on huge screens.

Real? Hardly. It looked gritty and dirty. VFX? Aside from Gollum I could see people "floating" on the miniatures they were superimposed on.

They pretty much only exist in 2K form, and digital projection was in its infancy when these came out: 2002's Star Wars: Episode II played digitally in relatively few theaters, and only at little better than HDTV resolution. 4K digital projection has only been available in the past few years.

They have given reference quality audio with this release and compromised video. I honestly think it's by design. They know they will own the sales chart with these even if they sell them in a plain brown bag.

Conspiracy theories will get you nowhere. It's easier to have great sound and low picture quality: Cloverfield is a prime example.

Movies like The Fifth Element are older than LotR and also have nearly 5 star video quality.

South Pacific (1958) looks better than FAME (1980). What's the point of comparing films done in wildly different styles? The Fifth Element was shot and composited at full film resolution. There were no digital IPs nor was it digitally color graded and processed.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Q!

I disagree here, look at the flashback scenes from Fellowship that are in The Two Towers, I've read that they look better than the scenes in the actual Fellowship movie, of course I could be wrong but there hasn't been anybody who's commented that.

Q, you must be suffering from short term memory loss…….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3073689

And in the following post to that ^ I simplified it the best I could for you and specifically noted the file type which they were saved in.

You later thanked Vincent for this detailed response.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Q, you must be suffering from short term memory loss…….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3073689

And in the following post to that ^ I simplified it the best I could for you and specifically noted the file type which they were saved in.

You later thanked Vincent for this detailed response.

What I meant that everybody else seems to overlook that question, even those who has the LOTR who would be able to see the "proof" for themselves, please forgive my english and how I phrase my questions, it's not my first language.

[bhampton]

PeterTHX,

Cloverfield?!? ... Can't bring that one into the discussion. It looks like it was filmed with a camcorder (but that's kind of the point.)

I'm done debating these and I haven't even seen them yet. . I plan to simply hope LotR will see a high quality release on Blu Ray. I will buy the current issue Theatrical editions if I find them very cheap used but that's not libel to happen anytime soon. (I prefer the theatrical cuts or at least like to have them since that's what I saw at the movies to begin with.)

For those who do buy this edition, I honestly do hope it's enjoyable as that's all that matters anyway.

=Brian

[Q?]

Here's a link from eric.exe from AVS (I know, but check it anyways )
He made screenshots from Fellowship and screenshots from The Two Towers that has flashbacks from Fellowship.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post18374169
Those of you who has the Blu-rays, could you check for yourselves?
I think the screenshots from TTT look better than the Fellowship scenes, so the argument that Fellowship cannot look better is wrong.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Q!

Here's a link from eric.exe from AVS (I know, but check it anyways )
He made screenshots from Fellowship and screenshots from The Two Towers that has flashbacks from Fellowship.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post18374169
Those of you who has the Blu-rays, could you check for yourselves?
I think the screenshots from TTT look better than the Fellowship scenes, so the argument that Fellowship cannot look better is wrong.

However, while those flashback shots could be inserted in FOTR, there might be a marked difference when the FOTR-only shots are playing. FOTR could look as good as TTT and ROTK, but only if Warner went back and took the entire original shots and did the same DI on them that TTT and ROTK had done to them. When I asked Penton-man this he said that it would be very time consuming and expensive.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Q!

Here's a link from eric.exe from AVS (I know, but check it anyways )
He made screenshots from Fellowship and screenshots from The Two Towers that has flashbacks from Fellowship.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post18374169
Those of you who has the Blu-rays, could you check for yourselves?
I think the screenshots from TTT look better than the Fellowship scenes, so the argument that Fellowship cannot look better is wrong.

Has anyone compared those same screenshots on the DVD versions?

[Q?]

Originally Posted by radagast

However, while those flashback shots could be inserted in FOTR, there might be a marked difference when the FOTR-only shots are playing. FOTR could look as good as TTT and ROTK, but only if Warner went back and took the entire original shots and did the same DI on them that TTT and ROTK had done to them. When I asked Penton-man this he said that it would be very time consuming and expensive.

Yes you're right, but Blade Runner certainly did not make as much money as the LOTR franchise, but Warner still managed to release one of the best Blu-ray releases ever, comprehensive release at that.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Q!

Yes you're right, but Blade Runner certainly did not make as much money as the LOTR franchise, but Warner still managed to release one of the best Blu-ray releases ever, comprehensive release at that.

Yes, but Blade Runner probably didn't have as many layers of post-production that LOTR did, counting the fact that there were some new processes being developed that were not mature until ROTK was being finished.

Don't get me wrong. I would LOVE for Warner to go back and give all SIX movies a complete DI refreshing from top to bottom, side to side. I would love to see all the edge-enhancement issues go away as well as the image stabilization, color correction issues etc fixed. It just isn't going to happen by 4-6-2010.

Given the overwhelming anger exhibited on Amazon and elsewhere against releasing the TEs and not releasing the EEs, I think there is a good possibility that Warner will NEVER fix the TEs and MIGHT make the EEs an RQ release.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by radagast

I think there is a good possibility that Warner will NEVER fix the TEs and MIGHT make the EEs an RQ release.[/U]

With all the publicity surrounding the TE's, I would imagine the EE release will be their best effort.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

With all the publicity surrounding the TE's, I would imagine the EE release will be their best effort.

With branching please

[Q?]

Originally Posted by Diesel

With branching please

I was under the impression that branching wouldn't be possible, as the EE cuts have different scores and different editing?

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Q!

I was under the impression that branching wouldn't be possible, as the EE cuts have different scores and different editing?

The DVDs have branching.

[Q?]

I did not know that...

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Q!

I was under the impression that branching wouldn't be possible, as the EE cuts have different scores and different editing?

A few years back, there was a release of each movie that contained both versions. To do it, they used seamless branching. I never saw them, but I wondered how they would do it considering the issues you mention. Gandalf riding into Hobbiton has a different sequence of events in the EE than what appears in the TE.

Those versions appear here on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Rings-Trilogy-...232055&sr=1-15

[Diesel]

I'm actually watching that version of the films these last two days.


I'm currently watching Return of the King.