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

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Diesel

WBShop has jacked the price up to $70

That $50 special they had last week may have been the bottom price.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by radagast

Can you or someone else fix this in the FAQ section:

https://www.blu-ray.com/faq/

On point 3.1 it says that LOTR has not been announced for Blu-ray.

I'll send out some messages... thanks.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

That $50 special they had last week may have been the bottom price.

Well that was with coupon codes and such, the actual price they went down to was like $62, so the price has only actually gone up $7.
....but that's $7 it shouldn't have gone up.



I shot them an email to see if orders placed during that time the promotion was allowed were still valid since mine never showed up in the "Order History" tab even though I got a automated confirmation email.

[hamchuck1]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

The Digital Bits are really softballing the picture issues on LOTR in their review, or are simply unaware of what the master for the film looks like. These Blu-rays might have been acceptable...in 2006. But it is apparent Warner spent $0 striking a new HD transfer for the theatrical editions, and re-used the ones intended for dvd. That is the sleazy, cheap ethos we have come to know and expect from Warner when it comes to their Blu-rays.

Complaining about it is not enough. Hurt the shortsighted executives who made this decision, in the sales' figures, by not purchasing them.

yes - 100% agree - its the only way change will happen

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

The Digital Bits are really softballing the picture issues on LOTR in their review, or are simply unaware of what the master for the film looks like. These Blu-rays might have been acceptable...in 2006. But it is apparent Warner spent $0 striking a new HD transfer for the theatrical editions, and re-used the ones intended for dvd. That is the sleazy, cheap ethos we have come to know and expect from Warner when it comes to their Blu-rays.

Complaining about it is not enough. Hurt the shortsighted executives who made this decision, in the sales' figures, by not purchasing them.

I agree, most "professional" reviewers are blatant softballers. It's the forum folks that are generally more believable and will give you the straight story on PQ/AQ.

[42041]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

The heart of the friction here is not whether we should debate the merits of these releases. The issue is that most members of this forum know better than to trust "screenshot scientists" and don't really want to be infected by them. There are much better resources than the AVS screenshot patrol - who in point of fact have been wrong more often than they've been right - to make an educated decision about whether or not to buy a release.

what exactly has the AVS screenshot patrol got wrong?

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I shot them an email to see if orders placed during that time the promotion was allowed were still valid since mine never showed up in the "Order History" tab even though I got a automated confirmation email.

Thanks, will be interested to see what kind of answer you get.

[hamchuck1]

Originally Posted by hamchuck1

yes - 100% agree - its the only way change will happen

people in the 60's used to risk jail to protest and stand behind their beliefs

all we have to do is watch our standard DVD's alittle while longer

[wildphantom]

What's the likeliness that the UK version might be a different transfer?

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by wildphantom

What's the likeliness that the UK version might be a different transfer?

nil.

[42041]

Originally Posted by wildphantom

What's the likeliness that the UK version might be a different transfer?

somewhere close to zero.

[Wildstar]

Blu-ray review http://www.dvdtown.com/review/lord-o...n/blu-ray/7939

[Q?]

Originally Posted by Wildstar

Blu-ray review http://www.dvdtown.com/review/lord-o...n/blu-ray/7939

"In fact, I can't imagine any viewer being disappointed by the picture quality except those people who might take exception to the director's intentions."
I hope he's true to his word.

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by Wildstar

Blu-ray review http://www.dvdtown.com/review/lord-o...n/blu-ray/7939

The "screenshot scientists" are now 0-3 against people who have actually seen the BD's as they were supposed to be seen.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by AintNoSin

The "screenshot scientists" are now 0-3 against people who have actually seen the BD's as they were supposed to be seen.

You make no sense, it goes both ways, you haven't seen them either.. so by your logic it's 0-0

[42041]

Originally Posted by AintNoSin

The "screenshot scientists" are now 0-3 against people who have actually seen the BD's as they were supposed to be seen.

Gladiator also got mostly positive reviews, and i've seen it, it sucks. reading internet blu-ray reviews rots the mind.

[mrpink134]

What I don't get is that people are going off screen caps and saying the PQ is horrible, then reviewers are giving PQ 17 to 18 out of 20 (Digitalbits) 9 out of 10 (DVD Town). Lesson learn screen caps don't mean CRAP

[mrpink134]

Originally Posted by 42041

Gladiator also got mostly positive reviews, and i've seen it, it sucks. reading internet blu-ray reviews rots the mind.

[Wildstar]

Another review http://www.thedigitalbits.com/review...ews032310.html

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Screen Caps in motion ARE the movie.

If the broadcast screens are superior to the Blu screens then the broadcast version is superior, end of story. It is glaringly obvious that Warner did not remaster for this release, they used the old master. If you put the Broadcast version on a BD, and gave it to these reviewers, the reviews would be either identical or slightly more glowing (as far as video aspects are concerned.) What does that tell you?

The fact is that a huge amount of "professional" reviewers praised Gladiator when it first came out says it all.