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

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Fors*

I agree, I just finished reading FOTR yesterday, and some of the scenes missing from the movie jumped out at me for sure. I assume the length of the movie and the "flow" is the reason some of these scenes were omitted. I would have loved to see Lithlorien as it was portrayed in the book.

I appreciate what Jackson did, and these are among my favorite movies, but capturing the essence of the book is a tall order - understandably, since in most literary polls it ranks as one of the greatest books of all time, and was #1 in a few. So Jackson had his work cut out for him, and flow was a big issue since there is a jump between locations and characters in adjacent chapters. There are other instances where the movies introduce problems unnecessarily. The "feel" of Lothlorien in the film does not match the vision of paradise described in the book. A typical example of a "flow" problem is where Merry and Pippin "accidentally" crash into Sam and Frodo in Farmer Maggot's cornfield, eventually all the hobbits fall down the hill, and then there is a discontinuity when Pippin says "A Shortcut to Mushrooms" - and seconds later the first Black Rider appears. Wouldn't it have been simpler (and more believable) just to use the plot in the book?

[TheZoof]

My wife and I watched all three movies over the weekend and in our opinion it is a 'must own'!

It was spectacular.

FotR is softer as many have said although it is not a bad looking movie. The only scene that I really wanted more from was Balrog vs Gandalf.

OH well though...

4/5 overall!

Loved it.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

OK

Exactly.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

I completely agree with you, good point. The problem is, as seen in this very thread, some posters insist on deriding the SIZE of others' TVs in an effort to support their conclusions, as opposed to ACCEPTING the review while simply taking the size into consideration.

If you said to me tomorrow: "O_V_N, I see you watched this on a TV less than 50", and it seems most people with that size TV have the same high opinion. I on the other hand have a 100" projection and it does not look good on my projector." then I would appreciate that.

Instead what I expect (not necessarily from you) is: "O_V_N, your TV is so damn small, no wonder you can't see how terrible this release is. Most of us have real TVs and can see how bad it is!"

One is healthy and productive; one is not.

I agree that a condescending attitude is never helpful.

However, we also need to be honest that there are better and worse ways of viewing blu-ray Disc material since we accept as a given that the goal of home-theater is to serve the intended experience by the director/artist. In the case of movies, that means an approximate 30-degree viewing angle (yes, there are many seats in a theater, but there is an ideal range of viewing for which films are composed).

If someone doens't have a 5.1 audio system but listens through TV speakers, should we kick him/her off the board or make him/her feel ashamed? Of course not. But should we also pretend that his/her listening system is able to communicate faithfully the aural experience as intended by the artist? No, we make sure everyone knows and understands the minimal requirements necessary to cross the threshold of reflecting what the medium and artist really have to offer, even if one doesn't have, or chooses not to use, that type of playback system.

Same thing with video.

We went through this back when DVD was new and most folks had 4x3 TVs. Those of use with 16x9 sets were trying to help educate 4x3 viewers to the virtues of anamorphic DVD on a 16x9 display, and were routinely called snobs and met with a lot of resistance from the general forum membership (I was almost banned from HTF for pushing for 16x9 in a few cases).

Then with time, everyone relaxed and got less defensive, and the advocates for 16x9 learned to sound less critical while talking about how much better 16x9 display was, and slowly even folks without 16x9 sets started to get that it would be better and planned that their next TV would be 16x9 when they could afford it.

Wide-angle is the "new anamorphic" for blu-ray Disc. It's something that's not familiar to most folks and it's not something that former media really supported. But it's what the director intended, and it's what blu-ray can deliver, and it should be the basis for *all* disc reviews and evaluation as it reveals flaws that are in the disc. You can always extrapolate that watching narrow-angle will look better since it will mask flaws, but you can not take an evaluation done from a narrow angle and predict how the image will appear when properly displayed at 1.5 screen widths.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheZoof

My wife and I watched all three movies over the weekend and in our opinion it is a 'must own'!

It was spectacular.

FotR is softer as many have said although it is not a bad looking movie. The only scene that I really wanted more from was Balrog vs Gandalf.

OH well though...

4/5 overall!

Loved it.

Was that a 4/5 on your pathetic little and inadequate 50" Kuro (Just read the reviews on the PQ of these displays... you can do better )

aslo did you site 1.5 screen widths? It is not okay for you have a different preference in sitting distance, not closer or not further away. It has to be exactly 1.5 screen widths. Capiche

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

I agree that a condescending attitude is never helpful.

However, we also need to be honest that there are better and worse ways of viewing blu-ray Disc material since we accept as a given that the goal is to server the intended experience by the director/artist. In the case of movies, that means an approximate 30-degree viewing angle (yes, there are many seats in a theater, but there is an ideal range of viewing for which films are composed).

If someone doens't have a 5.1 audio system but listens through TV speakers, should we kick him/her off the board or make him/her feel ashamed? Of course not. But should we also pretend that his/her listening system isn't able to communicate faithfully the aural experience as intended by the artist? No, we make sure everyone knows and understands the minimal requirements necessary to cross the threshold of reflecting what the medium and artist really have to offer, even if one doesn't have, or chooses not to use, that type of playback system.

Same thing with video.

We went through this back when DVD was new and most folks had 4x3 TVs. Those of use with 16x9 sets were trying to help educate 4x3 viewers to the virtues of anamorphic DVD on a 16x9 display, and were routinely called snobs and met with a lot of resistance from the general forum membership (I was almost banned from HTF for pushing for 16x9 in a few cases).

Then with time, everyone relaxed and got less defensive, and the advocates for 16x9 learned to sound less critical while talking about how much better 16x9 display was, and slowly even folks without 16x9 sets started to get that it would be better and planned that their next TV would be 16x9 when they could afford it.

Wide-angle is the "new anamorphic" for blu-ray Disc. It's something that's not familiar to most folks and it's not something that former media really supported. But it's what the director intended, and it's what blu-ray can deliver, and it should be the basis for *all* disc reviews and evaluation as it reveals flaws that are in the disc. You can always extrapolate that watching narrow-angle will look better since it will mask flaws, but you can not take an evaluation done from a narrow angle and predict how the image will appear when properly displayed at 1.5 screen widths.

I appreciate your posts and insight, and I agree with you.

We'll see what happens tomorrow. Hopefully, the people who are already opposed to this release will take the reviews of others with a grain of salt. No bashing or ridiculing is required.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

We'll see what happens tomorrow. Hopefully, the people who are already opposed to this release will take the reviews of others with a grain of salt. No bashing or ridiculing is required.

Agreed, but that goes for both sides.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by kurtlingle

David,

I clarity is important. From what it seems, people with 40-50 (maybe 60) inch screens will be fine with FOTR (and the other 2) and people with the 108 inch screens (at 1.5) will not be (as) happy with FOTR.

I think it'd be a shame for someone with a 40 inch screen to miss out on LOTR based on some of these negative reviews. I almost decided not to get it until I realized:

1. LOTR is awesome
2. I have a 42 inch screen and sit 8 ft away - so I'm fine
3. It has LOSSLESS sound. With my new PA-120 sub - this will be soooooooo awesome (even Toy Story sounds awesome)

Anyway - I think we need to keep the clarity - since many of us on these forums don't have 108 inch screens - rather 40 -60 inch.

Agreed.

clarity helps everyone. If you don't have a wide-angle viewing environment, the knowing that critical reviews were using wide-angle and were criticing detail-related stuff like DNR makes it logical that the images will look better on a viewing system that's narrow-angle.

Clarity helps everyone on all sides. the key is for folks to respect each other and their viewing choices, but clarity for the context of a given viewing environment is always helpful when discussing perceived image quality.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

I appreciate your posts and insight, and I agree with you.

We'll see what happens tomorrow. Hopefully, the people who are already opposed to this release will take the reviews of others with a grain of salt. No bashing or ridiculing is required.

I have a 106" screen and plan to pick up the LOTR set first thing tomorrow morning. I want it because the DVDs are completely unwatchable for me now, but I won't let Warner off the hook if the discs are anything less than they should be given what was possible with the existing DI.

[Blu Tiger]

Can't wait...

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Agreed, but that goes for both sides.

I think anyone with a "small" TV will be happy, and anyone with a "big" TV won't be.

I bet it's as simple as that, and hopefully everyone can keep that in mind.

[cajmoyper]

Holy crap! This comes out tomorrow?!?! Jk. Too excited. Should I skip school/work tomorrow? I'm seriously thinking about it.

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

I think anyone with a "small" TV will be happy, and anyone with a "big" TV won't be.

I bet it's as simple as that, and hopefully everyone can keep that in mind.

Sad to think about people with big TV's that aren't happy.

-Brian

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by cajmoyper

Holy crap! This comes out tomorrow?!?! Jk. Too excited. Should I skip school/work tomorrow? I'm seriously thinking it.

If I wasn't so busy tomorrow, I would.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

I think anyone with a "small" TV will be happy, and anyone with a "big" TV won't be.

I bet it's as simple as that, and hopefully everyone can keep that in mind.

Well, its not nearly that simple for the reasons outlined in some of the posts in the last few pages. Even if you just re-read Davids posts this should be clear. Many factors are involved as far as perceived image quality. There will still be some with BIG screens that will be happy and some with small screens that will be unhappy.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

I think anyone with a "small" TV will be happy, and anyone with a "big" TV won't be.

Well, I don't know if I'd say that...

[dj_intrepid]

I just watched the blu-ray copies of the Lord of the Rings Theatrical Editions this weekend and I must say, they all look and sound way better than the DVD's. So good in fact that I could never watch the DVD's again. The so called instances of DNR that these reviewers are pointing out are a product of the post production effects, not the transfers. They've been there all along, on the past transfers on DVD, and at the cinemas, it's just that it's more obvious seeing it in high def. Yes, Fellowship looks the worst of the three films, but it's still a much better presentation than any of the DVD's. I would liken the weaknesses of the image to the first Harry Potter film. It was just tinkered with in post production too much. Two Towers and Return of the King look phenomenal by comparison, precisely because they toned down the tinkering to allow more of the natural look to show through, providing more depth, detail, color, and dimensionality than I've ever seen from them.

Do yourself a favor, a least rent them on blu-ray before you unjustly crucify them.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Was that a 4/5 on your pathetic little and inadequate 50" Kuro (Just read the reviews on the PQ of these displays... you can do better )

aslo did you site 1.5 screen widths? It is not okay for you have a different preference in sitting distance, not closer or not further away. It has to be exactly 1.5 screen widths. Capiche

No one is saying that folks can't sit wherever they like. Just like you can sit in any seat in the theater you choose.

But movies are composed by the director to be viewed at *approximately* 30 degrees (2.35:1 films are actually intended to be viewed a bit wider since theaters are generally constant-height).

Just like we care about OAR because it serves the director's intent, viewing angle is something else that makes a big difference. Having an image begin to fill your peripheral vision at 30 degrees, like at the theater, completely transforms the movie-watching experience versus watching "TV" from 3-4 screen widths away. Just like listening to a movie in 5.1 or 6.1 with full frequency response creates a very different experience than listening though TV speakers or through an AV system that can't faithfully deliver the goods.

These are normal growing pains of improving home-theater technology and new members of the HT community. 10 years from now we'll all be arguing about 4K versus 2K displays, and the debates about viewing-angle will be as moot as trying to argue about 4x3 versus 16x9 sounds now.

[SDon1969]

Originally Posted by Fors*

I have always had a hard time understanding Tom. His character confused me in many ways. A master of such a small domain, yet he had no desire to leave it. Obviously he was powerful in some acute way, but his purpose of the book was dificult for me to grasp. I think he provides some kind of alerternative approach to those always seeking and wanting of things. His "carefree" mentality was just odd to me.

Ditto that; I never cared for that character/part of the book and I think the filmmakers did the right thing leaving that part out...

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Well, its not nearly that simple for the reasons outlined in some of the posts in the last few pages. Even if you just re-read Davids posts this should be clear. Many factors are involved as far as perceived image quality. There will still be some with BIG screens that will be happy and some with small screens that will be unhappy.

Most specifically, it's *viewing angle* that matters, not actually "how big" the screen literally is. Sitting close to a small screen can reveal just as much as sitting far from a very large screen.

That's why the screen-width-distance ratio is really helpful. Watching from 1.5 screen-widths away from a 16x9 screen gives an approximate 30-degree viewing angle. That general rule of thumb can apply to any screen or HDTV where someone is willing/able to try to replicate a cinema-experience.