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

[Blaumann]

Many thanks to Ken for the update. Much appreciated.

[Fors*]

Thanks Ken for your personal experience and objective analysis of the theatrical prints PQ for FOTR, and the trilogy as a whole. You have gained a fan and I look forward to any future reviews of yours.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by deeman54

HAHAHA to all of the Lord of the Rings Bashers look at the sales. Number 1 selling blu this past release. Ha, keeping complaining, your not stopping the consumers

The article didn't say how many were sold, just that it sold more than any other BR that week. I would like to see the actual numbers. It may be #1 for that week and still have sold less than what Warner hoped.

Also worth remembering is that BRs are not yet dominant over DVD in sales.

Originally Posted by kayroll

Is it true that New Line and EIV are the same sudio.....

I thought New Line was assimilated by the Borg, I mean Warner. (Resistance is futile)

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

But u have the terminator & the quality on that isnt great.

Terminator doesn't cost $60.

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by deeman54

HAHAHA to all of the Lord of the Rings Bashers look at the sales. Number 1 selling blu this past release. Ha, keeping complaining, your not stopping the consumers

No.1 sales due to price right?
How many units did it actually sell?

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

Can the haters explain to me why if new masters were made for all three films they'd go out of their way to make one of the films look worse and then Peter Jackson and his cinematographer would both approve it?

I don't think they went out of their way to make one movie better than the other but the reports are they only spent 100 hours to master/transfer these movies to blu-ray.
That's not much time given the movies are 9+ hours.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by HDPlasma

I don't think they went out of their way to make one movie better than the other but the reports are they only spent 100 hours to master/transfer these movies to blu-ray.
That's not much time given the movies are 9+ hours.

And according to an article posted here earlier the cinematographer was a little dissapointed by the generation loss from their post production of FOTR.
The one that is used for the BD release.

So a little dissapointed cinematographer isn't intentional imo.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by BankytheHack

I'm reminded of the famous Roger Corman quote where he says, and I'm para-phrasing, "once the monster is dead your movie is over".

And there is the problem. Roger Corman is hardly the last word on good movie making. The article also points out that someone like Hitchcock would have done a better job building suspense like Tolkien did in the books. Instead we were treated with Jackson's "Hitchcock" moment where he makes a cameo in his own movie by being a belching drunkard who is too stupid to get out of the rain.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

I certainly agree. If they did have it in, it would have had to be quick, but one complaint with the theatrical version is that you don't see what happened to Saruman. It would have been good to see that lowly hobbits are able to deal with him. Most definately many omissions were great such as Bombadil, but I imagine that Radagast could think of one character he wishes was included.

Radagast the Brown could have been mentioned but it didn't harm the movie to have him left out. Having Merry and Pipping join Sam and Frodo because they were thieves being chased did harm the story. Even Bakshi got that right. And leaving Bilbo out of the Council of Elrond eliminated what could have been a great cinematic moment. Bakshi got that one right, too. The list goes on and on.

[BankytheHack]

Originally Posted by radagast

That's not the issue. There is a BIG difference between leaving things out and CHANGING things that did not need to be changed. THAT's the issue with me. The things that Jackson ADDED are stupid also.



Obviously I need to repeat myself. There is a BIG difference between leaving things out and CHANGING things that did not need to be changed. THAT's the issue with me. The things that Jackson ADDED are stupid also.

A faithful adaptation doesn't need to have everything in it. And it wouldn't take a 20 hour mini-series to do it either. If you take out the extra stuff Jackson added and put in more of the book, and do the book parts right, you would have a better cinematic product. Imagine some other classics being "Jacksonized". Bakshi's version was actually more faithful to the book in several areas. And in those areas, it is superior to Jackson's. And I do mind not having Tolkien's characters in the movie. That's one of the things I wanted to see in the movie. Not a reimagined Faramir, or Aragorn, etc. I wanted Tolkien's Aragorn, Tolkien's Denethor, Tolkien's Faramir, and especially Tolkien's Gandalf. Unfortunately I got none of those from Jackson.

It sounds like the baggage you carried into the films is the problem, not the films themselves. Filmmakers can't be slaves to the original material simply to placate fans. As I've said before, movies are not books, and books are not movies. What might work in the book, might not work in the movie.

Look at Kubrick's film version of "The Shining" vs. King's book. I like King's book, but Kubrick's film blows it out of the water. Do you think Kubrick could have gotten away with making so many changes in today's internet age? No way. There would be dozens upon dozens of message board threads with fans raging about the omission of the hedge animals and the book's ending. Could a more faithful adaptation of "The Shining" work? Maybe (although the miniseries doesn't bode well for that argument), but thankfully Kubrick took the material, made it his own, and created a classic. For the people that don't like it, they still have the book.

[Grand Bob]

One of the positive things from the recent fallout of the past few days is that we can just enjoy watching the films and become involved in the story instead of looking for defects.

[lDlisturb3d]

ONE RING TO SELL THEM ALL. Hahahah. Told ya, People are still gonna buy them. EE fans are a small percent compared to overall fans. How many people own blu ray players that don't know crap about bluray.com I can think allot of the top of my head. I gotta give it to you, you all are very consistent but your words have fell on a very small percent.

Your little LOTR's tea party was very very UNSUCCESSFUL HA.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

One of the positive things from the recent fallout of the past few days is that we can just enjoy watching the films and become involved in the story instead of looking for defects.

That's true, I was one of the dudes who balked at the unimpressive (imo) FOTR PQ, but know I'm just happy I bought them.

After all, in this case the story told is much more important.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by grand bob

one of the positive things from the recent fallout of the past few days is that we can just enjoy watching the films and become involved in the story instead of looking for defects.

+1

[Q?]

Originally Posted by deeman54

ONE RING TO SELL THEM ALL. Hahahah. Told ya, People are still gonna buy them. EE fans are a small percent compared to overall fans. How many people own blu ray players that don't know crap about bluray.com I can think allot of the top of my head. I gotta give it to you, you all are very consistent but your words have fell on a very small percent.

Your little LOTR's tea party was very very UNSUCCESSFUL HA.

I don't think anybody here has tried hurt the sales of LOTR on Blu-ray (which would be impossible btw) with negative talk about the PQ and such.


I don't even know who you are directing this at.

[Gremal]

Frodo being a whiney b*tch bothered me more than any issues with the PQ.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by Q!

I don't think anybody here has tried hurt the sales of LOTR on Blu-ray (which would be impossible btw) with negative talk about the PQ and such.


I don't even know who you are directing this at.

They know who im talking too. The same people that were try their hardest to down play them when they found out they weren't the EE's. This is the only reason why people are trying to find all of these defects. They are hundreds of blu's out that have smudges , defects, glitches etc. Do you see they thread with over 9,000 replies. Come on man open your eyes.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by gremal

frodo being a whiney b*tch bothered me more than any issues with the pq.

+1

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Frodo being a whiney b*tch bothered me more than any issues with the PQ.

Frodo's personality didn't bother me anywhere near as much as the fact that Sam and Frodo had a pseudo gay relationship and I blame Jackson completely for that.

[QuasidodoJr]

It does say in the article that the trilogy on blu-ray was 5th overall in packaged media sales. Seems to me that would be pretty solid numbers. I'm still going to wait until I have a bunch of RZ certificates or an Amazon GC to spend before I buy this. I just don't have the extra funds to pick this up along with all of the other deals and bargains I've found in the past few weeks.