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

[Q?]

One thing that annoyed me in TTT was when Sam said "it's an Olifant" or something to that effect, he said it like there was only one when there were two Olifants, it took the believability away from me.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Sith

Oh I know, but I'm sick of the excuses from Warner and some of the board members, Warner should just be honest and say we rushed it to get it out, so
that we could grab some cash.

All my bi**hing aside, I still bought them.

thats always the bottom line with any studio[cash]. being honest and cash don't work in the same sentence. i agree with you man,it sucks. i just can't settle for ''just better then the dvd crap'',but a lot of people can,power to them.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

PS: Those of you waiting for the price to drop...well I've been waiting on the Bourne trilogy set and the price never seems to drop below $59.99 and is usually much higher...even after the "flipper" disc single issues came out, which I can buy together cheaper than the box.

your right on, i haven't seen a price drop on any box set,maybe a short sale.lotr won't drop in price,and why should it people are buying it!

[thecroshow]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yeah, the source FILM. Super35.

Meanwhile it was shot over a multiyear period, with the postproduction evolving on each. Not to mention the director and crew themselves getting better with each film, refining their techniques.

So saying it was shot as "one big movie" is simplistic at best.

from what i've read, it doesn't matter that much how old the print is. look at "Close Encounters" and "Bladerunner" for example. I'm sure newer prints help, again I'm drawing from old threads regarding the excuse "but it's an older film."

[Q?]

I read the user reviews, the people who gave the entire trilogy a 4.5 rating I "minus"'ed and likewise for those who gave it a 2 for PQ.

And 2 for PQ is just too low, greatly exaggerated imo.
4.5 is too high in my opinion, I just cannot agree with them, only as strong as the weakest link comes to mind.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

A few people don't seem to understand that in order to go back to the original source on these films -the Super 35 film - that would mean redoing the effects and color grading as well. Basically reconstructing the film anew.

I'm not even sure they'll do something like that for the Extended Cuts. You essentially have to bring back the entire creative team to work on something like that.

[RSuarez]

Watching the fellowship right now, sound is awesome and picture is not that bad as people said it was... I would say a 3.5 out of 5 because it is indeed inconsistent... definitely worth the upgrade from the now unwatchable DVDs... and the exclusive noble collection sword from best buy is just great, worth every penny (it would have been better though if they had included the official wooden box but hey, for $15? not bad at all)

[mrpink134]

I don't even know if this is the right place to post this

I have a ED a2-300 sub and in just rocks the house when I watch the LOTR and I love every second of it. The AQ is awesome, I am so glad that I got the movie

[dborgill]

I have watched FOTR and TTT. TTT = much better than FOTR in PQ. By far. I also starting watching The African Queen which was made in 1951. It is a better transfer than FOTR!!

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...882&position=2

Yeah, that's right. A 50 year old movie has a better transfer than FOTR. No excuses.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by thecroshow

from what i've read, it doesn't matter that much how old the print is. look at "Close Encounters" and "Bladerunner" for example. I'm sure newer prints help, again I'm drawing from old threads regarding the excuse "but it's an older film."

Not the print! The production technique.

Comparing LOTR to something like Blade Runner is like comparing The Little Mermaid to Toy Story.

[dborgill]

Blu-Ray transfer vs original film. Two totally seperate things. There are a million examples of this such as Blade Runner, African Queen, Braveheart, I, Robot. They are all MUCH BETTER transfers and not only better but CONSISTENT transfers compared to the mess that FOTR is...

It's amazing how many people defend the FOTR disc but Ken Brown's review hits the nail on the head. He said casual viewers would be happy and that is great but anyone who appreciates a good Blu-Ray transfer will be dissappointed with the inconsistent transfer. It's not that complex.

[lDlisturb3d]

Like i said before earlier the EE's will be no different in PQ from the TE. They are probably already finished. Just think about it. Do you think the studio is going back to the lab and redo the whole transfer just because its the EE's now NO. They're just gonna do allot of COPY and PASTING. Video editing nothing more. I can bet they are already ready, just waiting on the TE to slow down in sells. Its about money. ALL ABOUT MONEY.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

I remember them saying they shot the movie simultaneously also. During the commentary on FOTR, Peter said it was weird shooting the scene in FOTR at Minas Tirith when Gandhalf was going through all the books because he had been doing most of his Gandhalf the White scenes for awhile.

It has been said here in THIS thread many times that there were new DI processes being developed DURING the production of this movie. FOTR did not have the benefit of mature processes that TTT and ROTK did.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by Q!

I read the user reviews, the people who gave the entire trilogy a 4.5 rating I "minus"'ed and likewise for those who gave it a 2 for PQ.

And 2 for PQ is just too low, greatly exaggerated imo.
4.5 is too high in my opinion, I just cannot agree with them, only as strong as the weakest link comes to mind.

You are entitled to your opinion. I gave it a SOLID 4.5 because the weakest film was FOTR and it was 3.5 at some times and 4.0 at time, but it was definitely 4.0 shoots compared to the 3.5 shoots. TT 4.5 and ROTK 5.0. Average it out you get. 4.4, 4.5 is closer than 4.0 so i gave it a 4.5 and i stand by my review 100%

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by dborgill

Blu-Ray transfer vs original film. Two totally seperate things. There are a million examples of this such as Blade Runner, African Queen, Braveheart, I, Robot. They are all MUCH BETTER transfers and not only better but CONSISTENT transfers compared to the mess that FOTR is...

It's amazing how many people defend the FOTR disc but Ken Brown's review hits the nail on the head. He said casual viewers would be happy and that is great but anyone who appreciates a good Blu-Ray transfer will be dissappointed with the inconsistent transfer. It's not that complex.

Those films had very different post production processes. Fellowship had 70% of its film captured digitally, put through a color grade, then put back out onto film, then cut together with the other 30% percent - then a complete film print was produced. That's alot of generation loss.

Films like Blade Runner, African Queen, and Braveheart can be 'restored' and look better because they never left the 'film' world. I Robot was done on a digital intermediate in 2004 - of course it looks awesome.

There are parts of Fellowship of the Ring as we know it that only exist as part of a 2001 Digital Intermediate process. If they want to bring it up to modern standards, I believe they'd have to start from the beginning.

[Kryptonic]

Just finished the trilogy and am amazed at how good they looked. FOTR is soft, but accurate to the way it's supposed to look. I did spot some DNR in TTT and ROTK, but only in the scenes involving Edoras. Which leads me to believe there was some issue in post-production of the films that led these sequence to have some DNR applied to the image. The rest of the film is incredible sharp and detailed. I mean, some of those shots during the siege were aweinspiring.

I did note one small error. At 2:45:30 during ROTK, there is a small pink...thing behind Gandalf's head right before Barad-dûr falls. It looks like it may be a small encoding problem. It's only there for a split second in a 200 minute movie, so it's a non-issue, but I just wondered if it's only mine. I can't take screenshots. Sorry.

[dborgill]

This is hilarious. A crappy Blu-Ray transfer on FOTR has nothing do with the original source. DNR isn't inherit on film stock. Inconistent colors are no inherit on film stock. Lack of detail is not inherit on film stock. I am not talking about the intentional "softness" filters for a fantasy type effect (Like Lady Galadriel's scenes).

When Gandalf arrives at the Shire, that was filmed with hardly any digital special effects. On Blu-Ray, it almost looks like an upscaled DVD. Are you telling me that the technology or process was lacking to make that scene look any better!? That is insane. Also, look at TTT vs FOTR. They were ONE year apart yet the Blu-Ray PQ is night and day.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by dborgill

This is hilarious. A crappy Blu-Ray transfer on FOTR has nothing do with the original source. DNR isn't inherit on film stock. Inconistent colors are no inherit on film stock. Lack of detail is not inherit on film stock. I am not talking about the intentional "softness" filters for a fantasy type effect (Like Lady Galadriel's scenes).

When Gandalf arrives at the Shire, that was filmed with hardly any digital special effects. On Blu-Ray, it almost looks like an upscaled DVD. Are you telling me that the technology or process was lacking to make that scene look any better!? That is insane.

I'm not speaking of the DNR'd scenes. Certainly, scenes taking place in Bag End, and a few others were DNR'd and could look better. But there was a lot of the film - including when Gandalf arrives in the Shire - that have natural film grain intact. But those scenes where digitally graded on 2001 era equipment, then put back out onto film and cut into the rest of the movie. So, again, you're dealing with the generation loss. It's going to look softer.

[dborgill]

So... you are telling me there is NO possible way to make the "soft" scenes such as when Gandalf is in the shire, more detailed on Blu-Ray? I find this highly unlikely that Fellowship of the Ring is the only movie from just 9 years ago that looks like poor on Blu-Ray. Especially since there are scenes that look amazing (such as parts of the Mines of Moria and when Sauron gets the ring cut of his finger.)

Because if TTT was graded on 2002 era equipment... I really don't think any of this makes sense.

[jonmoz]

dborghill,when you say a lot of people are defending the "Fellowship" transfer as there are many other Blu-ray transfers that are better,misses the point as they are not the same movie and are not shot using the same methods,so any direct comparison is unfair.

What amazes me is people who think a transfer that has had this much post production to achive a certain look and feel,ie soft and dreamlike will ever look any different on Blu-ray,and to be fair i would not want it to do.

As for the comment anyone who appreciates a good blu-ray transfer will be dissappointed is also wrong,as there are a lot of people on this thread that think the claims from some reviewers of the poor transfer of "Fellowship" to be a little harsh to say the least,and upon viewing the movie for themselves have been very pleased now they can't all be people who would not know what represents a good Blu-ray.

I for one watch my discs in a very controlled enviroment,and have been very pleased with the "Fellowship" transfer,and yes i know what a good Blu-ray is as i have many in my collection,the "The dark knight" for instance is awsome but to compare "Fellowship" to this is wrong as they are two totally different movies shot different ways and are bound to look different.We need to consider the the way movie on Blu-ray was made when we rate it,rather than just compare it to other discs.

And like Bill Hunt said in his review at "The digital bits" "people want perfection every time they spin a Blu-ray disc,but this idea of perfection varies from person to person,but some people even experienced reviewers sometimes forget certain movies can only ever look so good on Blu-ray,and this fact is compounded when the title in question is a personal favorite"